HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-20 (Regular) Meeting Agenda-•
• •
City Council Meeting
Regular
September 20, 1982
0
•
• •
0
0
~ :1 -"le{ f.3,, 4,¢., <f.a
C)~-:d-~ fe L/ I., 'f--d,, ~3 •
I .
•
-
REGULAR MEETING:
•
• •
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
City of Englewood, Colorado
September 20, 1982
The City Council of the City of Englewood , Arapahoe
County, Colorado, met in regular session on September 20, 1982, at 7:30 p.m.
Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order.
The invocation was given by Reverend A.G. Ratcliffe,
Seventh Day Adventist Church, 27th and Downing Streets. The pledge
of allegiance was led by Boy Scout Troops 1115 and #154.
Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Absent: None.
The Mayor declared a quorum present.
• • • • • • •
Also present were: City Manager Mccown
Assistant City Manager Vargas
City Attorney DeWitt
Deputy City Clerk Watkins
• • • • • • •
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 1982, ANO TO AMEND ON PAGE 2, THE
MOTION TO REFLECT THE PROPER COUNCIL MEMBER WHO SECONDED THE MOTION
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 1982.
Council M mb r Silo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll,
the vote result d as follows:
Ay
Nay
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fltzpa rick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The M yor d cl red h mo ion carried •
•
I • •
September 20, 1982
Page 2
•
• •
The minutes of referenced meeting of Augus 2 , 1982 , show
Counci l Member Bradshaw seconded the motion to appr ove he minu s o f August 2, 1982 .
* * * * * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTE S OF
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 1982 . Council Member Fitzpa r ic k
second ed the motion. Upon a call of the roll, he vote res ul ed as follo ws:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Memb ers Higday , Neal, Fi tzpatri c k,
Weist, Bile, Bradshaw, O is .
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried .
* * * * * * *
COU NCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7 , 1982 . Council Member Bradshaw
seconded the motion . Upon a call of the roll , the vote resu lted as follows:
Ayes: Council Members Higday, Neal , F i zpatrick, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis .
Nays: None.
The Mayor d cla red the mo io n ca rri d .
* * * * * * *
Pre-sch duled visitor, Mrs. H. A. Sr ar of the Raggedy
Ann Stor at 3510 South Broadway, was presen Mr • Str ar re-
quested p rmission to pu a booth or en in front of her store
und r h marque from Oc o er 29 , -Oc ob r 31, 1982 . Mrs. Strear
stated she operated a costum store and during Halloween is th
wh en her store is very busy. Mr • Str ar a ed th booth would b
us d to apply makeup for Hallow en .
COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR OCTO-
BER 29 , 30 , 31 , 1982 , PENDING REVI WAN D APPR OVAL FROM THE ASSIST-
ANT DIRECTOR O CO MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, DOROT HY RO MAN S, TO WHOM MR S .
STREAR IS TO PROVIDE: l) A LETTER FROM MR S . ST AR'S INSUR AN CE CO M-
PANY STATI NG THAT THE ADDED LI AB ILITY WOULD COVERED: 2) A ROUGH
SK TCH OF THE BOOTH OR TENT INDICATING THER WOULD 8 NO PUBLIC
SAFETY ROBLEM; AND 3) L TTERS FROM TH NEIGH ORSO EACH SIDE
STATING THY HAV E NO OBJ CTION TO THIS R QU ST . Council M mber
•
I • •
-
September 20, 1982
Page 3
•
• •
Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, th e vo te resulted as follows:
Ayes: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpa trick , Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Nays: None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
There were no other visitors.
* * * * * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLI C HEAR-
ING ON THE 1983 PROPOSED BUDGET. Counc i l Memb e r Bilo second ed th e
motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as fol lo ws :
Ayes:
Nays:
Coun ci l Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatr ic k,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Ma yor de cla r e d the mot i on carried.
Assis tant Ci y Manager Pet e Vargas presented an o v e rv ie w
of t he pr o po s ed budget f o r the year 1983. Mr. Vargas stat ed t h e
purpose of th e hearing was t o present the proposal and h ea r com-
me n ts fr om t h e citi zen s .
Mr . Va rg as re q ues t ed another hearing s ubs e q ue n t to th is
o ne b e held to co v e r r e v e nu e s h a ring funds.
Mayor Otis asked for com me n ts f r o m the audience.
Billy Arbinoth , 3875 Sou h Elati , appeared before Council .
Ms. Arbinoth stated she was a student at Metro . She was exp rienc-
lng problems doing research at the Denver Public Libraries because
of certain policies that hav been initiated for ou side Denver re-
sident usag • Ms. Arbino h as k ed if any hing could be done .
Council Member Silo stated he would check through he
D nv r R gional Council of Gove r nmen s . H was familiar with the
problem and would get back o Ms . Arbinoth .
•
I • •
September 20, 1982
Page 4
•
• •
Truman Davis, 2741 South Odgen, appeared before Council.
Mr. Davis stated he and others with him supported the full time
cle rical position at the Malley Center that was being proposed in
the 1983 budget.
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO RECEIVE THE COM MUNI CATION
FROM THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION WHOSE REQUEST, BY UNANIMOUS
VOTE OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION, IS TO APPROVE THE RECOM-
MENDATION OF THE MALLEY SENIOR RECREATION CENTER ADVI SORY BOARD TO
ESTABLISH THE FULL TIME CLERICAL TECHNI CIAN POSITION FOR THE MALLEY
SENIOR RECREATION CENTER AS SUBMITTED IN THE 1983 SUPPLEMENTAL BUD-
GET . Council Member Bile seconded the motion. Upon a call of the
roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bile, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
There were no further comments.
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE HEARING. Council
Member Bile seconded the motion. Upon a call of the ro ll , the voe
resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatr ick ,
Weist, Bile, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayo r declared the motion carried •
• • • • • • •
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADS HAW MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND
OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON GENER AL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS FOR 1983.
Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll ,
the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal , Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo , Bradshaw, Otis .
None.
Th Mayor declared th motion carried . I • •
-
•
•
• •
September 20, 1982
Page 5
Assistant City Manager Pete Vargas presented the general
revenue sharing funds for 1983. Mr. Vargas stated staff proposes
to use the funds which will amount to $746,000 in the Police De-
partment for negotiated salary increase in 1983. Mr. Vargas stated
the purpose of the hearing was to hear what was proposed and to
hear citizen input on the proposal.
Mayor Otis asked for comments from the audience.
There were no comments.
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE HEARING. Council
Member Neal seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote
resulted as follows:
were:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
• • • • • • •
"Communications -No Acti on Recommended" on the agenda
(a)
(bl
(c)
(d)
( )
( fl
Minutes of the Housing Authority meetings of
March 12 and June 2 , 1982 .
Minutes of the Urban Renewal Authority meeting
of August 4, 1982.
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
meeting of Augus 11, 198'-.
Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting of Augu 17, 1982.
Minutes of h Englewood Down own Development
Au hority meeting of September 9, 1982.
Minutes of th Public Library Board meting of
Sep mber 14, 1982.
COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO ACCEPT "COMMUNICA-
TIONS -NO ACTION RECOMMENDED", AGENDA ITEMS 5(A) -S(F). Coun-
cil Member Bradshaw s cond d h mo ion. Upon a call of the roll,
th voter sul ed as ollow:
•
I • •
•
Se p t ember 2 0, 1 982
Page 6
Ayes:
Nays:
•
• •
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fi t zpatr ic k,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Ot i s.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
City Manager Mccown presented a Council Communication f rom
t he Director of Public Works concerning~ request for an o ut -of -
sta te trip for the Servlcenter Superintendent.
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO APPROVE THE OUT-OF-STATE
TRIP FOR THE SERVICENTER SUPERINTENDENT. Council Member Br a dshaw
seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resu lted as
fol lows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Ne al , F it zpa t rick ,
Weist, Bilo, Bradsh a w, Ot is .
None.
The Mayor declared the mot io n c arr ie d.
ORD I NAN CE NO. 39
SE RI ES OF 1 98 2
* * * *
BY AUTH ORITY
* * *
COUNC I L BILL NO . 4 2
I NTRODU CED BY CO UN CIL
MEMBER BRA DS HAW
AN ORDINAN CE DESCRIBI NG AN D DEFIN I NG OB SC EN I TY AN D PR OVIDI NG CIR-
CUM S TAN CES UNDER WH IC H IT IS PR OHI BI T ED BY AM ENDI NG T I T LE XI , CHAP-
TER 7 , OF T HE ENGLE WOOD MU NICIPAL CODE OF 1969 , AS AMEN DED , AND DE-
CLARI NG AN EMERGENCY .
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO . 4 2 ,
SERIES OF 1982 , ON FINAL READI NG . Council Member Fitzpatrick se c -
onded the motion . Upon a c~ll of the roll , the vote resulted as
follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday , Neal , Fitzpatrick ,
Weist , Bilo , Bradsha w, Otis .
Non •
The Mayor declared th motion carri d • I • •
September 20 , 1 982
Page 7
ORDINANCE NO. 40
SERIES OF 1982
• •
•
• •
• • •
BY AUTH ORITY
• •
COUNCIL BILL NO . 43
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER BILO
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,
COLORADO , INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND (AR APAHOE PRO -
FESSIONAL CORPORATION PROJECT), SERIES A, IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
OF $428 ,0 00; AND APPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO.
COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 4 3 ,
SERIES OF 1982, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Bradshaw sec-
onded the motion.
City Attorney DeW itt stated const ru ction was to beg in
around the latter part of October, 1982 .
Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Memb ers Higday, Neal, Fitzpatr ick ,
Weis t , Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis .
None.
The Mayor decla re d the motion carried .
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES OF 1982
• • • •
BY AUTHORITY
A BILL FOR
• • •
COUNCIL BILL NO. 45
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER HIGDAY
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN INTERCONNECT CONTRACT WITH THE CITY AND
COU NTY OF DENVER, BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS.
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 45,
SERIES OF 1982, ON FIRST READING. Council M mber Bilo s cond d the
mo ion. Upon a call of the roll, th vot result d as follows:
Aye s: Council Memb rs Higday, N al, Fitzpatrick,
Wi s , Silo, Bradsh w, Oti •
I • •
n n
•
September 20, 1982
Page 8
Nays: None.
•
• •
The Mayor declared the motion ca rr ied .
* • • • • • •
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO APPROVE A PROCLAMATION DE-
CLARING SEPTEMBER 25, 1982, AS "HUNTING AND FISHING DAY". Council
Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote
resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried .
* • • • • • •
City Attorney DeWitt asked that Council reconsider t he
co ntract agreement with Arapahoe County for transportation ser-
vices for seniors. Mr. DeWitt stated the contract needed some
clarification and he would resubmit the contract in mid -October •
* • • • • • •
City Manager Mccown presented a Council Communication from
the Director of Parks and Recreation concerning bid award for
tennis and all purpose court resurfacing.
COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO APPR OVE AND AWARD TO MAL OTT ,
PETERSON, RENNER, INC., THE RESURFACING OF TENNIS CO URT S AT ROMANS
PARK & SINCLAIR JR. HIGH AND THE ALL PURPOSE CO URT AT CE NTENN I AL
PARK IN THE AM OUNT OF $16 ,760. Council Memb er Bradshaw seconded
the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as
follo~s:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, N al, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried .
Council M mber Neal noled th Council Communication dis-
cussed only on bid. Mr. Neal asked the City Ma nager o check with
the Parks and Recr ation Department to s e if there w re other
bidders , if th recomm ndation wa for th lows , and that th
r gular bid process was followed.
•
I • •
-
•
S eptember 20, 198 2
Pa ge 9
* * * *
•
• •
* * *
City Manager Mccown presented a Counc il Comm u ni catio n f r om
the Director of Community Development concernin g t h e c ontr act w ith
Design Workshop, Inc. Mr. Mccown recommended a pproval for purpose
of establishing guidelines for the redevelopment of the downt o wn
area especially along South Broadway .
COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH DE-
S I GN WORKSHOP, INC. FOR THE PREPARATION OF DESIGN GUIDELINE S FOR
BR OADWAY FROM EASTMAN TO U.S. 285 FOR A TOTAL COST OF $19,000 .
Co unc il Member Fitzpatrick seconde d t he motion. Upon a c a ll o f t h e
r o l l , the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Hi gday, Neal, Fitzpatr ic k,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Ot is .
None.
The Mayor declared t he mot io n car r ie d.
* * * * * * *
Counci l d i r ec ted the C ity Atto rn e y to pr e par e a pr ocla ma-
t i o n for t he nex t r e gu la r me e t i ng c on c ern i n g d r ug aware ne ss week
wh i c h h as bee n br o ugh t to t he i r at tention b y the Colorado Municipal
Lea gue.
* * * * * * *
Co un cil Member Hi g d ay as k ed the Assistant City Manager o
look into r e p airing and relocati n g the gargoyle a Fire Station f l
and to repo r back to Cou n ci l.
* * * • * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSH AW MOVED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSIO
FOLLOWING THIS MEETING TO DISCUSS PROPERTY ACQUISITION. Council
Member Neal second d the motion. Upon a call of he roll, h voe
resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday , N al, Fitzpa rick ,
Weist , Bradshaw , Otis .
Council M mber Bilo.
Th Mayor d clared th motion carried.
* * * • * * *
•
I •
n
-
•
•
• •
September 20, 1982
Page 10
meeting. There was no further business to be discussed at this
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN.
8:40 p.m.
Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at
ru . QJ..._
I • •
,.,
-
I
•
•
• •
AGENDA FOR THE
REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
/ 7:30 P.H. Call to order, invocation by Reverend A.G. Ratcliffe,
(,
I
Seventh Day Adventist Church, 27th and Downing r
Streets, pledge of allegiance by Boy Scout Troop 'U-w
No. 115 and 154, and roll call.
1. Minutes.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Minutes of the regular meeting of August 16,
1982. (Copies enclosed.)
Minutes of the special meeting of August 23,
1982. (Copies enclosed.
At. 11 i...{L
Minutes of the~ meeting of September 7,
1982. (Copies enclosed.)
2. Pre-Scheduled Visitors. (Please limit your presenta-
tion to 10 minutes.)
L. (a) Mrs. H. A. Strear, Raggedy Ann Store at 3510
South Broadway. will be present to discuss
putting a booth in front of her store.
3. Other Visitors. (Please limit your presentation
to 5 minutes.)
4. Public Hearing.
(a) To consid r th 1983 Propos d Budg t. (Cop ie s
enclosed.)
L <.( -ii.. (b) ulJ. I ! u.) ) a
Communication• -No Action Reco-nd d.
(a) Mlnutea of th Houainf Authority m tinfs of
March 12 and Jun 2, 982. (Copi s enc osed.)
(b) Mlnutea of th Urb n Rn w l Authorlt~ m etin
of Au uat 4, 1982. (Copl•• ncloa d •
•
I J.J
I • •
•
• -
Page 2
September 20, 1982 Agenda
5. Communications -No Action Recommended (Continued).
(c) Minutes of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
meeting of August 11, 1982. (Copies enclosed.)
(d) Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting of August 17, 1982. (Copies e nclosed.)
(e) Minutes of the Englewood Downtown Development
Authority meeting of September 9, 1982. (Copie s
encosed.)
(f) Minutes of the Public Library Board meeting of
September 14 , 1982. (Copies enclosed.)
6. Communications -Action Recommended.
7.
(a) Council Communication from the Director of Public
Works concerning a request for an out-of-state
trip for the Servicenter Superintendent. (Copies
enclosed.)
City Attorney.
Ordinances on Final Reading.
(a) Ordinance describing and defining obscenity and
providing circumstances under which it is pro-
hibited by amending Title XI, Chapter 7, of the
Englewood Municipal Code of 1969, as amended,
and declaring an emergency. (Copies enclosed.)
(b) Ordinance authorizing the issuance of a City
of Englewood, Colorado, Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds (Arapahoe Orthopaedic Professional
Corporation Project), Series A, in the principal
amount of $428,000; and approving the form nd
authorizing the execution of certain documents
relating ther to. (Copies enclos d.)
Bills for Ordinances.
Bill concerning an int rconnect contract with
th City and County of Denver, by and through
ita Board of Water Collllllissioners. (Council
Comaunication and Bill enclosed.)
Proclamation.
(d) Proclamation proclaiming Sept mb r 25, 1982
aa Hunting and Fiahing Day. (Copi • ncloa d.)
·----'~
I • •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
Page 3
September 20, 1982 Agenda
AM /ab
7. City Attorney (Continued).
Other Matters.
(e)
8. City Manager.
9.
(a) Council Communication from the Director of Parks
and Recreation concerning sealed bids for tennis
and all purpose court resurfacing. (Copies enclosed.)
(b) Council Communication from the Director of
Community Development concerning the contract
with Design Workshop, Inc. (Copies enclosed.)
(c) Manager's Choice.-a.-L./...L 11&'3 .,,j..,,.,,I~,,;-~ J o
~ L ,,!.JO r>u-c(;L--~o .
-a.+if>J-,("l/'ll..., --&. d r,...., ,{./'-(U/fl.1. ~ General Discussion. / ~ O.~j-_ ii
(a) Mayor's Choice.-C?/7 U.f)O.. ruua'>-U..«.n) n...,l(P,+_t'J
(b) Council Member'• Choice.
.(,~f.?
-l/<Mt1.Lf... ..e, C)-...U'olt ti t~'f)'-l L: £(Cl('( nu. nC ~ IJt·t.W .~/-J!J. u 1 .. ./111..ln #I Adjournment. a, ().,.-· z:, ~ 0 _i-r~,e .L t, fil ~I L -,;.ia v/1.a n )H ~) et A:.,, ( <' ,u, ...., COWN Iv
Manager ,Ji..; u~ t C'( ( A# .J
at:"',;;<~~
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
,d(_r , ,1 -J ~ ~ C, ;q 0 ,
1 3c;f,Y) ' ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hlodav
Neal
Fl tznat rick
Weist
Bl lo
Bradshaw
Otis
,) 1/ -) tr..-1 -t' • , -11 c---. / 0 le_< <-If-.,
1h ( t"l.t '-
l tL lru
fa' { ~ -/-
•
I . •
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Ab s tain
Htaoay -
Neal j...--
Fi tzoatrick v--
Wei st ,_
Bi lo .i.,..--
Bradshaw 1..,.,-
Otis L---
•
• I • •
• •
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain -
H1odav \
Neal I
Fl tzoatrick I
Weist I
V Bi lo I v Bradshaw (
Otis I
\_
•
• I • •
• •
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
-
t1IQC1av "\
Neal I
V Fltzoatrick I
Weist 7
Bi lo I
V Bradshaw I
Otis I
\
/6
•
• I • •
• •
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
' Hiodav \
~ Neal ' Fltzoatrick ' Wei st 1
Bi lo I
(../"' Bradshaw I
Otis I
\
•
• I • •
• •
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded A yes N ay Absent Abstain
H1gdav
Neal
Fl tzoatrick
Wei st
Ri lo
Bradshaw
Otis
)I/~.
:;-"?-,-,, d z..,._ ·c '~ '-&-J ( /,.._ ( ,~ l l :)' ~
/, ;Tut ~-~;,,(. , 1...a.L )l {l 29 (
I C, z. C, 8C
l. l _ -, i,· d,c,
l ,I 3 I
-
Cl l J r:n, ) I I:... bf ! /l
C..j /1.. (' ( ,......__,
Ir I . lJ .,, C. c ... ( 1<. :t l< u L ( /. \,,J (
'
l
U, I J t [ < I C 1 ~( ,<, tl< • t. (. ~) I
< . )
•
-iolt
/l( ) ' t,
l.e {I t.
f I
( I
C. .,. ( )'I.
.. ll ' (
I ,1. l ...... vi J
G ~l
Cl I I 11, JI
t,f
( ~ J. ( • (. t I t A. 1..-1 /.( L I
t I " .. " L ') i i I
(J , I /It ~ t,.
•
I . •
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
H1odav \
V Neal J
V Fltznatrick I
Weist I
Bi lo I
Bradshaw I
Otis \
'
I 1,L .,1 0cl 2 q-3 3/bd(/•
CL de ...>J ;~ V { z.. J c( .r•'-~
/l lctt.(.,..) < )l r. I -t. d clr.
I y )) T> tf (. ,I ,,,,l J t_(. 2 ~ 1,C ,._../
•
lt. li t ( I ' ).
. ..__ ,
JL V ( (( t---/ \,.0 ... /
L
' (L
f l< ~ ( J -( ~ < l • C ( /> )1 I
< t. &. 1-I,()< A..~ i I< I I
I . .
• •
•
•
/
{l
Moved Secon de d
V
,.,,.,
ROLL CALL
H1gday
Ne a l
Fi tzoatrick
Wei s t
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Oti s
•
• •
A~s Nay Absent Ab sta i n
' 1
I
I
I
I
\
"--
I •
•
•
Mo ve d
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hiadav
Neal
Fi tzoatrick
Wei s t
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
d c ))t ))u (})
( ){
;tf J3 'U dy-(~ J ._
) \J l4. ( -( l
' tJ... ) ) Lt
• .l .) ( ( 0 t t ~j 1 1. f f
_ L J2 {-t '-l ( 1 1f / -
( /j· ,__ d..<..l£u("
( ,
'flL<~
, ,j z; er> l fu .. / ..,
';f,,. •. t
,
C ( ,, .__,
-·1' /(!
)l u ., 1 I ,;l •• " (.' /lf. /
t.(I' ~11 /_ / fl ,) I ,
a j JJ t' ,,, , ; Gu c· ,t ~
1 at a >I~
/0 11 2) /I~
ti " t C'
•
l •
I • •
-
•
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
H1qdav
Neal
Fi tzoatrick
Wei st
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
e c
z //(, it
. (. ( r L ;.> t.. ) OH'>j r? , ?." ') ')< u..._ J-{((, zn j
•
')O.'-J IL 0 (,e.) (J .J< l (
~L
('~) l >H, )L f-
•
-,j I
1J ..,,l { t
~I .
' ( . l )
<f I
)
-/
'.
"-( )
)<._ ;( /-
~-
-1
<}-t\
f1 7
{ t 1111
' ~
( t!-.
u A
~ u~ o) ,n trJ (:;, ,'-? ,U._ ?c.
/;
I l -)Cl l( A< c tt ·y
-1 l '-J4, \ J G~ ~ ,.I
.J
•
I . •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain . ,-HlgQay \
Neal \
Fl tzoat rick 1
Weist / ,_... Ri lo I
Bradshaw l
Otis \
\
v. w' !l2 c J__ fJ c1-/2 c_
.A;) J2L ,a 1-.-'< & f c?f j? u
C I... t l '-( J~ 7 (..,(. t .
(, -0
•
I . .
• -• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Na y Absent Abstain ·, -H1Qdav \
Neal I
Fltzoatrick I
Wei st 7
(.,,/" Bi lo I
Bradshaw T
Otis \
\
• I • •
-
•
• -
•
,· •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
' H1odav \
v-Neal I
Fitznatrick I
Wei st I
Bi lo I ,._ Bradshaw r
Otis \
\ ;-A.
0
• I • •
•
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
H1oday
Neal
Fitzoatrick
Weist
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
/-;1
I . .
• •
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded A~ Na y Absent Abstain
v -H1gday -Neal
Fitzoatrick
Weist
Bi lo 7
Brad shaw I
Oti s 7
T
0
I • •
• •
• -• •
ROLL CALL
oved Secon de d Ayes Nay Absent A stain
"' H1gday \
Neal l -Fi tzoatri ck I
Weist I
Bi lo I ..,,.. Bradshaw I
Otis 1
'C
{l ·rr·
I • •
• •
• -• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
H1oday
Neal
Fitzoatrick
Weist
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
I • •
• •
• -• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Na y Ab s ent Abstain
c.....-H1odav
Neal
Fl tzoatrick
Weist
Bi lo
y Bradshaw
Otis
I • •
• •
• ~-• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
' H1gday \
Neal 1
~ Fi tzoatrick J
Weist I
Bi lo 7
~ Bradshaw I
Oti s I
I • •
•
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded A~ Nay Absent Abstain
H1gdav I
Neal I
Fltzoatrick I
Weist I
~ Ri lo I
I,' Bradshaw I
Otis \
\.
I . •
• •
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded ~s Nay Absent Abstain
., H1odav \
Neal 1
Fitzoatrick I
Wei st I -Bi lo I
Brads haw I
Otis \
\
c_ I -
I • •
• •
• -• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ay~ Nay Absent Abstain
V H1qday ' Neal I
Fltzoatrick 7
Weist I
V Bi lo 7
Bradshaw {
Otis \
\
1d.
I • •
• •
-
Moved
•
•
•
• •
ROLL CALL
Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hiqdav
Neal
Fi tzoatrick
Weist
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
iJ ~de;v ~J. ~
(_jl,!A~ .,C ehu/y ~.z-,j
~, -~u_j' Oc~ .
I . •
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
H1odav
Neal
Fi tzoat rick
Weist
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
/) L C/U '}L f7 /1 ; ~L~-
u i'U.,,< L crzu' j ,0 fc £L
I • •
•
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded A yes Nay Absent Abstain
' H1n<1av \
Nea l T
Fitzoatrick I
Wei st I
/,;--Bi lo I
v-Bradshaw I
Ot is \
'-
t~ ~ D ~,/ arr (J{;U~ ) l~'JV'-
l fo1 700
t.
/I d
I . •
•
• -
• -
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
H1qaay
Neal
Fitzoatrick
Wei st
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
C I • •
• •
• -• •
ROLL CALL
Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
H1qdav
'-"" Neal ..,..--Fl tzoatr i ck
Weist
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
I . .
• •
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes ·, Nay Absent Abstain
Hindav \
Neal \
Fitzoatrick I
Weist 7
Bi lo I
Bradshaw r
Otis I
\
I • •
• •
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
H1qday
Neal
Fl tzoatrick
Weist
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
~ 1 /,. ,()1 f O 1 1. ) 7
~ l •£1. k c tu. ) I 1 {I...
{1( {11,/.
( (.. u /j ~
(
-
,(. :) t' L, (( t '<--..., llv
/2. II . ('( r ... l
1-I /i. ~u
( • •
f:1
,
./.,, -l /
7
1
( ,,
•
• -• -
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hiadav
Neal
Fl tzoatrick
Wei st
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
-(..(} {j_ /I A J
l u I .,
.-t-<. ??. ( .cf--, (.< C. I ) ) ( .? -<'J;J...
. -C/1 !l . t-t L.t. '>(.~
r-·-!t_G
.-(' ){--?l t /, .. A /j;:ii:;~ 1 ~ /!7
-, V ,7-/7..
I . .
•
-
Ho ve d
-
•
•
• •
ROLL CAL L
Se conded Ayes Nay Ab s e n t
...;._
Hln<la y \
Neal I
Fitzpatrick I
Wei s t I
Bi lo I
t--' Bradshaw I
Otis \
"
.__.-/ut -:.:;-~-t:'.o l )?l d-t:1-.-::1_
0 1~
_/ / 3 b, I 6 D
•
...
Ab s tain
•
I . .
• -• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hladav
Neal
Fi tznatrick
Wei st
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
0~ Gm ~ /LJ-'t.JtUQJ~
t7-Z 6 ---/!' / z.._
C-v »"L llJ
l A
~
Y10 1 --nt yL 6 ')')'L......,
I . .
• •
• -• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain
Hiodav
Neal
Fi tznatrick
Wei s t
Bi lo
Bradshaw
Otis
{) 21
f/Ljt ~
Yu~ --WR ii..../ c¥,e,e_,-/Uftltt. er
~~ ,,l_.-{)-Lt u_,, ~F
/ !/./~') ~ ~ i' ,;(_/
-----
• I . •
• •
• -
• •
ROLL CALL
Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Ab s tai n
H1qdav '\
Neal J
Fitzoatrick I
Wei s t \.
Bi lo -Bradshaw 'I
Oti s (
{J1 .J L,t -~J
fL._) . l ...
U . 2 i I
• I . •
• •
-
•
REGULAR MEETING:
•
• •
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
City of Englewood, Colorado
August 16, 1982 I (,L
The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe
County, Colorado, met in regular session on August 16, 1982, at
7:30 p.m.
Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order.
The invocation was given by Pastor Clifford Sampler,
Cherry Hills Full Gospel Church, 4860 South Clarkson Street. The
pledge of allegiance was led by Boy Scout Troop 192.
Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll,
the following were present:
Council Members Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw,
Otis.
Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal.
The Mayor declared a quorum present •
• •
Also present were :
• •
• • • • •
City Manager Mccown
Assistant City Manager Vargas
City Attorney DeWitt
Deputy City Clerk Watkins
* • • • •
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 26, 1982.
second d the motion. Upon a call of
follows:
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
Council Member Fitzpatrick
he roll, the vote resulted as
Ayes: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Nays: Non .
Absen Council Member Higday, Neal.
The Mayor declar d th mo ion carri d.
• • * • • • •
•
I • •
-
•
August 16, 1982
Page 2
•
• •
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 27, 1982. Council Member Fitzpatrick
seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Nays: None.
Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 1982. Council Member FitzpatrickV' /;:rtd..~~
seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as 1 follows:
were:
Ayes: Council Memb ers Fitz pat r i ck , Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Nays: None.
Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
There were no pre-scheduled visitors .
* * * * * * *
There were no other visitors.
* * * * * * *
•com111unication s -No Action Recommended• on the agenda
(a)
(b)
Minute s of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
meetings of June 9, and July 14 , 1982.
Minutes of the Urban Renewal Authority meet-
ings of July 7 and 20, 1982 •
•
I • •
•
Augu s t 16, 1982
Page 3
(c)
{d)
(e)
•
• •
Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
meetings of July 7, 13, and 20, 1982.
Minutes of the Water and Sewer Board meeting of
August 3, 1982.
Memorandum from the Assistant Director -
Planning Division to the Director of Community
Development concerning attendance at the ALI-
ABA Land Planning Conference.
COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO ACCEPT "COMMUNICA-
TIONS -NO ACTION RECOMMENDED", AGENDA ITEMS SA -SE. Council Mem-
ber Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the
vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Members Fitzpatrick, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
Council Members Higday, Nea l.
The Mayor declared the motion carried .
• • • • • • •
Mayor Otis presented a Council Communication from the
Planning and Zoning Commission concerning findings of fact on the
proposed amendment to establish variance criteria which would be
used by the Board of Adjustmen t and Appe als in considering variance
requests to the newly adopted Sign Code of the Comprehensive Zon-ing Ord inance.
COU NCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO RECEIVE THE FINDINGS OF
FACT ON CASE 19-82 AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COM-
MISSION. Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a
call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes: Council M mbers Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Nays: None.
Abs nt: Council Members Higday, Neal.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* • • * • • * I • •
August 16, 1982
Page 4
ORDINANCE NO. 32
SERIES OF 1982
BY AUTHORITY
•
• •
COUNCIL BILL NO. 31
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER BRADSHAW
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING PORTIONS OF TITLE XI OF THE
ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE OF '69 TO MORE PRECISELY DEFINE ACTS PRO-
HIBITED IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL OFFENSE ORDINANCES.
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PAS S COUNCIL BILL NO. 31,
SERIES OF 1982, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Fitzpatrick sec-
onded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as
follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Members Fitzpatrick, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
Council Members Higday, Neal.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES OF 1982
* * * *
BY AUTHORITY
A BILL FOR
* * *
COUNCIL BILL NO. 40
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER BRADSHAW
FOR AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING CRITERIA TO RELIEVE SIGN OWNERS OF UN-
DUE HARDSHIP AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE 1963 BY
ADDING NEW SECTION 22.2-6 c (2).
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 40,
SERIES OF 1982, ON FIRST READING, AND TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON
COUNCIL BILL NO. 40 FOR SEPTEMBER 7, 1982, AT 7:30 P.M. OR SHORTLY
THEREAFTER AS SOON AS COUNCIL CAN HEAR THE MATTER. Council Member
Fitzpatrick s conded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote
r sulted as follows:
Ay
Nays:
Council Members itzpatrick, Weist,
Silo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
•
ti
I • •
•
August 16, 1982
Page 5
Absent:
•
• •
Council Members Higday, Neal.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 37,
SERIES OF 1982
* * * * * * *
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH CINDERMAK ASSOCIATES
REGARDING EXTENSION OF LEASE CONCERNING PARKING LOT ADJACENT TO
COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO.
37, SERIES OF 1982. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion.
Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absen t:
The Mayor
RESOLUT ION NO. 38,
SERIES OF 1982
Counc il Members Fitzpatrick, We ist ,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
Co un cil Member s Higday, Neal.
declared the mot ion carried.
* * * * * * *
A RESOLU TION NAMING THE GOLF COURSE OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,
COLORADO.
COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO.
38, SERIES OF 1982, AND AMENDING THE NAME TO READ ENGLEWOOD MUN ICI-
PAL GOLF COURSE. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion.
Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayea: Council Member s Fitzpatrick, We ist,
Bradshaw, Otis.
Nay a: Council Member Bilo.
Absent : Council Members Higday, Neal.
The Mayor declared the motion carried .
* * * * * * *
•
I • •
•
August 16, 1982
Page 6
•
• -
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE A PROCLAMATION
DECLARING THE WEEK OF SUNDAY, AUGUST 8, THROUGH SATURDAY, AUGUST
14, 1982, AS "MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS WEEK". Council Member
Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote
resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Members Fitzpatrick, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
Council Members Higday, Neal.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO PASS A PROCLAMATION
DECLARING SEPTEMBER 8, 1982, AS "CANCER CONTROL DAY". Council Mem-
ber Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the
vote resulted as follows:
Ayes: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Nays: None.
Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS A PROCLAMATION DE-
CLARING SEPTEMBER 7, 1982, AS "PEACE DAY". Council Member Fitz-
patrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote
resulted as follows:
Ayes: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Nays: None.
Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * • * * •
•
I • •
n n
•
August 16, 1982
Page 7
•
• •
City Attorney DeWitt presented a proposed ordinance for
amusement centers. Mr. DeWitt stated the proposal would be trans-
mitted to various departments for comments. Mr. DeWitt asked
Council to review the proposed ordinance and comment as well •
• • • • • • •
City Manager Mccown presented a memorandum from the Uti li-
ties Customer Service Manager concerning Valley Sanitation District
Supplement relating to the new Northeast Englewood sewer line.
COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE SUPPLEMENT 1 15
FOR INCLUSION INTO VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT. Council Member Brad-
shaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote
resulted as follows:
Ayes: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Weis t,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Ot i s.
Nays: None.
Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
• • • • • • •
City Manager Mccown announced the concessionaire at the
new golf clubhouse was open and operating •
• • • • • • •
City Manager Mccown informed Council the slide presenta-
tion on the Englewood area by the Englewood Downtown Development
Authority was ready for viewing.
• • • • • • •
No further business was discussed.
• • • • • • •
COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO AJOURN.
Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at
8:02 p.m.
•
I • •
•
SPECIAL MEETING:
•
• -
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
City of Englewood, Colorado
August 23, 1982
lb
The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe
County, Colorado, met in special session on August 23, 1982, at
7:30 p.m.
Mayor Otis, presiding, called the mee ting to order .
The invocation was given by Council Member Thomas Fitz-
patrick. The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Eugene Otis.
Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a c all of the roll,
the following were present:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Absent: None.
The Mayor declared a quorum present.
* * * * * * *
Al so present were: City Manager Mcco wn
Assistant City Manag er Vargas
City Attorney DeW itt
Director of Engineering Services
Diede
Director of Co mm unity Development
Powers
Director of Public Work s Waggoner
Deputy City Clerk Watkins
* * * * * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEAR -
ING TO CONSIDER CITIZEN INPUT AND TESTIMONY REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon
a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the •otion carried •
•
I • •
n
•
August 23, 1982
Page 2
•
• -
Mayor Otis stated the purpose of the hearing was to consi-
der the downtown plan.
Director of Community Development, Sue Powers, appeared
before Council. Ms. Powers entered into the record the following:
Item 11 -Englewood Redevelopment Area Justification, dated April,
1982; Item 12 -Resolution No. 1, Series of 1982, passed 7-20-82 by
the Planning & Zoning Commission, recommending adoption; Item 13 -
Letter from Englewood Board of Education President, Selwyn G.
Hewitt, dated 7-21-82, recommending adoption; Item 14 -Resolution
No. 2, Series of 1982, passed 5-19-82 by Urban Renewal Authority,
recommending adoption; Item 15 -Letter from David A. Edstrom of
Lamm, Edstrom, Braymer & Wisor, dated 8-23-82, stating the plan
meets the requirements and criterion set forth in Colorado Re-
vised Statutes relating to an urban renewal plan; and Item 16 -
Downtown Development Plan, July, 1982. Ms. Powers also entered
into the record the publisher's affidavit to show the hearing was
properly noticed in the newspaper. Ms. Powers discussed the his-
torical background of the plan. Ms. Powers stated the method of
financing would be tax increment bonds. Ms. Powers noted the Ur-
ban Renewal Authority was reactivated to assist in the redevelop-
ment plan. Ms. Powers stated the plan calls for public and pri-
vate development and she discussed the projects planned under each
area. Ms. Powers stated the private development would be phased to
support public development. Ms. Powers stated the City would pay
for Little Dry Creek improvements. Ms. Powers discussed the Coun-
cil Communication which requested two amendments to the plan.
In response to Council Members Neal and Higday's ques-
tions, Ms. Powers stated Council has control within the Zoning Or-
dinance to determine building height restrictions.
Mayor Otis opened the forum to the audience.
Larry Dickenson, 3171 South Clarkson, came forward. Mr.
Dickenson stated he was member of the Urban Renewal Authority. Mr.
Dickenson acknowledged a need for redevelopment and the plan was
acceptable. Mr. Dickenson stated his questions dealt with the de-
veloper's capability to provide the necessary capital for the pro-
jects; but his apprehension was diminished prior to this hearing.
Norita Hathaway, 3143 South Cherokee, came forward. Ms.
Hathaway stated she also owned property at 3095 South Cherokee. Ms.
Hathaway stated she favored the overall plan but had some questions
regarding portions of the plan. Ms. Hathaway ask d if placing RTD
on public areas would reduce residential traffic.
Ms. Powers stated it was not the project's intent to stop
r sidential RTD s rvice .
•
I • •
-
•
August 23, 1982
Page 3
•
• •
Ms. Hathaway asked if office towers were necessary and
rentable when so many are presently empty.
Ms. Powers stated a study shows the downtown area can
support an office tower right now, and another one if major im-
provements in the downtown area are made.
Council Member Neal explained the City would not own the
office space, the owner of the office would; who in turn would be
responsible for paying property taxes.
Ms. Hathaway asked if the City had received any commit-
ments from companies willing to develop in Englewood.
Council Member F itz patr ick stated the plan must first be
adopted and then advertised before any commitments can be made.
Council Member Higday stated the City has hired someone to
publicize the activities of the downtown redevelopment area.
Ms. Hathaway asked what Council planned to do about ce-
locating businesses.
Council Member Neal stated the plan has minimum require-
ments and Council will do everything possible to help the busi-
nesses. Council would be fair and equitable. Mr. Neal stated
there was a chance some of these businesses may move out anyway if
nothing is done.
Steve Bell, Han ifen, Imhoff, Inc., came forward to explain
tax increment bond financing. Mr. Bell stated there was no debt
service on the residents. The mill levy is fixed and capital is
based on increased revenues created by the new construction. These
are not City of Englewood bonds. They are issued by the Urban
Renewal Authority. The City of Englewood's monies can not be
called upon for debt payment. Mr. Bell stated the financing was
relatively new; furthermore, the City of Boulder was the only
municipality in the State of Colorado that has a tax increment
issue.
Paul Benedetti, 3704 Penrose Place, Boulder, Colorado,
special counsel for the downtown development, stated the Authority
would not be able to sell the bonds until the redeveloper has
financing with no obstacles. Mr. Benedetti stated he also repre-
sents the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority and the Denver Urban
Renewal Authority.
•
I • •
c-l
August 23, 1982
Page 4
•
• -
Cletus Gasson, Chairman of the Englewood Downtown Develop-
ment Authority, came forward. Mr. Gasson stated the Authority
favored the redevelopment plan if Council agrees to assist the mer-
chants and property owners along the development in relocating.
Council Member Higday stated Council has committed to
assisting the merchants in relocating under legal guidelines.
Fred Kaufman, 3395 South Broadway, came forward. Mr.
Kaufman endorsed the redevelopment plan. Mr. Kaufman believed
there was sincerity between Council and staff to help displaced
businesses.
Council Member Neal asked for Mr. Kaufman's opinion on the
consequences of what would happen if the redevelopment plan was not
implemented.
Mr. Kaufman stated the downtown area needs quality build-
ings to entice businesses and others to renovate the area. Mr.
Kaufman stated the area may lose existing businesses if nothing is
done.
Oliver Giseburt, 3171 South High, came forward. Mr. Gise-
burt questioned whether the City Charter allowed for the issuance
of bonds.
Mr. Benedetti stated under the Colorado Revised Statutes
the Urban Renewal Authority may issue tax increment bonds. They
are not to be issued by the City.
Richard L. Banta, 2108 E. Dartmouth Circle, came forward.
Mr. Banta took issue with the statement the project would not cost
the citizens anything. Mr. Banta asked where the additional funds
would come from to pay for City services . Mr. Banta stated it
appeared taxes would have to be raised to pay for the services.
Mr. Benedetti stated tax increment financing involves the
fre zing of assessm nts not taxes.
Mr. Banta stated the re ults of this project would not be
realized for y ars. Mr. Banta argued the possibility that financ-
ing would still could go back to its citizens.
Bill Forrington, 3422 South Bannock, cam forward. Mr.
Forrington stated he has owned property in a blighted area for 20
years. Mr. Forrington favored the redevelopment plan because he
would nev r have done the improvements himself •
•
I • •
•
August 23, 1982
Page 5
•
• •
Gary Christopher, 3461 South Broadway, came forward. Mr.
Christopher stated he operated an arcade vending business and saw
no need to stay on the proposed mall area. Mr. Christopher re-
ported he was unhappy with the number of pigeons that flock the
streets in this area. He received no response from the humane
department to control the pigeons. Mr. Christopher alleged there
was illegal activity in the alley behind his business and two doors
down. Mr. Christopher stated he did not understand the need for
flood control improvements.
Robert Garrison, 3422 South Bannock, came forward. Mr.
Garrison inquired about the timeframe under which businesses would
be evicted.
Ms. Powers stated nothing would be imposed until develop-
ment in an area began. At that point and time, 120 days would be
the period of time given to move.
Larry Dickenson who had spoken earlier asked what would
happen if nothing was done; would the downtown area still be mak -
ing money.
Ms. Powers stated according to a study conducted by
Boettcher and Company, the downtown area is not paying its way now;
and the situation would only get worse.
Mayor Otis read into the record a communication from Bob
Powell, Chairman of the Urban Renewal Authority, recommending
adoption of the redevelopment plan.
There were no further comments on this matter.
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEAR-
ING. Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call
of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
W 1st, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 39,
SERIES OF 1982
A RESOLUTION APPROVING T HE ENGLE WO OD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
PREPARED PURSUANT TO PART 1, ARTICLE 35, TITLE 31, COLORADO RE-
VISED STATUTES, 1973, AS AMENDED, AND AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION
PRESCRIBED THEREIN •
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
August 23, 1982
Page 6
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 39,
SERIES OF 1982. Council Member Neal seconded the motion.
COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION AND ADD TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PAGE 39 BEFORE THE LAST PARAGRAPH THE
PROPERTY LISTINGS (ADDENDUM 11); AND TO ADD ON PAGE 30, CHANGE
PHASE I TO READ AS FOLLOWS: •PHASE I: THE FIRST PHASE OF DEVELOP-
MENT INCLUDES PARCELS D, F, AND H. A PRIVATE DEVELOPER CURRENTLY
HAS AN OPTION ON A LARGE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN PARCEL D, AND
IS INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING THE SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REDE-
VELOPMENT PLAN •••• • (ADDENDUM 12). Council Member Higday sec-
onded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote on the amend-
ment resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
Upon a call of the roll, the vote on the original motion
resulted as follows:
9:10 p.m.
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at
~· fAirll;,L;n pufycltyierk
•
I .
-
•
REGULAR MEETING:
•
• •
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
City of Englewood, Colorado
September 7, 1982
,~
The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe
County, Colorado, met in regular session on September 7, 1982,
at 7:30 p.m.
Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order.
The invocation was given by Dr. Roland Andrews, Grace
Baptist Church, 4200 South Acoma Street. The pledge of allegiance
was led by Boy Scout Troops No. 115 and 154.
Mayor Otis asked for a roll call. Upon a call of the
roll, the following were present:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist,
Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Absent: None.
The Mayor declared a quorum present •
• • • • • • •
Also present were: Acting City Manager Vargas
City Attorney DeWitt
• •
Director of Community Development
Powers
Deputy City Clerk Watkins
• • • * •
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 1982. Council Member Bilo sec-
onded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as
follows:
Ayes: Council Members Higday, N al, Fitzpatrick,
wist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Nays: Non .
Th Mayor declar d the mo ion carried.
• * • • • • •
•
I • •
-
•
September 7, 1982
Page 2
•
• •
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO BRING FORWARD AGENDA ITEM
70 -A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DE-
VELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (ARAPAHOE ORTHOPAEDIC PROFESSIONAL CORPORA-
TION PROJECT). Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a
call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
Dan Wheeler, attorney for the corporation, appeared before
Council. Mr. Wheeler was instructed by Council Member Silo to find
out when the ground breaking was scheduled and to report back to Council.
In response to Council Member Neal's question, Mr. Wheeler
stated the bonds were being privately placed.
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES OF 1982
BY AUTHORITY
A BILL FOR
COUNCIL BILL NO. 43
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER SILO
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,
COLORADO, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND (ARA PAHOE ORT HO-
PAEDIC PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION PROJECT), SERIES A, IN THE PRINCI-
PAL AMOUNT OF $428,000; AND APPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO.
COUNCIL MEMBER SILO MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 43,
SERIES OF 1982, ON FIRST READING. Council Member Fitzpatrick sec-
onded the motion. Upan a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist, Silo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Nays: None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
•
0
I •
•
S eptember 7 , 1982
Page 3
•
• •
Mayo r Otis noted an error in the minu t es of the special
meeting of August 12, 1982.
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO RECONSIDER AGENDA ITEM
lA. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the
roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO AMEND THE MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 1982, TO REFLECT ON PAGE 4, COUNCIL
MEMBER BRADSHAW VOTING NAY ON THE FINAL READING OF COUNCIL BILL NO.
20, SERIES OF 1982. Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion.
Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatr ick ,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
There were no pre-schedu led visitors on the agenda.
* * * * * * *
There were no other visitors at this time.
* * * * * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING CRITERIA TO RELIEVE SIGN OWNERS OF
UNDUE HARDSHIP AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE 1983 BY
ADDING NEW SECTION 22.2-6 c (2). Council Member Fitzpatrick sec-
onded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as
follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw , Otis.
None.
The Mayor declar d the motion carri d •
•
0
I • •
•
September 7, 1982
Page 4
•
• -
Director of Community Development, Sue Powers, presented
the proposed amendment. Ms. Powers stated the proposal amends the
Zoning Ordinance on variances for sign. Ms. Powers stated the
criteria outlined in the ordinance would provide the Board of Ad-
justments and Appeals a standard by which to approve or deny
variances for signs. Ms. Powers stated the Planning and Zoning
Commission held a public hearing on this matter and recommends
approval of the amendment. Ms. Powers stated the Board of Adjust-
ments and Appeals also recommends approval.
The publisher's affidavit was submitted as proof the
notice of hearing was properly publ is hed.
There were no comments from the audien c e.
COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Council Member Fitzpatr ick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the
roll, the vo t e resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 36
SERIES OF 1982
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 40
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER BRADSHAW
FOR AN ORDINANCE ADOPTIN G CRITERIA TO RELIEVE SIGN OWNERS OF UNDUE
HARDSHIP AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE 1963 BY ADD-
ING NEW SECTION 22.2-6 c (2).
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 40,
SERIES OF 1982, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Bilo seconded the
motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
Th Mayor d clared the mo ion carried.
* * * * * • *
•
I • •
•
September 7, 1982
Page 5
•
• -
were: "Communications -No Action Recommended" on the agenda
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Minutes of the Denver Regional Council of
Governments meeting of June 16, 1982.
Minutes of the Board of Career Service Com-
missioners meeting of July 15, 1982.
Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Comm i s-
sion meeting of August 3, 1982.
Mi nutes of the Public L i brary Adv i sory Board
meeting of August 10, 1982.
Minutes of the Downtown Development Authority
meeting of August 11, 1982.
Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Comm i ss i on
meeting of August 12, 1982.
Municipal Court Act i v i ty Report for the month
of July, 1982.
COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO ACCEPT "COMMUNICATIONS -NO
ACTION RECOMMENDED" AGENDA ITEMS SA -SG. Council Member Bilo sec-
onded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as
follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Member s Hi gday, Nea l , F i tzpatr i ck,
We ist , Bilo , Br a d s haw, Otis .
None .
The Mayor declared the motion ca r rie d •
* * * * * • •
Acting City Manager Pete Vargas presented a Council Com-
munication from the Water and Se wer Board concerning the Wright-
McLaughin proposal on Boreas Pass. Mr. Vargas stated the Water and
Sewer Board recommends approval.
Council Member Bilo asked Mr. VargAs to find out how long
the City has had water rights for this area.
Mayor Otis invited Mr. Bilo to join the Water and Sewer
Board on a tour of Ranch Creek this coming Saturday.
•
I • •
-
•
September 7, 1982
Page 6
•
• •
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO APPROVE WRIGHT-MCLAUGH-
LIN'S PROPOSAL TO STUDY PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO DEVELOP THE
CITY'S WATER RIGHTS ON BOREAS PASS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER
TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT, THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,000. Council
Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll,
the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Silo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried •
• • • • • • •
Acting City Manager Pete Vargas presented a Council Com-
munication from the Water and Sewer Board concerning Supplement 195
in Southgate San i tat i on Di str i ct. Mr. Vargas presented a map indi-
cating the location. Mr. Vargas stated the Water and Sewer Board
recommends approval.
COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE SUPPLEMENT 195
SOUTHGATE SANITATION DISRICT. Council Member Silo seconded the mo-
tion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays :
Council Members Higday, Nea l , Fitzpatrick,
Weist, S i lo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The May o r decl ar ed t h e moti o n ca rr i ed •
• • • • • • •
Council Mem b er Neal as k ed fo r an updated status re p o r t on
the tap surcharge fo r paying off a bond issue . Mr. Neal asked
that this information be available at the budget retreat •
ORDIN AN CE NO. 3 7
SERIES OF 1982
• • • •
BY AUTHORITY
• • •
COU NCIL BILL NO. 38
INT RODUCED BY COU NCIL
MEMBER NEAL
I • •
......
September 7, 1982
Page 7
•
• •
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND THE CITY OF LITTLETON,
STATE OF COLORADO, TO DEFINE AND UNDERSTAND HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS OF
THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER.
COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 38,
SERIES OF 1982, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Fitzpatrick sec-
onded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 38
SERIES OF 1982
• • •
BY AUTHORITY
• • •
COUNCIL BILL NO. 39
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER BILO
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ENGLEWOOD
AND LITTLETON AND THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REPRESENTED BY THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL
DIVISION TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE STREAM STUDY OF SEGMENT 14 OF
THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER.
COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 39,
SERIES OF 1982, ON FINAL READING. Council Member Fitzpatrick sec-
onded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried •
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES OF 1982
• • • •
BY AUTHORITY
• • •
COUNCIL BILL NO. 42
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER BRADSHAW I • •
l-
•
September 7, 1982
Page 8
•
• -
A BILL FOR
AN ORDINANCE DESCRIBING AND DEFINING OBSCENITY AND PROVIDING CIR-
CUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT IS PROHIBITED BY AMENDING TITLE XI, CHAP-
TER 7, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE OF 1969, AS AMENDED, AND DE-
CLARING AN EMERGENCY.
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 42,
SERIES OF 1982, ON FIRST READING. Council Member Neal seconded the
motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 40
SERIES OF 1982
* * * * * * *
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ARAPA-
HOE COUNTY IN THEIR REQUEST FOR A .51 ARAPAHOE COUNTY SALES AND USE
TAX.
COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 40,
SERIES OP 1982. Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion.
Council Member Neal stated he was uncomfortable with the
proposal and would vote against the resolution; however, this
action did not necessarily mean he wa s in total opposition.
Council Member Fitzpatrick stated the monies from the
additional tax would be used to build a new jail. Imposing an
increase in sales tax was fairer than imposing an increase in
property tax. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated the proposal provides that
the tax will be dropped when enough money becomes available or when
the deadline for raising the money is met which ever comes first.
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated the deadline could not be extended.
City Attorney DeWitt stated the County's resolution did
not provide for a dollar amount on what is needed to fund the pro-
posed facility.
Council Me•ber Bilo stated he favored the increase in
sales ax over an increase in property tax •
•
I •
-
•
September 7, 1982
Page 9
•
• •
Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Counc i l Members Higday, Fitzpatrick,
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
Council Member Neal.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 41,
SERIES OF 1982
* * * * * * *
A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING TO MESA COUNTY, COLORADO, THE ALLOCATION
OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, UNDER SECTION 29-4-803 AND
SECTION 29-4-805 OF COLORADO REVISED STATUTES 1973, AS AMENDED, TO
FINANCE MORTGAGE LOANS TO PROVIDE MORE ADEQUATE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
FACILITIES FOR LOW-AND MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES AND PERSONS WITHIN
MESA COUNTY AND WITHIN THE CITY WHICH IS LOCATED WITHIN ARAPAHOE
COUNTY, AND ELSEWHERE IN THE STATE OF COLORADO; DELEGATING THE
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE SAID MORTGAGE LOANS
WITHIN THE CITY; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY BY THE
CITY OF AN ALLOCATION TRANSFER AGREEMENT AND A DELEGATION AGREE-
MENT.
COUNCIL MEMBER BILO MOVED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 41,
SERIES OF 1982. Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion.
Council Member Neal asked the City Manager's office to
find out i f the funds were no t used by a commun i ty, could they be
comb i ned wi th next year's fund s .
Upo n a call of th e ro l l, t he vote resu lted a s f ol lows :
Ay es: Cou n cil Memb e r s Hi gday , Ne al, F itz pa tric k,
Weist , Bilo , Bra d sha w, Otis .
Nays: None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * * *
City Attorney De Witt announced he and his wife, Conni ,
were e x pecting th ir second child in May of 1983 .
Council extended th lr congratulations .
* * * * • * *
•
I • •
-
•
•
• -
September 7, 1982
Page 10
Acting City Manager Pete Vargas presented a Council Com-
munication from the Director of Public Works concerning a trans-
portation agreement for seniors in Arapahoe County.
Council instructed City Attorney DeWitt to prepare an or-
dinance to allow the agreement to take place.
* * * * * * *
Acting City Manager Pete Vargas presented a Council Com-
munication from the South Metro Training Academy Advisory Board
concerning bid awards for the South Metro Training Academy Class-
room Building.
Mr. Vargas stated some questions have been raised as to
the bidding process. Mr. Vargas requested the i tem be tabled.
COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL MOVED TO TABLE THE MATTER. Counc il
Member Bile seconded the mot i on. Upon a call of the ro ll , th e vo te
resul t ed a s follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Counc i l Member s Hi gday, Neal, Fitzpat r ic k,
We i st, Bile , Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor dec l ar e d the motion c arr i ed.
* * * * * * *
Cit y Atto r ney DeWitt and Acting City Manage r Va rga s i n -
for me d Council that Douglas County declined the training fa cility .
F u r t h e r that the managers of Cinder lla City were inte r ested in
negotiating an agreement for th facility.
Council asked tha his i em b brough up at the budget
retreat .
* * * * * • *
budget.
Acting City Manager Vargas rans it ed the proposed 1983
COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO SET TH PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE 1983 PROPOSED BUDGET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1982, AT
7:30 P .M. Council Memb r Neal second d the o ion. Upon a call of
th roll, the vote resulted•• follows:
Ayes: Council Memb rs Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick,
•
I • •
•
September 7, 1982
Page 11
Nays:
•
• •
Weist, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis.
None.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
* * * * * *
No further business was discussed.
* * * * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN.
*
*
Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at 8:25 p.m.
'-/ . ?t / a/:', l ,. ·
I • •
-
•
•
• •
---,.,------------------------------------,
•
C O U N C I L C O M M U N I C A T I O N
DATE SUBJECT
September 16, 1982
AGENDA ITEM
4 (a)
Public Hearing
on the 1983 Proposed Budget
INITIATED BY _____ c_i_ty_M_a_n_a_g_e_r ________________ _
ACT I ON PROPOSED. ___ T_o_h_e_a_r_c_o_nnn_e_n_t_s_a_n_d_c_i_t_i_z_e_n_i_n_p_u_t_r_e_l_a_t_in_g __ to __
the 1983 Proposed Budget
This Public Hearing is Council's attempt to provide a forum
for interested citizens to comment on city service levels as
proposed in the 1983 Budget. This is also an opportunity for
citizens to connnent on where they feel additional services
might be needed as well as where services might be curtailed.
Staff has contacted the media as well as printed an article
in the Englewood Citizen in an attempt to notify citizens of
their opportunity to comnent on next year's budget.
Peter H. Vargas, Assistant City Manager, will be present to
discuss the 1983 Proposed Budg and answer any questions.
Attached is a recomm ndation from the Parks and Recreation
Co111Dission to approv th establishment of a full-time clerical
technician position for th Malley Senior Recreation Center.
This position has not been included in the 1983 Budget .
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
MEM:>RANDl.M
ID : ENGI.EvKX:lD CITY OOUNCIL REGARDING RECXM£NDA.TIOO OF TiiE PARKS AND RECREATION
OM1ISSIOO
IA\TE : Septaiber 10 , 1982
SUBJECT: REcnt£NDA.TIOO TO APPROVE CU:RICAL TEQlNICIAN POSITION FOR MAI.LEY SENIOR
RECREATION CENTER
RECXH-Em\TION : Request, by unani.nous vote of the Parks and Recreation Coomi.ssion,
to approve the reccmnendation of the Malley Senior Recreation
Center Advisory Board to establish the full tine clerical tech-
nician position for the Malley Senior Recreation Center as sub-
mitted in the 1983 supplarental budge t.
By request of the Englewood Parks and
Recreation Coomi.ssion
I • •
•
•
,· •
MINUTES OF
ENGLEWOOD HOUSING AUTHORITY
SPECIAL MEETING
March 12, 1982
5 A
The special meeting of the Englewood Housing Authority was called to order by
Chairman Thomas Burns at 4:00 p.rn. at the Simon Center, 3333 South Lincoln
Street, Englewood, Colorado.
Roll Ca ll
Membe r s Present: Thomas J, Burns, Chairman
Betty Beier, Vice Chairman
Beverly Bradshaw
Cindy Peterson
Membe rs Absent: Reverend Stan Fixter
Others Present: Franc e s Buck Jonas, Executive Director
Linda A, Knopinski, Hou sing Admini s trator
Jack Bus c hmann, Nelson & Company, Inc.
Carl Fischer, Inspecting Architect
Recording Secretary , Cindy Adams
Family Duplexes -Annual Contributions Contract (ACC)
Mr s . Jonas explain d tha t HUD needs a re elution author izing ex cution of
Annual Contribution Contracts , (ACC) and issu nc of proj ct loans and pr-
man nt no tes. Sh s tated that it wa s th sa typ of resolution th t th
Hou s ing Authority pass don Orch rd Plac . Mrs. Jonas xplained that f d ral
gov rn nt will loan ua th mon y through as 1 of bonds t o pur ha th
buildin, $553 ,6 S that will b paid off ov r 40 ara with funds ppropriat d
y arly by th F d ral Gov r nt to th Hou sing Authorit y . In addition, th
ACC contain th rul ulations for operating th project.
Mrs,
to
ho
dia
th t th n xt it m was
whi ch brin a up to dat
ppoint d nd wh t th ir term
r'a ppoint nta,
!!Q!.!2._
BE1TY BIER VED AND CINDY PETERSO SECON'DED TH TIO TO APPROVE TH
RESOLUTIO AUTH RI ZI C TH EXECUTION OF TH ACC AND PROJECT LOANS, TK
TIO CARRIED AS LLOWS:
AYES: , BRADSHAW, P TERSO
AYS:
AB ENT:
•
•
I •
p -
•
•
•
• •
Mrs. Jonas explained the contracts and annual contributions by government. Mr.
Burns clarified that the Housing Authority was just signing the amendment to
the ACC. Mrs. Jonas stated that the EHA has one consolidated ACC and that
every project is an amendment to the original.
Permit Approved
Mrs. Jonas stated that in the packets was a letter from the Chief Building
Inspector approving plans and specifications for the duplexes. Discussion
ensued.
MOTION
BEVERLY BRADSHAW MJVED AND BETTY BEIER SECONDED A MJTION TO AUTHORIZE THE
EXECUTION OF THE TURN-KEY CONTRACT OF SALE FOR FAMILY DUPLEX PROJECT #C048-3.
THE MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: BURNS, BEIER, BRADSHAW, PETERSON
NAYS: NONE
ABSENT: FIXTER
MOTION
BEVERLY BRADSHAW MOVED AND BETTY BEIER SECONDED A 1'1>TION TO AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO CLOSE ON THE PURCHASE OF TWO SITES AND
DONATION OF ALL FIVE SITES TO THE DEVELOPER CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGLEWOOD
HOUSING AUTHORITY ATTORNEY'S APPROVAL OF DOCUMENTS. MR. BURNS EXPLAINED
THE SITUATION AND REASONS WHY. MRS. JONAS EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS TO PROTECT
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY. THE MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
BURNS, BEIER, BRADSHAW, PETERSON
NONE
FIXTER
~
BEVERYLY BRADSHAW MOVED AND BETTY BEIER SECONDED THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED.
THE HOTIO CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: BURNS, BEIER, BRADSHAW, PETERSO
NAYS:
ABS
Th etin • djourn d at 5:00 p.a.
I • •
• I
......
•
•
•
• -
The Englewood Housing Authority Minutes of the Special Meeting of March 12, 1982
were officially approved by the Commissioners on August 25, 1982.
I • •
•
• -
MINUTES OF
ENGLEWOOD HOUSING AUTHORITY
REGULAR MEETING
June 2, 1982
5 A
The rescheduled regular meeting of the Englewood Housing Authority was called
to order by Chairman Thomas J, Burns at 5:45 p .m. at the Simon Center, 3333
South Lincoln Street, Englewood , Colorado, after a tour of the duplex sites.
Roll Call
Members Present: Thomas J, Burns, Chairman
Betty Beier, Vice Chairman
Reverend Stan Fixter
Cindy Peterson
Members Absent: Beverly Bradshaw
Others Present: Gene Luetters, President, Nelson Company
Marty Weis, Superintendent, Nelson Company
David Altenhoffen
Tom Chandler, Nelson-Roth of Colorado, Inc.
Frances Buck Jonas, Executive Director
Linda A. Knopinski, Housing Administrator
Cindy Adams, Recording Secretary
Reading and Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the regular meeting of April 28, 1982 were read and a correction
was made on page 5, paragraph 3, line 5. The wording should be Hrs. Knopinski
stated that this deferred loan amount would b from the City Rehab money.
REVEREND STAN FllCTER MOVED AND CINDY PETERSON SECONDED THE HOTION TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 28, 1982 AS CORRECTED. THE MOTION
CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
BURNS, BEIER, FIXTER, PETERSON
NONE
BRADSHAW
F mily Dupl x s -Construction R port
Mr. Burn not d
Jonas flt that
cua ad that th
at th
in the pack t and Hr a .
ht forward. It wa a dia-
th firm bein from St,
h re. Mrs. Jonaa provid d mapa for
nd d 1cription1 of conatruction bin
d d to b don la th fr ra
th lit A tainin
I •
-•
• •
Tom Burns s t a ted that there is no window on the south side o f the Vassar site.
Mr s . Be ier thought that was certainly bleak. There was a discussion of s o
ma ny fee t of unbroken wall for furniture arrangement. Tom Burns asked Tom
Chand l er t o look into the matter.
Various repo rts were handed out. Tom Burns felt that construction could proceed
on the Fox site b a sed on the attorney's opinion regarding the law on solar ease-
ment s . Discu ssion ensued concerning meters installed inside the building with
remote read out s . I t will cost $500 to redo the water lines since they are
already insta l led. Mrs. Jonas feels that there is a failure to collDllunicate
someplace in the plan review process since the water department had reviewed
plan s a nd the permit had been issued and now the water department was asking
fo r a c hange. There was a discussion as to how many shut offs, where they are
loc ated, who pay s the water bill, etc. Mrs. Jonas will discuss problem with
the water department.
Orc hard Place
Tom Chandler discussed the status of Orchard Place. He stated that the painter
mixed the sealer with the paint and then probably used an airless sprayer to
appl y the sealer and paint both. The painter said he asked Carl Fischer and
Carl s aid okay. Mr. Chandler thought the painter should have asked Brady and
he should have checked with th design architect. Mr. Chandler also feel s that
the painter ran out of scaffolding near the 7th floor and did a poor j o b of
spraying the paint/sealer on. Brady has agreed that it is their problem and
is willing to fix the problem. The Brady Corporation submitted a letter with
recollDllendations to correct the problem. Mr. Chandler would like to have Ken
Bieberly reply to the letter, and then if Carl Fisc her, Housing Authority,
Brady Corporation, Ken Bieberly and himself c annot agree, he would like to bring
in a third party to get a third recommendation. Brady Corporation said the y would
apply Okon sealer at the rate of I gallon to 100 squa re feet. Discussion ensued
r garding the need for gutters or spitters on building. It was also brought up
that there was s upp o se to be a da m in front o f the scuppers and there are no
da ms o n th r oof . Mr. Ch andler sa id that would b d one a lso . He is s t ill wa i t i ng
t o h a r from t h arc hitec t on a solution. Mr. Ch nd l e r b r ough t up th e f ct
th tit would b n cessary t o r seal t h buildin g eve r y fiv to eighty ars .
A dis us ion ensu d ov r the whole s ituation of Orch rd Place f r om t h
of the pr oj ct th r ough th ntir rainy p riod nd how many units
and a di cussion of the <l dication a nd how nic ly it w n t. Cindy
b ginn ing
dr nch d ,
rson thou ht
it would b nic for th Board to s nd le t t r s to the B n d , Simon C nt r p opl ,
th T nant Co un cil nd R v r nd Hos nn • It w snot d that thank you nots h d
b n ord rd to s nd out to all of th s p opl
It w not d th t th st t us r po r t w s ov e r look d . Hr. Burn s brou ht up the
fact t h t t h h ndic pp d p opl ought t o b ac r e n d. A di cusai on n u d
about th physician 's state nt r g rdin& abili t y oft nant t o l i v i nd p nd ntly
nd how to scr n proap c t iv tenants.
-2 -
•
I • •
•
• -
Procurement Policy
Mrs. Knopinski stated that HUD wants the Housing Authority to have a Procurement
Policy. Mrs. Knopinski put together a policy of what the Housing Authority has
been doing for years in cooperation with the City Purchasing Division. Mrs.
Jonas suggested this was suppose to be in a resolution form.
~
REVEREND STAN FIXTER MOVED AND CINDY PETERSON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE A
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE PROCUREMENT POLICY AS SET FORTH IN REPORT.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
BURNS, BEIER, FIXTER, PETERSON
NONE
BRADSHAW
Operating Budget
Mrs. Jonas does not have the operating budget finished but will have it finished
by the end of June. She also stated that HUD would not approve it since they
don't have this years Performance Funding Subsidy formula yet.
Rehab Loan Program
Mrs. Knopinski stated that the accountant was on vacation and so no updated
financial statement was available.
Loan Security Policy
Staff recommended a chang in policy to allow lo ns to b secured by third
mortgages rather than just first and second as lon as th re wa s sufficient
equity to cov r total ind bt dn as. This is b cause so many people r now
required tot k out a first and second mortga to purch s a hous •
Cindy P terson wond rd if th Housing Authority could tighten up th
requirements wh n w go to a third, instead of havin 90% hav 80%.
Knopin ki felt ther would b no probl •·
quity
Hra.
_.!!2_
CINDY PET£RSON J«:lVED AND REVERE STAN FlXT S CO ED A IO TO CHAN E TH
POLICY SECURITY TO REHAB LOANS TO ALLOW 3RD AND 4TH OED OF TRUST AS OUTLI
I THE MEMORANDUM,
r on th would b I ar aa w would b oin ? Mr.
th t that would b aor th n auffici nt, Cindy
a policy or not nd Mr a . Knopinaki id it
elution uld ndor th rd and 4th D d of
total lin urity did no e.xc d 0% 0
at t d Mr.
Th vot nth aotion w 11 follow,:
•
I • •
•
• -
AYES: BURNS, BEIER, FIXTER, PETERSON
NAYS: NONE
ABSENT: BRADSHAW
Mrs. Beier questioned the fair market value and Mr. Burns stated that that is
the only term you can use. Mrs, Knopinski stated that it could be appraised
value. Mr. Burns concurred. It was decided that "appraised value" should
be used instead of market value.
CHFA MOD REHAB LETTER
Mrs. Jonas stated that the program has been canceled at this time. HUD is
studying fair market rents at this time and proposing a new program.
Section 8 Existing Report
The Status Report was briefly discussed.
Simon Center Report
Mrs. Jonas has stated that there has been a lot of money spent at the Simon
Center and we are overexpended for this period for large purchases that were
needed and plumbing problems. The last 6 months should be much better. Mrs.
Beier questioned the s ubsidy amount on the first page. Mrs. Knopinski said
she would check into it.
Director's Choice
Mrs. Jonas announced that the Housing Authority and staff picnic would be on
June 19th from 12:00 -5:00 p.m. at B lleview Park I and it will be a potluck.
1981 Financial Report
The City went to singl audit concept this y ar and the audit r port is
good st ted Mr s. Jonas. Mrs. Jonas flt the Authority should look at pag H-5,
Stat ment of Changes in Financial Condition. It states there that the Hou sing
Authority is growing nd in good financial shape. Sh also stat d that th Simon
Center r erve was looking good.
Mrs. Knopinski xplained th audit 1 tter to the Authority.
Mr s. Jonas express d appr elation to th Finance D part nt for bin so
coop rativ
Co ission rs
Th
sh
authoriz
R
i
Fixt r
uld b
in mphia, T nn as and Cindy P ter on said
Mrs.Bier flt Hrs. Peterson should b
1k d who h ah uld reai n to and Mr s. Bier hadn't d cid d
int rat din noth r tena.
-4 -
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
State NAHRO Convention
Mrs. Jonas announced that the State NAHRO Convention is June 9, 10, and 11, 1982
in Pueblo.
Mrs. Beier really likes the logo for Orchard Place.
Cindy Adams will be leaving the employ of the City.
their appreciation for her work.
Mr. Burns announced that
The Commissioners expressed
Reverend Fixter expressed his gratitude for working with the Board and what
fun it has been and how much they have accomplished.
There being nothing further to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m .
-s -
I • •
• -
• •
The Englewo od Housing Author ity Minutes of the Rescheduled Regular Meeting
of June 2, 1982 were officially approved by the Commissioners on August 25, 1982 .
~~
Englewood Housing Authority
•
• I • •
• •
I . CALL TO ORDER.
•
• -
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
August 4, 1982
The regul ar me e ting o f t he Urban Renewal Authority was called t o ord e r by
Chairman Robert G. Pow e ll at 5:30 P.M.
Me mbe r s p re s ent: Minni ck, Powell, Cole, Dickinson, Fitzpatrick, Mc Clung
Powers, Executive Secretary
Larry Novicky, Alternate Member
Members absent : Vo t h
Also present: Economic Development P l anner W. R. Hinson
Paul C. Benedetti, Couns el to Urban Renewal Author i t y
Mr. Jim Harm, As sociate of Mr. Benedett i
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES .
Chairman Po well sta t ed tha t Mi nu tes of July 7th and J uly 20th were to be
considered for appr oval.
Mr . Mi nn ick moved:
Mr . McCl un g seconded: The Mi nu t es of July 7t h a nd J u ly 20th , be approved
as writ t en.
Upo n t he call of the vote, the motion carried.
• • • • •
Ms . Powers introduced Mr. Paul C. B nedetti , and Mr. Jim Harm.
• • • • •
III. RELOCATION PLAN.
M, Pow ra mad r r nc to Pag 1 of th Minut of th EDDA of April
28, 1982, which con t ind th following r co ndation r garding the R -
location Plan:
1)
2) On Pa
plac d buain as
llocat d
n eds of
ph l.a., notic to busin ss own rs should b
propo d 90 day to 6 months.
$10,000 ximum of b n fits to dia-
r mov d. Comp naation should b
is co naurat with th ap cific
•
I • •
•
• •
-3-
Mr. Benedetti further discussed relocation, noting that the owner/occupant
usually comes out pretty well because they have the funds from the sale
of the property in addition to the relocation expenses; those wh o have the
greatest hardship are the tenants, who may have put in great expense on
the i nterior of the structure, yet the improvements cannot be moved, there-
by causing the loss of those improvements, and the expense of making new
improvements. The Authority would make payment to the owner of the prop-
erty; it would be up to the property owner to determine what paymen t would
be made to the tenant. Mr. Benedetti noted that the Authority ma y no t pay
more than the fair market rate for the property.
Mrs. Cole asked what happens to the redevelopment project while disagree-
ments on the relocation payments and property acquisition are taking place?
Mr. Benedetti stated that the proj ect would proceed; the Authority would
make the payment to the Co urt, if the matter is in Court, and this ma y be
held until such determination is made as to who receives what portion of
the money. Mr. Harm stated that the Authority would take possession of
the property as soon as the monies are paid into the Court, and that us e
of the property could be made by the Authority even though they might not
have the title at that point.
Ms . Powers stated that another matter of concern is the s tatement s that
have been mad e that property owners on South Acoma Street will be treated
differently than property owners on South Bannock Street, because the Acoma
Street properties are to be pur chased by the developer. The question has
been posed as to whether relocation payments ma y be made to tenants by the
Authority if th properties have been pu rchased by the devel oper ? Mr.
Benedetti s uggested that the Relocation Plan could be written i n such a
wa y that at such time as a developer o r d e v elopers are chosen, a nd if the
property acquired by the developers is a part of the overall redeve lopment
project , that the tenants of those properties could receive assistance.
Mr. Benedetti advised that the developers would have to have som official
connection w1th the R development Plan, and that such a s tatement would
hav to b written into the contract with the developers , i nto the Reloca-
tion Plan, and into th Urban Re newa l Plan.
Mr. McClung stated that if a property owner makes a contract with the de-
veloper, and that the transaction does not go through the Urban Renewal
Authority, h did not f l th Authority would be under any obligation.
Mr. B n d tti th Authority dos not have to pay any moni s
in relocation Federal fund are us d in property acquisition
which displ ces som on . Mr. B n detti pointed out that on of the reasons
for an Urb n Rn w 1 Authority is to assist in as mblage of land, and that
h i sk ptical that ad velop r could and would b r all of these costs.
not
ions with om d v loper& h v indicat d
to d 1 dir ctly with an urb n r n wal uthority and
l prop rty own rs.
nt for insuring prop rty nd inv ntory during
qu tion d th t payment ehould b mad for r -
, atation ry, nd sign s. Mr. Dickinson furth r
I • •
-•
• •
-2-
Ms. Powers stated that the Planning Commission has also discussed at length
the problems of relocating the displaced business owners; the Planning Com-
mission was informed that the Urban Renewal Authority has the responsibility
of developing the Relocation Plan, but were encouraged to submi t any comment s
or suggestions they might have to the Urban Renewal Authority.
Ms. Powers sta ted that during the revision of the Urban Renewal Plan, the
Reloca tion Plan which had been included as a part of the Plan, was removed
from the body of the document, and has been included a s an "Appendix" to
the revised Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
Ms. Powers stated that the staff has obtained copies of the Relocation
Plans from other jurisdictions such as Littleton and Arvada; copies of
the State Statutes and the Federal regulations governing r location assis-
tance have also been made. This information was submitted to the members
of the Authority for their perusal.
Ms. Powers asked if members of the Authority had any concerns about the
Relocation Plan in its present form? She stated chat she felt there should
be some response to the EDDA concerns expressed in the April 28th minutes .
Mr. Benedetti discussed the Relocation Plan. He stated that the intent is
to pay the actual moving expenses, and to confine it to "movable" property.
Mr. Benedetti noted that the $10,000 limitation will not cover all the ex-
penses incurred by some of the businesses. Mr. Benedetti cautioned that
the appraisals of properties acquired should have itemized lists of the
"real property" that is acquired by the Authority that may not be moved.
Mr. Benedetti went on to discuss procedures that have been followed in
other locations, such as Boulder. He not d that a grievance procedure
might be considered, whereby the staff might make the initial determina-
tion of eligible moving expenses, and the property owner or businessman
could then appeal to the grievance or relocation committee composed of
Urban Renewal Authority memb rs. Mr. Benedetti noted that under the
Federal guidelines, there ls no limitation on the moving xpenses al-
lowed , but that he felt placing a top dollar limitation is the best way
to have some control on the matter. Mr. Benedetti noted that a provision
is contained that this limitation my be xceed d when sp cifically ap-
proved by the Urban Renewal Authority. Ms. Powers asked if the "special
circumstances" which would warrant exceeding the limitation should be
spelled out? Mr. B nedetti advised against it. Mr. B n d tti pointed
out that no reloc tion paym nts ar required unles s f d r 1 funds ar
used in displacing n individual or bu in
Mr. Harm advised th t instance wh r r loc tion fund s r
document d as to x c tly wh t w s mov d or includ din th
udbwll
paym nt.
Mr. Dickinson qu
heard of an inst nc
clud d r wiring th
busin s. H noted
figure, th $10,000
Discussion nu don xp n
program, nd on th proc s
my or my not b mo ved s f r a r
of $10,000; h t t d th th had
~p to $100,000; this in-
th sp cial n de of th
n run as uch a ch $100,000
insignificant.
r th
•
)
I • •
•
• -
-3-
Mr. Benedetti further discussed relocation, noting that the owner/occupant
usually comes out pretty well because they have the funds from the sale
of the property in addition to the relocation expenses; those who have the
greatest hardship are the tenants, who may have put in great expense on
the interior of the s tructure, yet the improvements cannot be moved, there-
by causing the loss of those improvements, and the expense of making new
improvements . The Authority would make payment to the owner of the prop-
erty; it would be up to the property owner to determ.ine what payment would
be made to the tenant. Mr. Benedetti noted that the Authority may not pay
more than the fair market rate for the property.
Mrs. Cole asked what happens to the redevelopment project while disagree-
ments on the relocation payments and property acquisition are taking place?
Mr. Benedetti stated that the project would proceed; the Authority would
make the payment to the Court, if the matter is in Court, and this may be
held until such determination is made as to who receives what portion of
the money. Mr. Harm stated that the Authority would take possession of
the property as soon as the monies are paid into the Court, and that use
of the property could be made by the Authority even though they might not
have the title at that point.
Ms. Powers stated that another matter of concern is the statements that
have been made that property owners on South Acoma Street will be treated
differently than property owners on South Bannock Street, because the Acoma
Street properties are to be purchased by the developer. The question has
been posed as to whether relocation payments may be mad to tenants by the
Authority if the properties have been purchased by the d veloper? Mr.
Benedetti suggested that the Relocation Plan could be written in such a
way that at such tim as a developer or developers ar chosen, and if the
property acquired by the developers is a part of the overall redevelopment
project, that the tenants of those properties could rec ive assistance.
Mr. Benedetti advised that the developers would have to have som official
connection with th Red velopment Plan, and that such a statement would
have to be written into th contract with the developers, into the Reloca-
tion Plan, and into th Urban Renewal Plan.
Mr. McClung stated that if a property owner makes a contract with the de-
veloper, and that the transaction does not go through th Urban Renewal
Authority, he did not f el th Authority would be under any obligation.
Mr. B n detti reit rated that th Authority do not h v to pay any moni s
in relocation funds unl a s F d ral funds are used in prop rty cquisition
which displaces som on . Mr, B nedetti point d out that one of th reasons
for an Urban R newal Authority i to a sist in assemblage of land, and that
h is k ptical that adv lop r could and would bear all of th s costs.
Mr. McClung st t d th this di cussions with om d v lop r hav indicated
that they would pr fr to d 1 dir ctly with an urb n r n wal authority nd
not d 1 with individu l prop rty own rs.
Mr. Oickin on qu tion
movin • Mr. Dickinson al
pl cm nt of bu in • f
insuring prop rty nd inv ntory during
d tha p nt should b m d for r -
ry, nd sign . Mr. Dickinson furth r
I • •
....... •
• -
-4-
expressed concern on the $10,000 limitation cited in the Relocation Plan.
Mr. McClung stated that he felt the $10,000 limitation is a very generous
amount. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Dickinson reiterated his opinion
that it is "absurd" to use public monies to replace stationery, business
cards, etc.
Mr. Benedetti noted that most well-established businesses can relocate,
and expect to do as well or better in their new location; it is the marginal
businesses that present the problems . Mr. Benedetti s tated that he did not
feel the dollar limitation should be of great concern, as long as the state-
ment that this amo unt may be exceeded for good cause is r e tained.
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that h e felt there were only two businesses in the
3400 block of South Acoma that might not be able to be moved for $10,000.
He stated that one of the problems facing the businesses is to relocate to
a site where they will have the same square footage for the same rate they
are paying now; this cannot be done. Mr. Benedetti agreed that this is a
problem, and that the businessman cannot be compensated for this kind of
damage.
Mr. Benedetti then discussed the relocation program that was undertaken
in Boulder; he noted that there was some front-e nd monty from the City
involved in thi s program, and that Boulder City agreed to do quite a bit
of the traffic work and flood work that was requir d. Mr. Benedetti dis-
cussed further financing methods pursu d by Boulder in their project. Mr.
Benedetti also discussed th difficulty in getting tax increm nt financing
bonds sold.
Ms. Pow rs point d out that the Cit of Engl wood does hav som money
committed toward the improv nt of Littl Dry Cr ek .
Mr. Hinson a k d if CDBG fund u d in any asp ct of th proj ct,
would this commit
t ted that if th
h would ay that
if th CDBG funds ar
quir us of the fed
us d
quir
b
port nt,
r J reloc tion gui d lin s? Mr. Bened tti
d in th acquisition of prop rty,
guld lln s would have to b us d;
·ition purposes, it would not r -
lln
w r gr nted, thy could b
School; thi would not r -
tti point d out th t it i im-
r fullv, and dvl d that thi m tt r
lt gri vane or r vi conaitt
loo int ,ttin ur c 111111ltt
•
was Im-
a pri-
d v lop r
ion nu d.
d to pro-
for th public
I •
•
• •
-5-
Ms. Powers brought the discussion back to the points raised in the April
28th minutes of the EDDA, namely, should the $10,000 limitation on reloca-
tion benefits be eliminated or raised, and should the notice to business
owners be increased to the suggested six months.
Mr. Minnick questioned the need to increase the notice to business owners;
he noted that everybody that will be involved in the relocation already
knows about it; he feels the 90 day limitation should stay. Mr. Minnick
also suggested that the $10,000 relocation limitation be retained, with
the provision that it can be raised in specific instances with proper
justification .
Mr. McClung spoke in favor of keeping the 90 day limit of notifica tion to
property owners. Mr. Powell also expressed a preference for the 90 day
time limitation.
Mr. Dickinson spoke in favor of the recommendation of the EDDA; he pointed
out that while the property owners are aware of the program, they have not
to this point in time received official legal notice to relocate. Following
discussion, Mr. Dickinson indicated that he would go along with 120 days
notice, that the 180 days might be too long. Mr. Dickinson stated that
the $10 ,000 maximum limitation on the relocation funds was on rea on h e
did not vote in favor of the Plan in May. Mr. Dickinson stat d that he
feels this should b d termined on a case-by-ca ba is.
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that j u st becaus th $10,000 limitation i
in the Plan, this dos not mean that e ch nd ev ry bu ine
is going to be giv n $10 ,000; the actual r location
view d and p y-ment mad accordingly. Mr. DickJn on
se any r ason to hav th $10 ,000 figur cit d if
b consid red on its own m rits. Furth r
cited
r locates
b r -
did not
oin to
Mr. Dickinson sugg sted that on Page ii of th Appendix, th t fie b liminat d;
he stated that if this sec tion was not liminat d, h would not suppo rt th
Plan.
Di cussion
~r. 8
th
r 11 o th
to
d probl
~vd
pp ndix, II urth rd
•
0
I .
•
• -
-6-
Fi tzp atrick moved:
Minnick seconded: §§c, Page ii of the Appendix, be reworded to state :
"Displaced business owner shall receive the reasonable
cost , as determined by the Urban Renewal Authority, for
certain property made obsolete by d isplacement , s u ch
as stationery , business forms, sign s ."
AYES: Cole, Fitzpatrick, McCl un g , Min nick, Powell
NAYS: Dickinson
ABSENT: Voth
The motion carried.
Fitzpatrick moved:
Minnick seconded : That Page ii , §§e, be retained in the Relocation Plan
as it is writ t en, setting forth a $10,000 maximum on
relocation payments.
AYES: Fitzpatrick, McClung, Minnick, Powell,Cole
NAYS: Dickinson
ABSENT: Voth
The motion carried.
The time of notice to persons to be relocated was further discussed. Ms.
Cole asked when the time of notification would begin? Mr. Benedetti stated
that under Federal 1 w, th tim would begin when formal notice of intent
to acquire prop rty is given. H stated th t th re is spelled out in Colorado
Law a definite procedur for land acquisition. H stated that the Federal
Act provides for 90 days notice to property owners. Mr. Benedetti stated
that he feels th six months suggested by the EDDA is too long, and that
if a shorter time period is specified , an extension of time can always be
granted. Mr. B nedetti reiterated that the time lement would begin with
the first formal offer on the property. He stated that he would recommend
leaving the tim limitation as it presently is written.
Ms. Powers point d out th t whil th EDDA recomm ndation is for an in-
crease in th tim from 90 days to 6 months, the Authority has already
increased the tim from 90 d ys to 120 day .
Mr. B n detti tat d th t nyone who has n int r st in the property would
h v to b notified, nd th t this would h v to be done by Certified Mail.
Fitzp trick mov d:
Minnick cond d: Th notic
120 d y
to prop rty own r r main at th
AYES: Fitzpatrick, McClun , Minnick, Pow 11, Col , Dickinson
AYS: on
AB ENT: Voth
Th motion carri d.
•
sp cifJ d
I • •
•
• -
-7-
Ms . Powers stated that the action of the Authority would be communicated
to the EDDA. Mr. Powell stated that there is a meeting that he is to at-
tend on the evening of August 5th, and he would mention the action at that
meeting.
Mr. Minnick requested that a letter of appreciation be written to the school
board for their letter in support of the Urban Renewal Plan.
IV. TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT .
Mr . Benedetti discussed the efforts to reach a common understanding on the
Tri-Party Agreement. The role of the EDDA has been enlarged from the initial
proposal; however, Mr. Loring Harkness, counsel for the EDDA, has now made
the suggestion that the Urban Renewal Plan be written and used as a joint
plan to apply to both the Urban Renewal area and the DOA District . Mr.
Benedetti discussed his doubts and concerns regarding this proposal. He
stated that he has expressed his concerns regarding the proposal to Mr.
Harkness, who has undertaken the preparation of a preliminary draft of the
agreement, but still has the concept of a joint plan. Mr. Benedetti stated
that with the concurrence of City Manager McCown and other staff members,
he had contacted Brady Enterprises attorney Bob Joyce. Mr . Joyce expressed
concern on the proposed agreement authored by Mr. Harkness also. Mr.
Benedett i stated that a meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, August
12, at 10 A.M . at the offices of Kutak, Rock and Huie (bond counsel) to
review this entire matter and to attempt to work this out with EDDA.
Mr. Benedetti stated that Mr. Joyce reported that Brady Enterprises has
devised a financing plan that would call for the pairing of public and
private financing.
Mr. Powell asked if the Authority could expect to review a draft of the
Tri-Party Agreement by September 1st? Mr. Benedetti stated he felt this
was reasonable, and that the Agreement could be drafted by that date. Mr.
Powell suggested that if th agreement was ready before that time, that a
spcial meeting of the Urban Renewal Authority be called . He noted he would
not be able to attend the regular meeting on September 1st. Mr. Benedetti
suggested that perhaps som thing could be worked out in the next week or
so .
M. Pow r ugg std th t Urb n Renewal Authority memb rs review th 11 t
of r sponsibiliti th twas includ din th p ck t. Ms. Pow rs asked
th t any cone m s or ugg stions be submitted to th st ff.
V. SECRETARY 'S REPORT.
M. Powers st ted that Public Haring on th Downtown Rd v lopm nt Plan
b (or the City Council is sch dul d for August 23, at 7:30 P.M. Th City
Council will b consid ring bro d r cop of issu th n cons! tency with
th Compr h n iv Pl n.
Arap ho County
district. Sh
nt r garding
I • •
-
•
•
• -
-8-
Ms. Powers stated that at the September 1st meeting, i t e ms that will be
considered include request fo r developers, procedures fo r acquisition ,
and proposals fo r appraisers.
Ms. Powers stated that she and Mr . Hinson a nd o ther staff members will be
at tending a meeting in Fort Collins on Friday , August 6th. Financin g parking
is a topic for discussion at this meeting.
A draft of the Downtown Zo ne Dis trict will be discussed with Mr. Ensign
of Design Work s hop, Inc ., in a meeting scheduled for August 5 , 1982.
Ms. Powers s tated that two CDBG applications are being prepared. The funds,
if received, would be available for rehab work on South Broadway.
Ms . Powers suggested that the By-laws b amended to includ e a section on
"Conflict of Interest". Mr. Powell suggested that this be placed on the
agenda for discussion.
Ms . Powers s t ated that she and Mr. Hinson met with RTD representatives on
the proposed Transit Center and alternative sites and design s are being
s tudied.
Ms. Powers discussed a meeting with Brady Enterprises on market i ng and re-
ported that Mr. Brad y has i ndi cated he feels this is his responsibility.
Ms. Powers discussed Design Guidelines and r quests for proposals. This
matter was tabled by the EDDA Board.
VI. COMMISSI ONER 'S CHOICE .
Mr. Powell stated that he and Mr. McClung, as Ch innan and Vic -Chainnan
of the Urban Renewal Authority, will b att ndlng m etlng with Mayor Otis,
Ma yor Pro-tem Bradshaw , and EDDA Chairman G sson on August 5th to discuss
communications problems betw en appointed bodi Discussion en u d.
Mr. Dickinson xpressed strong concern that no on s peak "for" th Authority
without clearanc by th Authority, nd k d if thi was n "offici l"
m eting.
Hr. Fitzp trick di cuss d o
such a m tin •
of th re son which Council la arr nt
Mr. McClung xpr d hi b li f th t
bodi s to work from, and th, t th1 ia
op r tion b tw nth v rlou boards
Hr. Dickin on r qu at d r port on th
80
Th tin djourn d t 7: 0 P.H.
co
•
n ground for all
Chi V
I • •
-•
• -
BOARD OF ADJUSTI!ENT AND APPEALS
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
August 11, 1982
5 C
MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called t o order
at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Ro ger Gage.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
!"EMBERS ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Kreiling, Seymour, Gage
Hallagin, Dawson, Leonard.
Brown
Dorothy A. Romans, Assistant Director, Planning
Tom Holland, Assistant City Attorney
Larry D. Yenglin, Planner I
Jane Coleman, Recording Secretary
* * * * *
BOARD MEMBER HALLAGIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY
14, 1982 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS.
Board Member Seymour seconded the motion.
Upon call of the roll, all members present vot din th affirmative. The
Chairman ruled that th minutes stand APPROVED as writt n.
* * * * *
BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE
NO. 11-82, DONALD KOZA, FOR 4700 BLOCK SOUTH CLAY COURT: AND IN CASE
NO. 12-82, RORY CHETELAT, 3626-26~ SOUTH BANNOCK STREET, ENGLEWOOD,
COLORADO.
Discu sion follow d. Dorothy Romans
3626-2 ~ South Banno c k.
tom ke th
him the
to vac t
iaion to
a th Board'•
to
•• Mr. Ch t lat
to UI th •••
ard b r Halla in nd d th tin.
•
I • •
n
August 11, 1982
Minutes
•
• •
Pa ge 2
All members present voted in the affirmative and the Chairman ruled that the
Findings of Fact are ACCEPTED AS WRITTEN .
* * * * *
CASE NO. 13-82 BLUEBIRD INTERNATIONAL 2778 South Tejon St .
Englewood, Colorad o
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an increase in the width of a curb c ut,
identified as "E" on the attached map, from 25 feet to 42 feet to provide
easier access to their loading dock. This is a varianc e fr om Se c tion 22.5-4a (2 )
-Ingress and Egress from Public Streets -Driveways.
Chairman Gage stated that he had verification of posting and the legal advertisin g
o f this case has been g iven. Applicant Bluebird International, being represented
by Mr. Von R. Fransen, contractor, was sworn in, and he presented the f o llowing
evidence in support of the request. A letter signed by Mrs. Beverly l. Zehrun g
s t a ting tha t Mr. Von Fransen had her Power o f Attorney was presented to the sec retary .
Mr. Von Fransen stated that the property is in an industrial-warehouse type are a
and that semi-trucks in this area was not unusual. The loading do c k as shown on the
enc losed map, i s a 42' wide dock with a 6' ramp within that, using 36' for a c tual
l oading space . The City require.men ts for c urb c uts are limited to 25'; as such it
make s it dif f icult for trucks to get in and out if the c urb c ut i s kept at that
wi dth , he s tated. H stated that the c ity 's standard o f 25' would limit th own er 's
a b il ity t o hav f ull u s e of the loading fac ilities .
Upon q uestionin g by the Board, Mr. Von Frans en s t a ted that the owner wou l d no t ha ve
a ny o bjection to 36' c urb c ut, rather than the 42 ' in th e r e que s t.
Mr . Von Fr n s n s t a t d that i f the Bo a rd wi s hed c ur b c ut s A, D and G a s s hown on
th a ttached ma p , fill d in , th owner would comp ly wi th those wis hes .
Ther wa s no on pp a r ing e ither fo r o r in o pp osition to t h i s reque s t. Di scussion
nsued. A plan w s ntered as At tachme n t "A", showing t h various c urb c ut s ,
d signated s A, B, C, D, E, F, G; wi t h c urb cut A, D, nd G t o b closed.
Chairman G
h ariog .
a k d that th t ff report b m d p rt of th r ecor d of th
BOARD MEMBER KREILI C MADE A MOTION THAT THE APPLICATION FOR
BLUE BIRD I TERNATIONAL AT 2778 SOUT H TE.JON STREET , CONC ERNING CASE
0 . 13-2, BE GRANTED TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE WID TH OF A CU RB
CUT IDENTIFIED AS "E" 0 THE ATTACHED HA P , FR 25 FEET TO 36 FEET
TO PROVID EASIER ACCESS TO THEI R LOADING DOCK. THIS IS A VA RIANCE
FROM SECTIO 22.5-(2) -I CR SS AND EGRESS FR PU BLIC ST REETS -
DRI VEWAYS, CO ITIONED UPO DRIVEWAY " " SHOULD BE lDENTlHED AS TH E
ENT RAN C AND DRlV AY "B" AS TH EXIT TO Tll PAR.KI C AREA IN FRONT
0 TH BUILDING; AND CURB CUTS "A", "D", AND "C" SHOULD BE REMO VED
AND REPLA WlTH VERTICAL CURB AND CUTT , AS TH S CUTS WILL 0
C B E ARY POINT O ACCE S TO TH PROP TY.
Board • r • ur cond d.
•
I •
-
August 11, 1982
Minutes
•
• •
Page 3
Discussion ensued. Upon a vet all m mbers present voted in the affirmative
and the Chairman ruled that the motion was APPROVED.
The Board members gave their findings as follows:
Mr. Kreiling: I voted yes as the width of th curb cuts modified by the
engineer is in accordance with today's criteria for the size of motor vehicles
that will be using the loading dock. Also, they have agreed to the conditions
as required by the engineers.
Mr. Hallagin: I voted yes. I have checked this and could see the safety
factor there by closing off the other driveways and making a larger one to
go into the building. It would be a hardship case if they didn't have
it, therefore I voted yes.
Mr. Seymour: I voted yes. There were no objections, it was a hardship on the
driver's coming in and out; it will improve the traffic safety; therefore I
voted yes.
Ms. Dawson: I voted yes. This is part of a new building addition and the
driveway that was there wasn't wide enough for present-day size of trucks.
This will ease the situation.
Mr. Leonard: I voted yes. This is an industrial area where they use the load-
ing docks and it would present a hardship to stay within the 25' driveway in
today's trucks that come in there; it's a safety factor to increase to 36'.
He has two letters of approval from the neighbors and no objections.
Chairman Gage: I voted yes. I felt they met the six conditions it takes to
grant a variance. They do have a hardship with modern-day traffic, trailer
traffic coming in and out of a small curb cut and it could be a traffic hazard
the way it is now.
* * * * *
CASE NO. 14-82 E. E. AND GLORIA CHRISTIAN 560 E. Amherst Place
Englewood, Colorado
REQUEST: The applicant is
requirement from s ven (7)
eighteen (18) feet to nine
gar ge. This is a varianc
22.4-2i(2)(a) -Minimum Sid
Ch irman G
ing of this
st ted that
to maint in
h
hous wa
would b
t h
requesting a varianc from th Minimum Sideyard
feet to thre (3) f et and th total sid yard from
(9) feet for th purpos of constructin a two-car
fro th Compr h nsiv Zoning Ordinanc S ction
yard.
•
1 adv rtis-
n w orn in nd h
rty in ord r
His house,
and it wa
t it would mak
t, nd in consulting
t th ti th
prop rty, but that I • •
-
r
•
August 11, 1982 -
Minutes
•
• •
Page 4
Chairman Gage asked that the staff report be made a part of the record of the
hearing.
BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT THE APPLICATION REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT FROM SEVEN (7) FEET
TO THREE (3) FEET AND THE TOTAL SIDE YARD FROM EIGHTEEN (1S)FEET TO NINE
(9) FEET FOR THE PURP OSE OF CONSTRUCTING A TWO-C AR GARAGE BE GRANTED.
THIS IS A VARIANCE FR OM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 22.4-
21 (2) (a) -MINIMUM SIDE YARD.
Boa rd Member Dawson seconded.
Discussion e nsued. Upon a vote. all members present vo ted in th e affi r mative
and the Chairman ruled that the motion was APPROVED.
The Board Members gave their findings as follows:
Mr. Kreiling: The six reasons as given by the applicant showed a hardship and
therefore I voted yes.
Mr. Hallagin: 1 voted yes. To get the car s off the street, it's a real nice
neighborhood and the six reaso ns for the variances showed a necessity, and there-
fore I voted yes.
Mr. Seymour: There were no objections from the neighbo rs; it seem d t o be a
hardship; he met the six conditions for a variance; it will be in keeping with
the neighborhood in building the ga ra ge , and it will bring th em into code,
parking-wise, and therefore I voted yes.
Ms. Dawson: I v oted yes . There was no opposition from his neighbors; he showed
that leaving the car on the street c reat e d a hardship; it wil l keep the car
off the street.
Mr. Leonard: l v o ted yes. He has four 1 tters of approva l from his neighbors
and no opposition. He ge ner ally meets the requirements for a variance: thy
are the only ones in the neighborhood wh o do not have a garage. It will gt the
cars off the street and it would be a hardship case during th winter ash ls
on call at all hours; and it will knock o ut the pr sent driveway and it will
improv th n ighborhood.
Chairman Gag : l voted yes. H had four lett rs of approval from his n r st
neighbors; it will provide som off-tr et parking nd cover fo r th vehicl
and he had all th r quir ments it takes to grant a vari nc .
Dorothy Romans report d that th
r qu st is scheduled to come
r port d further that th Pl nnin
* * * * *
of En 1 woods nding ou t
north-
•
I • •
-
r
•
August 11, 1982
Minutes
•
• •
Page 5.
she further explained. The staff would be taking a block or two at a time.
The letters would not be sent out all over the city at the same time; so it
should spread any variance requests out, she explained.
The Board of Adjustment and Appeals were invited by Dorothy Romans to view the
City quilt made by the Crazy Quilters, and see the quilt case donated by the
members of the Planning CollDllission.
There being no further business before the Board, Chairman Gage adjourned the
August 11, 1982 regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals at 8:30
p .m.
J~ Coleman, Recording Secretary
•
I • •
•
• •
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
August 17, 1982
I. CALL TO ORDER .
5 D
The regular meeting of the City Plannin g and Zoning Commission was called
to order by Chairman McBraye r at 7:00 P.M.
Members present: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Barbre, Carson
Romans, Acting Ex-officio
Members absent: Allen, Becker, Gilchrist
Also present: Jeri Linder , Planning Technician
It was noted that Mrs. Becker had called earlier in the day to state she
would be unable to attend; a c ast had been put on her foot and ankle earlier
this date, and the doctor had ordered her to stay off the foot until the
cast had set.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Chairman McBrayer stated that minutes of the meeting of August 3 , 1982,
were to be considered for approval.
Ca rson moved:
Stoel seconded: Th Minutes of August 3, 1982, be approved as written.
AYES: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma , Barbre, Carson, McBray r
AYS: None
ABSENT: Allen, Beck r, Gilchrist
The motion c rried.
Mr. Allen ent red th m ting and took his chair with th Co ission.
III.
tter w
applicant
CASE '17-82
continu d fr011 th Au ust 3rd
addition 1 ti to clarify o
I • •
•
• -
-2-
that the site was excavated to keep the structure which was moved onto the
property at a "low profile" because of its size, and the soil which was
excava ted was used in construction of the berms. Mr. Berardini reiterated
that the drainage had been approved by the City at the time the "Brown House"
was relocated to the site. Mr. Berardini stated that future development
would be subject to approval of a drainage plan that would have to be s ub-
mitted with the plans for development. He stated that the applicants wanted
to assure the Planning Commission there will be no water coming off this
property to damage adjoining properties . Mr. Berardini stated that Mr.
Ca ndella was present if the Planning Commission had any question s of him.
Mr. Berardini then addressed the matter of fire protection. He sta t ed
there is a fire hydrant on the northeast corner of Dartmouth and University
Boulevard, which is in the City of Denver. Englewood has a fire hydrant
at Da rtmouth Avenue and Dartmouth Circle; and the City also ha s a hydrant
at the southwest corner of Dartmouth Place and South University Boulevard .
Mr . Berardini noted that the staff report addendum s tates that both of the
hyd rants in Englewood are in excess of 600 feet of Parcel "C", apparently
required by the Uniform Fi re Code. He s tated he was unsure of the means
of measurement from these hydrants to the subject site . Mr. Berardini
stated that the applicants feel that any need for fire s uppression could
be handled with the existing hydrants. He stated they real ize that if the
hydrant in Denver were to be used, it would cause traff ic disruption on
South Universi ty Boulevard, but did not feel this wa s a valid consideration
in requiring installation of another hydrant by the applicants. Mr. Berardini
stated that the Baptist Church has to have fire protection also; and that
this service would presumably be from the hydrant across University Boulevard in Denver .
Mr. Berardini then discussed an agreement between Englewood and Denver,
which would allow use of hydrants in the adjoining municipality, even
though equipment may not be dispatched unless it is a matter of life safety.
The cost of installation of the fire hydrant was discussed by Mr. Berardini;
he stated to have the total cost of installation borne by one property owner
seems unreasonable.
Water service was addressed by Mr. Berardini, s tating that th re is a 6"
main in Dartmouth Avenue, which goes to Unive rsity Boulevard, and then runs
outh in Univ raity from that point.
Di
tioned th di tance from th
B rardini stimat d th di t
hydrant. Di cu
inde d an agr ement
would b rvic
it to th fire hydr nt in
to be 260 f t to th n r st
Mr. All n stat d that
would llow use of that
600 foot limit cit d
[fie probl m on South Univ raity that would r ult from u ing th
r hydrant w re discus d. Mr. All n stat d h did not f l this is
t probl m.
Mr. McBray r stat d that if in tallation of fir
r quir d condition of th pprov 1, futur own rs
b un war of th r quir m nt until thy ppli d for
•
I • •
•
•
• •
-3-
Mr . St oel as k ed i f thi s r e quirement wo ul d have to b e fulfilled b y Mr. a n d
Mrs. Chesler, or who e v e r develops the sit e i n the future ? Mr. McBra ye r
stat e d that this would go with the land a nd would be "buyer beware ".
Mr. Al l en stated that "the City i s , i n e ssence, saying we are remis s i n no t
having put in a fire hydrant in thi s loc ation; now we have someone who wa n t s
t o build, so we'll get him to do it"; he s tated that this doesn't "s it" with
him. If there i s a need for a fire hydrant there, the City should put i t in .
Mr . Chesler addressed the Conunission and noted that streets in the vicini t y
of any fire are blocked off as a rule; he noted that if the reason advan ced
f or requiring another hydrant is the blocking of traffic on University i f
the Denver hydrant is used, he did not feel it was sufficient r e ason to r e-
quire another hydrant at an estimated cost of $3,000. He stated he would
a ssume the Building Department would be aware of the pos s ible need f o r a
f i re hydrant, and that this could be considered logically by the de v e l ope r
a nd Building Department personnel at the time a Bui l ding Pe rmit appl icat ion
i s made. He pointed out that consideration should be given to the numb e r
of buildings to be constructed, water pressure, etc., in determining the
need. He stated that as applicants, he and Mrs. Chesler would do what e v e r
is required, but are asking that the installation of thi s fi r e h ydrant not
be made a requirement, but left open to logical argument at t i me of d e velop-
me nt.
Mr. Stoe l asked i f this wa s made a condition of the approval, would a de-
veloper have the same opportunity to present a cas e agains t the ins tal l a tion
as he might if it wa s not a requirement of the approval ? Mr s . Roman s s t a t e d
she fe lt the advantage of making the fi re hydrant a requirement i s that
futu r e pu r c ha s ers /de v elope r s would b e put on no tic e of the r e qu i r e me n t.
Mr. Stoel a s k e d if a de v elope r fe l t the requirement we r e un j us t, cou l d they
present a case i n o ppo sit ion ? Di s cussion e n s ued. Mr s . Roman s s ug gest e d
that the Plann i ng Commi ss ion c ould always preface the r e qu i rement with "if
lt is felt t o be necessar y", or "i f at the time of development, i t is fel t
necessar y t o be i nstalled ."
Mr. Ta n g uma expressed opposi t ion to "s addling" pro perty and pr o pe r ty own e r s
with requirements and restrict ions . He s t a t ed if the r equirements we r e made
a part of the record, any chan ge wo u l d r e qu i r e con sid e ration of the Planning
Commi s sion. Mrs. Romans stated that if t he requirem n ts are through a par-
t icular department, h felt negoti tions betw n that department and th
pplicant could r olv ny problem and it n d not com before th Planning
Collllli ion for furth r con id ration.
Di c u s ion follow d . Mr. McBrayer stat d h felt r q u irements and r strictions
o n prop rty hould be a matt r of r cord so that purchas rs and developer
my b aw r of th m.
Mr. All n spoke in opposition to going on r cord "r quiring" the fir
hydrant in tallation .
Mr. S nti
hydr nt
th ti
i t will
opinion that ma ki ng th int lla t ion of th fir
y be x c ding wh at i i n e d d; h not d th t t
if ther ia a n d and r qui r nt for th hydr nt
I • •
•
•
• •
-4-
Mrs. Romans pointed out the reasons for requiring subdivision of raw land --
to assure proper access, utility service, etc., so the property can be de-
veloped. The waiver to the Subdivision Regulations was designed to be used
when there is access, utility service , etc. but the land is not part of an
approved subdivision, and is being divided. She stated she felt the question
the Planning Commi ion is considering is where the responsibility to me e t
the conditions should be placed --on the person dividing the propert y or
future o\Jllers/dev lopers? She pointed out that if a large piece of ground
is being platted, the burden of the necessary public improvements is on
the s ubdivider.
Mrs . Romans discu sed the history of the subject site --noting thi s is the
third or fourth time the Planning Commission has considered division of the
land formerly O\Jlled by the Hampden Hills Baptist Church. She pointed out
that Parcel C, under conside ration at this time, is large enough to acconunodate
more than one residential use on it.
Mr. Allen stated he still questioned the necessity of an additional fire hy-
drant in this area; would one or two additional buildings put a great over-
load on the existing capabilities, or it is more a matter of convenience?
Mrs. Romans s tated it is more a mattell Wf "reach" from existing hydrants in
Englewood than overload.
Mr. Harold Cordella addressed the Commission. He noted that developers
and subcontractors know they have to meet any requirements and obligations
in order to develop a property. He stated that the city imposes rule s and
regulations governing developments, but from the di scussion that has occurred
he feels the Commission is saying the present property O\Jller would have to
comply with the laws and regulations before development of the land. Dis-
cussion ensued.
Tanguma moved:
Barbr seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Subdivi sion Waiv r
as requested by Hr. and Hrs. Leonard Chesl r for prop rty
at 2303 East Dartmouth Avenue, with the following conditions:
1. A drainage plan needs to be submitted before a Building Permit is i sud.
2. Curb, gutter and sidewalk along th South University Boulevard nd E t
Dartmouth Av nu frontag of both parcels is to be in tall d to City
specifications at th O\Jll r' xp ns b for a Building P nait i i u d.
3. A stre t d sign hall b submi tt d
existing asphalt hall b pav d to
expense be for Building P rmit i
4. B for ny Building p rmit i is11u d, th wat
to b r solv d.
5. Th t n a em nt of t lat fiv additional
th 15 foot by 95 foot trip of Pare 1 "C".
tend alon ntir b ck portion of Pre 1
of th loping and 1o1 t r and s
d to maintain th lin
n th curb nd
at th own r'
rand w r rvic n
d. Mr. McBrayer tat d h flt th n ad for a fir hy-
d
Di cu sion follo
dr nt s hould t 1 t b pointed out, nd ug t d tha ixth condition
•
I • •
•
•
•
• -
-5-
re a d:
6. "D e velope r s s houl d be aware that the pote nt i al i n s tal l at ion of a fi r e
hydrant i n the Dartmouth Avenue/Unive r si t y Boulevard vicini t y mu st be
a ddre ssed bef ore any new Building Pe rmit s are issued on Parcel C".
Discussion f ollowed. Mr. Tanguma and Mr. Barb re acce p ted the s u gges t ed
six th cond i tion, and incorporated it into the mot ion.
The v ote wa s called:
AYES : Stoel , Ta ngum a , Allen, Barbre , Ca r son, Mc Br ayer , Se nti
NAYS : No ne
ABSENT: Becker, Gilchrist
The motion carried .
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT CA SE 015-82
1236 East Hampden Avenue
Chairman McBrayer stated that Findings of Fact on Case #15-82 , the location
of an auto transmission/clutch repair hop at 1236 East Hampd en Avenue, w r
to be considered for approval.
Carson moved:
Stoel seconded: Th Planning Coaaisaion approv the Finding s of Fact for
Ca 115-82.
AYES: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel
AYS: Non
ABSENT: Becker, Gilchrist
The motion car ried.
V. ARCADE CASE 1118-82
25 West Girard Av ati ue
Mr. McBrayer announced that the Public H aring on th amusement arc d pro-
posed to be located at 25 W st Girard Av nu ha b en r chedul d for Augu t
24th at 7:00 P.M.
VI . CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION CASE 119-82
Mrs. Roman t t d that M. Pow rs had hop d to b
thi di cu sion , and h d indicat d s h would b hr
little after .
pr sent for
Mr. McBr yr s ugg at d that th ord r of th ag nda b
di cu ion on Co ndominium Conversion to b laat.
VII. PUBLIC FORUM.
about 8:00 P.M. or
ltered to allow
Mr. McBr yr ask d if ny mb r o th
Co asion? No on indicated ad air
audi nc would lik to ddr
to ap ak to th Conn.1 aion.
• th
•
I • •
•
• •
-6-
VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE.
Ms. Romans stated that she has nothing new to report on the Prowswood de-
velopment, except that some of the residents in Kent Village are not pleased
with the mounding of soil being excavated from the area of the propo s ed lake ;
the staff is attempting to work out a solution to this problem and relocate
this mound of dirt.
The remodeling in Cinderella City is progressing; the contract for the Broad-
way is reported to have been signed, and this will be their prime location in
the Denver area . Many of the other stores are in the midst of remodeling
their quarters, also.
!rs. Romans stated that Assistant City Attorney Holland indicated that he
will be gathering the information the Commission desired outlining the role
and responsibility of the Commission, and will be prepared to present th is
f or discussion at the next meeting.
Mrs. Romans stated that copies of the letter from Chairman McBrayer to the
City Council have been given the Commission for their information.
Mr s . Romans reported on progress that is being made on the revision o f th e
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. She stated that it is hoped that s ome thing
will be available for discussion by the Commission in September.
Mr s . Romans stated that s he was asked to extend Mr. Gilchrist's apolog ies
f or hi s absence; he is on a fishing trip to Canada.
IX. COMMISSION'S CH OI CE .
Mr . Tanguma stated that h has received vera l complaint about a ho use
at B l leview and South Elati Way; a bu sine ss i appare ntly be ing run from
thi r es idence , and truc k s ar parked along Elat i e re ting a traffi c hazard .
Mr . T nguma s tated that ther are als o r port s th t thi propert y ha s tr e
"stor d " in the bac k yard on occa ion. Mr. Rom n s t a ted tha t the ta f f
would c heck i nto thi s .
r. McBray r t a t d th th und r t ood Mr
to work on public r lations for th City ,
M nd y , Augu t 23rd. Mrs. D lquiat h s b
uppl th ngl wood a r •· H
g od p nd a hot in th
Engl
M • p rs tin
p
d z th t n o t h
ion durin t
p cific d
fir t part o t
•
t
y
CAS
nt
I • •
n
•
•
• •
-7-
of an ordinance pertaining to conversion of apartment unit s to condominium
units. A s taff r e port and background research wa s prepared by Planning
Technician Jeri Linder, and has been presented as a point of di scuss i on
at this meeting. The staff would like to determine what points the Com-
mission feels should be addressed in s uch an Ordinance.
Ms . Powers stated that the concern of the s taff is a s the res ult of in-
quiries about converting 152 family-units in Kimberly Village to condominium
un i t s . It was proposed that these units, upon conversion, would sell for
approximately $100,000; the families who are renting these units would prob-
ably not be able to afford to purchase the unit, and would be di s placed.
This would result in their having to leave Englewood because of the lack of
rental units that will accommodate familie s . Ms . Powe r s s tate d that the r e
has b een no follow through on these inquiries.
Ms . Powers stated that condominium conversions are very pop ula r on the east
and west coast, and are becoming more prevalent in this area. Thi s activity
has a considerable impact on the low-i n come , mode rate-in come , and e lderly who
may b e displaced by not being able to afford the pur chase of the unit once it
is conv e rted. Ms. Powers s tated that the State of Colorado did pass the
Condomi n i um Ownership Act, which requires written notification to t e nant s ,
and guarantees 90 days o r the length of the lease before being evicted . The
Ownership Act also contains o the r general requirements. Upo n researching
the adjacent communities , the staff found that none of them had adopted
condomin i um guidelines, although Boulder does follow the State standards.
Ms. Po wers s tated that the report addresses tenant interests and buyer in-
terests, and cites provisions for the protection of the tenants and buyers
that are frequently included in condominium conversion ordinanc s. Ms.
Powers stated that it seems to b more acceptable to provid for protection
of the prospective buyer than it is to provid protection for th existing
tenant .
Discussion ensued on benefit s that tenant could receive upon conv rsion.
The length of tenancy was also consider d. Mr. Stoel point d out that th
buildings that ar conve rted ar oft n old; the new owners are not aware
of th 1 ngth of time individuals have liv din the building. He comm nted
that the report seemed to be slanted to favor protection of the tenant , and
qu stion d the responsibilities owners hav to tenants. He stated that d -
veloper would have to honor a leas if a ten nt was on leas .
Mr. McBr yr st t d th t ther w r so of th prot ction item propos d for
such a a six months notic , fir t right of purcha , and requiring
r s !stance i n locating anoth r it tor nt that h could und r-
However, h could not agr r quiring dev lop rs to pay rent for
nt, paying relocation expen tc.
Ms. Pow rs commented that givin th
11k good busin a. Mr. Sto 1 a r
t nants fir t right of r fus 1 s
d that it would b •
Mr. McBr yr stat d that p rh pa th d v lop r could offer good financin
who do purchas unite. Mr. Sto 1 a r d that thi po1 ibility
explor d.
Mr. Allen comm nt d that "it'• hard to work up• lot of coe •• ion for
t n nt , and cit d inst nc • of d 1truction by ten nt •
•
d
)
I • •
•
• -
-8-
Mr. McBrayer stated he understood that special c onsideration should be
requ i red for the handicapped and elderly tenants.
Page 10 of the report was considered at length. Ms. Power s pointed out
that State Law requires a 90-day notice to tenants.
Mr. Stoel suggested that "low" and "moderate" income should be defined.
Ms. Powers stated that HUD guidelines would be used to determine income
levels.
Mr. Stoel stated he wanted to see some rules for develope rs and persons
wanting to convert units --a set of guidelines to be used in accomplishing
conve r sion of unit s .
Mr . McBrayer stated that what has been presented is an outline, and need s
to be filled in.
Mr. Allen stated he could not understand the necessity for tenant protection.
Ms. Powers s tated that tenant protection is a requirement of State Law.
Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated h felt th Commission wanted to see
some thing "non-radical ", with very basic lem nt s for protection of tenants;
it should set out guidelines for the persons converting the units, and in-
clude means to protect the buyer .
Mr. Tanguma stated he felt the Stat Law provid pr tty good prot c tion;
h stated he felt the matter of bringin th building up to Co de is th
pri ry i sue we ne ed to address.
ni problem of new buildings having t o b
but buildings being converted not havin to
di cu ed. Mr. Allen stated he did n ot f
. P r s commented that the Fi r e Depart n is tr in
nt for e xi s ting buildings to assur prot ction for
for ho own rs. Mr. Stoel stated that if the r nt
p cific standards ,
tandard., wa
tandard" wa right.
d v lop r quire-
w 11 a
atisfi d with
th accommodations, they can move; he did acknowl d is a housing
shortag which will be getting wor se .
T n nt prot ction provisions were further con id rd. lt was point d out
th t th St t Law r quir ments ar minimum r quir nts.
Mr. All n tat d h flt th tim el nt on fir t ri ht o r fu al to a
t nant hould b incr d to 90 days rath r th nth 60 days propo d.
n u
it is mutually gr
a 90-day notic
of l nd
c nnot b
not d
to tat
scratch d.
Mr. All n stat d h did n ot f el adv lop r should b r pon ibl
movin ld rly or handicapp d t n nts,
or
did not f l a
at d that 15 b
to ld rly nd rat
or
)
I • •
•
• •
-9-
tension of time were to be granted, he felt it should be no more than six
month s maximum, and not up to one year.
Mr.McBrayer also asked that the rights of the developer/converter be written
into the proposal. Mr. Stoel stated he felt the developer/converter is the
one the City should be concerned about and dealing with --not the tenant
or buyer.
Buyer protection elements were then considered. Ms. Powers noted that State
law only requires that the condo by-laws be presented to the buyer. Other
items suggested in the report are not required by the State law. Discussion
on the items suggested in the report ensued.
The requirement of a warran.ty on common elements was discus sed. Ms. Powers
stated this would include conunon laundry facilities, swimming pool, e tc.,
it would not cover ranges, dish washer•, refrigerators, etc. in the individual
units. Ms. Powers stated that the engineer's report (or physical elements
report) would indicate the condition of the appliances. She emphasized this
would not be a warranty, but a disclosure statement.
Mr. Allen questioned whether the third suggestion would mean a building would
have to be brought up to code if it does not meet the code? Ms. Powers pointed
out that it may not be possible to bring some structures up to existing code,
but it might be possible to assure compliance with the code in effect at time
of construction.
The word "certification" was qu stioned. Mr. McBrayer sugg sted that possibly
this ction should b a "disclosure" of compliance with the cod s rather
than "c rtifi ca tion of co pliance". Ms . Pow r stated she felt certification
of complian with th cod in ff c t t time of construction could be done.
CUB
Mr. T n uaa di cu
compliance wa furth r di -
if compliance with pr s ent
priced units would go to high-
tructure hould b brought into
bly po ssib l • Ms. Powers qu s tion d
d th n d for saf hou ing fort nants.
d; h
if they
think promotion of condo conv raion do a nything
th r ia an d for strict proviaion that will
H tat d th only b n fit of th! condo conversion
flt this would 1 ad to th improv
y not b up to xiatin& cod •
b d t raination
xi tin& cod or ho
•
nt of th
tur
a
I • •
-•
• •
-10-
It was suggested that the staff prepare some alternate suggestions on com-
pliance with codes.
Provision #4, compliance with Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance provisions such
as off-street parking was then discussed. Mr. McBrayer stated he would be
opposed to this provision, noting that no addit i onal land may be available
for parking. Mr. Allen pointed out that some buildings could not be approved
for condominium conversions because they cannot meet the minimum requirement s .
Mr. Stoel pointed out that if parking isn't available, people won't buy.
Mr. Stoel suggested that the conversion of office buildings and warehouse s
to condominium use also be addressed. Ms. Powers stated this facet has not
been explored because such conversions do not have the same impact on people
and safety implications.
Hr. HcBrayer stated he would like to see the report structured to address
multi-family, office, and warehouse conversions.
Mr. Allen asked how many inquiries for conversion had been received? Ms.
Powers stated that there have been inquiries on Kimberl y Village, a totally-
occupied family development. Mrs. Romans stated that an inquiry was also
received on an apartment house i n the 3700 block of South Acoma Street.
Mr. Allen a k d if there were any statistics on unit purchased by present
tenants? Miss Lind r stated the national figures show that only 22% of th
units ar purchased by th tenant.
Mr. McBray r w le d Councilman Bilo, who entered th me ting earli r during
th abov di cu aion.
Bri f di cu ion enau don th condo conversion report.
Hr. McBra er d clar d th ae ting adjourn d at 9:25 P.M.
,
I .
•
• •
CITY PLANNIN G AND ZONING COMMISSION
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
IN THE MAT TER OF CASE NO. 15-82, )
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND )
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO §22.4-llh2 )
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, )
AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 44, SERIES )
OF 1981, THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLO-)
RADO; WHICH AMENDMENT RELATES TO THE )
OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR )
BUSINESS AS A CONDITIONAL USE. )
A Publi c Hearing was held on August 3, 1982, in connection with
Case No. 15-82 in the Ci ty Council Chambers in the Englewood City Hall.
Th e foll owing member s of the City Planning and Zoning Co111111i s sion were
present : Mr. Gilchris t, Mr. McBrayer, Mr. Senti, Mr. Stoel , Mr. Tanguma,
Mr . Allen, Mr. Barbre , Mr s . Be c ker, and Mr. Carson.
FIND I NGS OF FACT
Upon rev i ew of the eviden ce taken i n the form of tes timony ,
presentat i ons , report s , and filed do c uments, the City Planning and Zoning
Co mmission make s the fol low i ng Find i ng s of Fa c t.
1. Tha t p r ope r n o t ice of t he Public Hearing wa s gi ve n.
2. That up on the r ecommenda tion of the City Planning and Zo n ing
Co mmission , the City Co un cil a dop t ed Ordina n ce No . 44, Se r ies of 198 1 ,
ame nd ing Section 22 .4-11 h 2 of t he Compreh en siv e Zon i ng Ordinan ce ,
Ordinan ce No . 26 , Series of 1963 .
3. The amended Section 22.4-11 h 2 relat es to motor vehicle
rep ir busines sand motor vehicle laun dry or polishing b usinesses,
stabli hing th a bu ine s as Conditional Uses in th B-2 Business
Di trict.
4.
xist or b
p rmitted:
That th following r quir ments and co nditions ne d to
t as a condition by th applicant before such use may be
Ad qu t off-str t p rking apac s for cars waiting
to b • rvic d;
b) Ad quat er ning to shield s uch u se from dj c nt
raid ntial ua a;
c) Ad qu t atora o mat rials in a mann r to k p th m
from bl in off of orb in carried from th prop rty onto ad-
ja n public or private prop rty.
•
I • •
-
•
•
• -
-2-
d) All work must be performed within an enclosed structure.
S . That the property at 1236 East Hampden Avenue, which is owned
by Mr. Jess Crane, the applicant, is located in the B-2 Business District.
6. That persons appeared at the Public Hearing who indicated a
desire to address the Conunission in favor of the proposed motor vehicle re-
pair business, and that no one wished to speak in opposition to the request.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given in
compliance with §22.5-21 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
2. That two persons present addressed the Conunission expressing
their consent in favor of the proposal.
3. That the automobile transmission and clutch repair business
is permitted as a Conditional Use in the B-2 Business District.
4. That the transmission and clutch repair business is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan as the business will provide a service to the
area. )
5. That the adverse impacts will be minimized because there
a re provisions for:
Off-street parking.
The work will be in n enclo ed structure.
Storage of materials used in relation to the business
will be enclos d.
Wheeled traffic will b located at the front of the
property and away from th adjacent residential district
to the south.
6. That the applicant will comply with Article 29 of the 1979
Uniform Fir Code.
ACTION ----
Therefor , th City Planning nd Zoning Conunission approve th
r qu a t of Hr. J ss Cran , p rmitting n auto transmi1sion and clutch r -
pair bu1ineaa to b located at 1236 Eat Hampden Av nu.
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
-3-
Upon the vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City Planning
and Zoning Commission on August 3, 1982.
Those members voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Sent i , Mr. Stoel,
Mr. Tanguma , Mr. Allen, Mr. Barbre, Mrs. Becker, Mr. Carson, Mr. Gilchrist
and Mr. McBrayer.
By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission .
•
I • •
n
•
•
• •
ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
3535 So. Sherman -Englewood, CO 80110
MINUTES
September 9, 1982
S E
Board Members Present: Bush, Close, Coleman, Gasson, Holthaus, Kaufman, Mausolf,
Maxwell, Neal, Owens, Pendleton
Staff Present: M. Haviland, P. Dietrich
Guests: Susan Powers, Dick Hinson, Dorothy Dahlquist, Maude Coffee
Chairman Gasson called the regular meeting to order at 12:25 PM on September 9, 1982.
Following introductions, the Minutes of the August Regular Meeting were presented
for approval. Mr. Kaufman moved, seconded by Ms. Bush, that the minutes of the
August 11, 1982 Regular Meeting be approved as presented. The motion was passed
unanimously by voice vote.
BILLS FOR PAYMENT -Mr. Pendleton presented the bills for payment. Mrs. Holthaus
moved , seconded by Mr. Neal, that the bills for payment be approved. The motion
was passed unanimously by voice vote.
TREASURER 'S REPORT -Hr. Pendleton presented the Treasurer's Report as of July 31,
1982. Mr. Mausolf moved, seconded by Hr. Maxwel l, that the Board accept the
Treasurer 's Report. The motion was passed unanimously by voice vote.
APPLICATION OF PROPOSED USE -Mr. Gasson presented an application for a proposed
video game fun center at 3439 South Lincoln Street, Englewood, Colorado. Diacu ••ion
followed regarding th history of video centers in Engl wood, and relat d problems
concerning loitering, burglaries, drugs, and other n gative aap eta. Ms. Bush
moved, second d by Hr. Mausolf, to disappcove the application of this vid o ga
fun center. Th motion w s passed unanimously by voice vote. It was not d that
a list of specific concerns be sent to the Asaiatant Director of Co unity
Development.
COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE -Hr. Gasson indicat d that a veral m etin a hav b n h ld
with this committe • IT has be n v ry helpful and th re hav b n n ral
disucssions on a wide rang of issues.
TENANT AND FACILITATOR COMMITTEE -Hr. Pendleton reported that although th upper
doll r amount of funds allocat d for relocation will not be r IIIOV d, sp cial
consid ration will b giv non a cas by case basis. Co unity Developm nt Dir t or
Pow rs explain d the rationale of the Urban Renewal Authority's d cision to
limit r location coats •
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
FINANCE AND BUDGET COMMITTEE -This subcommittee was directed by Chairman Ga sson
to meet and review the requirements for the 1983 budget.
TRI PARTY AGREEMENT -The Board received copies of the proposed Tri Party
Agreement, as written by the EDDA attorney. It is requested that the Boa rd
study this thoroughly as it will be a discussion item at the next Board meeting .
LITTLE DRY CREEK -The Executive Director gave an update of committee work to
date. The engineers will present a program to City Council on September 20, 1982.
MANAGEMENT TEAM -The Management Team has reviewed the downtown zoning dis trict
in draft form. They also reviewed the design guidelines request for proposal
with EDAW and Design Workshop. EDAW was not interested in proposing for both
Broadway and new development guidelines so it withdrew itself, leaving Design
Workshop as the firm to undertake design guidelines for the projec t. The con-
sulting needs for post development management were discussed. It was suggested
that the priority for EDDA funding should be aimed at post development manage-
ment rather than design guidelines.
CDBG FUNDS -It was decided by the City and the EDDA Board that it is mor e cost
effective fo r the City to expand its housing department and existing staff
capacity to handle this loan program. Mr, Neal indicated a need to priorit ize
the projec ts for budget purposes. Kr. Coleman indicated that some immediate
visible evidence o f c hange on Broadway's appearance is an important objective.
SLIDE SHOW PRESENTATIONS -The EDDA staff reported on the numb e r of show ings
of the Engl wood slide s how. There has been a f avorable r esponse to this
pr sentation, with more showings scheduled.
Th re bein no furth r business, Chairman Casson adjourned the regular m ting
at 1:15 PM.
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
• •
MINUTES
ENGLEWOOD PUBLIC LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
September 14, 1982
5 F· ·
Chai rman Bo b Currie called the regular meeting of the Library Advisory
Board to order at 7:55 p.m .
PRESENT:
ABSENT :
ALSO
PRESET:
Bob Currie, Wi lma Ankrum, Debbie Dix, Kay Va n Valkenburg,
Dorothy Wheelehan
Jerry Valdes, Marietta Brown, Norm Kerswill, Joe Rathburn
Ann Trowbridge, Administrative Assistant/Library
Sharon Winkle, Director of Libraries
Donna Gottberg, Recording Secretary
Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present.
A report from the Review & Implementation Committee on the proposals received f or
the Library's automated management system was presented by Ann Trowbridge. This
report included cost information and conversion costs for the system, with the
adva ntag es and disadvantages of each system being discussed. A question a nd answer
and comment period followed the report .
Sharon Winkle thanked Wilma Ankrum for giv i ng her time and effort by serv i ng on
the Review & Implementation Committee. The Board also thanked Mr s . Ankrum for
hosting an i nformal dinner for the Committee members, Board memb e rs, a nd ~Ir. Rob
McGee, the Library's consultant for the a utomated system project.
82-19 MOTION : The Board identifies the automation of library functions as a high
pr iority and recommends that such a system be implemented as soon as
po ssi ble .
Moved by: Kay Van Valkenburg
Seconded by : Dorothy Wheelehan
Motion carried.
The Board thanked Ms. Trowbridge for he r i nformat ive presentat i on.
82-20 MOTIO : The Board accepts the report of the Review a nd Implementation Committee
•
s presented by Ann Trowbridge.
Moved by: Dorot hy Wheelehan
Seconded by : ay Van Valkenburg
Mot ion carn.ed.
ts. Winkle s~ed the Board to consider an amendme nt to the Englewood Public
Library' Policies a follows:
Libr ries or <lesig ne e is custodian of 11 records related to
Eng I ewood Public Library cards a nd the use thereof."
ft r br1 f discu ion M . Winkle stated s he would d signate th Circulation
Libr ri n I ternat ustodi n .
co ntinued .•..
I • •
-•
• •
-2-
82-21 MOTION: That the amendment to existing Library Department policies as above
stated be approved.
Moved by: Dorothy Wheelehan
Seconded by: Wilma Ankrum
Motion carried.
Ms. Winkle presented the 1983 Agreement for Library Services with the Arapahoe
Regional Library District stating that it was unchanged from last year's agreement .
82-22 MOTION: That the Board accept the Agreement for Library Services with the
Arapahoe Regional Library District for 1983 and recommend that Council
approve it.
Moved by: Wilma Ankrum
Seconded by: Debbie Dix
Motion carried.
Chairman's Choice
Three Standing Committees are in the process of being formed to help with the
work of the Board. There was a brief discussion of these three committees.
Mr. Currie asked that these committees meet next month before the Board's regular
meeting (possibly at 7:00 p.m.). He and Debbie Dix will be responsible for con-
tacting members not present regarding committee appointments.
82-23 MOTION: The Board establish three standing committees to carry out some of
the work of the Board. These committees are:
Legislative Committee
Intellectual Freedom Committee
Planning Committee
Moved by: Debbie Dix
Seconded by: Kay Van Valkenburg
Motion carried.
The Library Board 1983 Proposed Budget has been decreased by $100 in the line item
of Misc. Office Supplies. This Budget is not finalized as yet.
The Colorado Library Assoc. (Cl.A) Annual Connference will be held October 20-24
at the Raddison Renaissance Center. Some members of the Board expressed a desire
to attend. Mr. Currie will participate in the conference on Saturday, Oct. 23.
~lr . Currie wil 1 obtain the Englewood Downtown Developm nt Authority Slide Show for
showing to the Board at the overnber meeting.
Members' Choice one
Th Statistical Report for ugust was briefly discussed.
2-24 MOTION : To accept the linute from the August 10, 19 2 Meeting as written .
~by: Kay Van Valkenburg
•
S conded by : Dorothy Wheel h n
Motion c rrie<l.
Meeting djourned at 10:05 p.m.
-15 -2 dg
I • •
-
'f
l
•
•
•
• •
C O U N C I L C O M M U N I C A T I O N
DATE September 15, 1982 AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT OUT-OF-STATE TRIP
ti, ()._
INITIATED BY fell s Waggoner, Director of ~Works
ACT I ON PROPOSED Approval of out-of-state trip
BACKGROUND:
The American Public Works Association Education Foundation sponsors several work-
shops each year that vary in subject matter, time of year, and location. Notifi-
cation is usually one to two months prior to the workshop.
DISCUSSION:
One of this year's workshops is a "Motor Vehicle Equipment Management Workshop"'
in Boise, Idaho on October 21-22, 1982. The program appears to be very ben fi-
cial and includes such topics as: "Maintenance Management Concepts; Mechanic
Training, Recruitment, and T sting; Fiscal Management; Fuel Conservation; Usag
of Small Colll{)uters", tc.
The pproximate cost is $650 and can be paid for from the Servicenter Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
To end M rle Stanton, Servicenter Superintendent, to this workshop .
l<W/lo
•
I • •
The Mo10t Vehtc:~ EQulPffl@tll l!Mnagemen1 Workshoc) IS
Oftigneo tor mio level and uooe, levet t1ee1 '°""""''"°''
eQu1omen1 managers ga,age suoe,\111to,1 eouioment
(Qrato, superVISOfs and 1Nted ldrfWMslfatrve Detsont'lf!'I
LODGING
~ .
•
•
• •
Fo, flJl'lher ,nfon'-tJOn aoout rhts ~ ~ Wfl
o, llill!IC)hOrw ltPWA Eoucation FoundatlOn. 1313 bit 60ttl
Street Chc.tgO IL 7 13121 667 2200
APWA WOllXSHOPSERJES
1 Pub11c Works Ptanmng Engineering
2 S1,ee1 ano Traffic Con1,04 srs,
~ Puoite BUilO•ngs ana G1ounos
lb Butioong COdes and lnsoection Servic
4a Sohd Wu1 Manaoemeo11Co1 hon 01spo,sa11
4b Soled Wast M~nagernent IUnot,tt S4llf'l9I
4c Scwid Wa le ~anagemen1 !Policy o1no
M nagemeo1 IOt SOiid W• te)
Sl1Ht C rung and S1,ee1 Mal'1tef'\ifl('e i.u..._,,,
Sew Q@COI too 1"10 Tr al"le'lt S l
f ~l'\ltc;eme,,U
c ...
•
0
~ Q ~
\l i ~ ~
§
i.'
l
"' -j
F
---..... ..... .....
..... -.....
,-..... -.... ..... .....
._ -'""" -
f
J
:II m
Q
in ....
:II ,. ....
0 z .,,
0
:II
... .~·
;
.
~
ii
~
0
-t
0 :x,
< m
I
0 r-m
m
0
C
" ~ m z
-t
~
)> z
)>
G)
m
~ m z
-t
•
• -
WORKSHOP NO. 9
MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT
MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP
SPONSORED IN CO<WERA TtON WITH
tow• Chapter -Al'WA
Roctiy Mounlo1ln CMpte, -ANA
lnttltute ICM' £~ s.mc..:
Oclooet' 11-tl, 1N2 -0.. 1111o1nN. ....
DH MoinN Marriott Hote4
700 Grand A..,... ON....._ towe i010I
5151241-HJO
...... '21 -...
October 21 22. 1N2 -llotM., lMno
Hofidey Inn -Airpon
llOO Yiate A..._,.
hiM.tdaho
-.uu ..,...,,.
°""""'"'
''TUNr
Ftrtt Day
• 00."' -,..._,, •• ..,,.
I U.m -W*°'M and lntroc:luetNtM
10 1S.ffl -lreall
10 30eM -Mechank Tr•Wne. "-CnHt,,,._.t, aM TMtint
-ti WVll.lfidl.M.,t "'I 1, 'l'Ck
,.,._..,_,,.,, -... II be P'IIM"led INOU9" 1~1,0,, of
,-,g,,1y l1.1(Ct llwt IOO l l"l •C"t 1,t1n,t19 Jl'Of'l""I
"'fil' o,,og,,,,,. '"" 111-N'lg ~··· 1)11,111
11 • m -Lwnct. cw,~
•
t JOpm -Flacal Management -Ar e,arninall(YI 01
.,,,ious 1,sca ons,oer,Jll()fl!I ,,.,., ... ea ,n t ee1 eot.,omEont
"~nagemen1 e g bu<Jget•rig rn<M'ltenaroce S,Ph11Ce ,~s
eii.. • Tt11s s~s,on a so ..... o,scuss the at1ec1 of 1T1unc: DI
,,.,. shc>t lla•t on equ,ome.,, services .Y-~ '19 •
o.s.ct.ss'°" on derot ,tv,"9 ea,N>tne"'' ,,ee<J,; e" ng
0-""•'.e<J a"'CI I iog !•eel TT\iflageme<it P'OQ1,1.,.. 10 'UC'.'
e,el ,11vec: ar.o D011Cy m,1o:e1s
2·45,pm -8 rHk
l OOpm -Problem Solvi ng Senion -Pa•t ca·'!'.
'l'l,ICI i. '9 ,. afTIII tu, w• c,,a~ •o, _,,ons 10 ltf"\
Of"er11 "YIMQe"'1ef'I pt~ I M u,"95 ()"!ty
ol'l(J~f"Olitaan.,-,
P'l'J)l•eo" !S. • c,,,, "'
• tSt:tffl -F'* ConMnaHon -
a, ·ai.. 1r me,,,. 0 ...
"'IQ'""' ,..,., ft
5 15pm -Adjoum
Secondo.,
I 00.m -Centre l Me lnt~ F.elUty ,1en""'9 -t1w ..., ,, °"' "'9 a"O cor. ti.IC
e,'11•• 'TW I ,.-~
t-oOam -u, ... ot Small Computtwa -A.() ,
•• ,c , ... ~ ,..,...~" .,
• ,a fll(M t uHG.,
10, nil -.,. ...
1 OOpm -ln1tructk>n1I Tour -lo/ •
't: ,,. t',., ......
O"' 1 p, •080 \>' Pl"
t 1)0pffl -Proot.m Sotw1ng S.HM>n -
o• !I
2 tSprn -1,,,11
2 lOpm -Fuel Control System, -n·', 1 u, 1t. . ,.
2:10pm -Altematlv. Fuels -
l l()pm -P1n1 lnwen1ory Contro l -fr, ()1'1''1orP
a.• • 'f'm N"" I "''Ct"
"' ·" IJV ..,.s•em-i
4 4S0m -Worhhop Wrap Up a nd Award Cttr1itic11 ..
5 00pm -Acljou<n
C£U
11 0... Mo.Ma,
1 l loiM ktA,N'I
•
•
• •
OODINANCE NO. BY AIJI'HORITY
SERIES OF 198~2-'~-COlJNCIL BILL NO. 42
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER BRADSHAW
AN OODINANCE DESCRIBING AND DEFINING OOSCENITY AND PROVIDING CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WHICH IT IS PROHIBITED BY AMENDING TITLE XI, OiAPTER 7, OF 'rnE
EN:;LEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE OF 1969, AS AMENDED, AND DECLARING AN ™ERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood declares that it is
in the best interest of the City of Englewood to prohibit the promotion of
obscenity within the City; and
WHEREAS, the previous Obscenity Ordinance, E.M.C. of '69, as amended,
Section 11-7-7, has been held to be unconstitutionally vague by the Englewood Municipal Court.
NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT CRn\INED BY 'rnE CITY <lXJNCIL OF 'rnE CITY OF
ENGLOOX>, COLORAOO:
Section 1. That Title XI, Chapter 7, Section 7, of the E.M.C. '69, as
amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
11-7-7: OOSCENE AATERIALS, DEVICES, AND
PERFORMANCES; PROIOI'IOI PROHIBITED
(a) Definitions. As used in this section, LD'lless the context
otherwise requires:
1 . •Mater ial• means anything tang ible that is capable of
be ing used or adapted to arouse interest, whether through the
medium of reading, observation, or sound, but does not include
an actual three-dimensional obscene device.
2. "Obscene device• means a device such as a dildo or
artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful for the
sti1T1Jlation of human genital organs.
3. "Performance• means a play, motion picture, dance, or
other exhibition performed before an audience.
4. •Obscene• means material or performance which:
a. the av rage person applying contemporary
c:ormunity standards would find that, taken as a whole, appeals
to the prurient interest in sex;
•
I • •
•
•
• •
way: b. depicts or describes in a patently offens i ve
(1) erotic representations of ultimate sex
acts, normal or perverted, actua l o r simulated, including
sexual intercourse, sodomy, and sexual bestiality, or
(2) erotic representations of masturbation,
excretory functions, sadism, masochism, lewd exhibition of the
genitals, the male or female genitals in a state of sexual
stimulation or arousal , covered male genitals in a discernibly
turgid state, or a device designed and marketed as useful
primarily for stimulation of the hLlllan genital organs, and
c. taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value.
5. •contemporary conmunity standards" means state-wide
COITIIIUnity standards as construed and applied by the finder of
fact, by reference to the average adult in the state-wide
coomunity as a who le .
6. "Patently offens i ve" means so offensive on its face as
to affront contemporary conmunity standards of decency.
7. •Promote• means to manufacture, issue, sell, give,
provide, lend, ma il , deliver, transfer, transmit, publ ish ,
distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, or
advertise, or to of fer or agree to do the same.
8. "Person" means any individual, corporation,
association, partnership, trustee, lessee, agent, or assignee.
9. "Know ingly• means having general knowledge of the
content or character of mater ial , device, or performance.
(b) Promoting obscene material, devices, and performances
prohibited. It is tu1lawful for any person knowingly to promote
or possess with intent to promote, any obscene material or
device, or to produce, present, or direct any obscen
performance or participate in a portion thereof that is obscene
or that contributes to its obscenity.
(c) Severability. If any portion of this section is found by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, the
remaining provisions are valid unless it appears to the cour
that the valid provisions are so essentially and inseparably
connected with the invalid provisions that to sev r them would
not carry out th legislativ intent in enacting this section.
2
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
Section 2. That an emergency is hereby declared in that the Englewood
Municipal Court has found legislation relating to obscene materials, devices
and performance, unconstitutional and the passage of this ordinance is
necessary for the inmediate health, safety and welfare of the public.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 7th day of Septentler, 1982.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 8th day of September, 1982.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 20th day of Septentler, 1982.
Published by title as Ordinance No.~~~·' Series of 1982, on the 22nd day of Septentler, 1982.
Attest: Eugene L. Otis, Mayor
ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer
I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of
Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true,
accurate and complete copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and
published by title as Ordinance No.~~-' Series of 1982.
Gary R. Higbee
3
•
I • •
•
•
• •
717
BY Alfl'HORITY
CJIDINANCE NO. Jq
SERIES OF 1982 COlJNCIL BILL NO. 42
INTRODUCED BY C'OUNCIL
MEM!ER BRADSHAW
AN CJIDINANCE DESCRIBite AND DEFINite OOSCENITY AND PROVIOI!',(; CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WiICH IT IS PROHIBITED BY AMaIDI!',(; TITLE XI, OIAPTER 7, OF THE
ENiLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE OF 1969, AS AMEl'IDED, AND DECLARI!',(; AN DIER:;ENCY.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood declares that it is
in the best interest of the City of Englewood to prohibit the promotion of
obscenity within the City; and
WHEREAS, the previous Obscenity Ordinance, E.M.C. of '69, as amended,
Section 11-7-7, has been held to be unconstitutionally vague by the Englewood Municipal Court.
N(),I, THEREFORE, BE IT CJID\INED BY THE CITY a>uNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EN.LO«X:>D, alLORADO:
Section 1. 'Itlat Title XI, Chapter 7, Section 7, of the E.M.C. '69, as
amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
11-7-7: OOSCENE MATERIALS, DEVICES, AND
PERFORMANCES; PR01Cfl'ICN PROHIBITED
(a) Definitions. As used in this section, unless the context
otherwise requires:
1. "Mater ial " means anything tangible that is capable of
being used or adapted to arouse interest, whether through the
medi1.1n of reading, observation, or sound, but does not include
an actual three-dimensional obscene device.
2. "Obscene device" means a device such as a dildo or
artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful for the
sti111Jlation of human genital organs.
3. "Performance" ns a play, motion picture, dance , or
oth r xhibition rformed fore an audience.
4. "Obscene" means material or performance wh ich:
th av rag person applying contemporary
camunity s nd rds would find that, taken as a whole, appeals
to th pruri nt interest in sex;
I • •
•
• -
b. depicts or describes in a patently offensive
way:
(1) erotic representations of ultimate sex
acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including
sexual intercourse, sodomy, and sexual bestiality, or
(2) erotic representations of masturbation,
excretory functions, sadism , masochism, lewd exhibition of the
genitals, the male or female genitals in a state of sexual
stimulation or arousal, covered male genitals in a discernibly
turgid state , or a device designed and marketed as useful
primarily for stimulation of the hl.l'llan genital organs, and
c. taken as a whole, lacks serious literary ,
artistic, political, or scientific value.
5. "Contemporary C01T1T1unity standards" means state-wide
COITl!lunity standards as construed and applied by the finder of
fact, by reference to the average adult in the sta te-wide
COITl!lunity as a whole.
6. "Patently offens i ve" means so offensive on its face as
to affront contemporary COITl!lun i ty standards of decency.
7. "Promote" means to manufacture, issue, sell, give,
provide, l end, mail, deliver, transfer, transmit, publ ish ,
distribute, ci r culate , d isseminate, present, exhibit, or
advertise, o r to offer or agree to do the same.
8. "Person" means any individual, co rporation ,
association, partnership, trustee , lessee , agent, or assignee .
9. "Knowingly " means having general knowledge of the
content or character of material , device, or performance .
(b) Promoting obscene material , devices , and performances
prohibited. It is unlawful for any person knowingly to promote
or possess with intent to promote, any obscene material or
device, or to produce, present , or direct any obscene
performance or participate in a portion thereof that is obscene
or that contributes to its obscenity.
(c) Severability. If any portion of this section is found by a
court of competent jurisdiction to unconstitutional , the
remaining provisions are valid unless it appears to the court
that the valid provisions are so ess ntially and inseparably
connected with th invalid provisions that to seve r them would
not carry ou the legislativ intent in enacting this section.
2
•
I • •
-•
• •
Section 2. That an emergency is hereby declared in that the Englewood
Municipal Court has found legislation relating to obscene materials, devices
and performance, unconstitutional and the passage of this ordinance is
necessary for the irrmediate health, safety and welfare of the public.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 7th day of Septent>er, 1982.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 8th day of September, 1982.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 20th day of Septerooer, 1982.
Published by title as Ordinance No.Jq , Series of 1982, on the 22nd day of Septerooer, 1982.
Attest: Eugene L. Otis, Mayor
ex officio City Clerk-Trt:!asurer
I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of
Engl~, Colorado, hert:!by certify that the above and foregoing is a true,
accurate and complete copt of the :1r_ince passed on final reading and
published by title as Ordinance No _, Series of 1982.
Gary R. Higbee
3
0
I • •
•
OODINANCE NO. )JV
SERIES OF 198z'--
BY AUTHORITY
•
• •
1 B·~
COUNCIL BILL NO. 43
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER BILO
AN CJIDINANCE AlmiORIZI~ 'IliE ISSUANCE OF A CITY OF ~LEWOOD, COLORADO,
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND (ARAPAHOE OR'IliOPAEDIC PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATIOO PRQJECT), SERIES A, IN 'IliE PRINCUIPAL AMOUNT OF $428,000; AND
APPROVI~ 'IliE FORM AND AUTHORIZI~ 'IliE EXECUTIOO OF CERTAIN OOCUMENTS
RELATI~ 'IliERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Englewood, Colorado (the Issuer), is
authorized by part l of article 3 of title 29, Colorado Revised
St~tutes 1973, as amended (the Act), to issue revenue bonds for
the purpose of financing projects to the end that business
enterprises will locate, expand or remain in the Issuer, to
enter into financing agreements with others for the purpose of
providing revenues to pay such bonds, and further to secure the
payment of such bonds: and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 30, duly adopted on June 28, 1982
(the Inducement Resolution), the Issuer committed itself to
issue such bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Act
for the purpose of financing a medical clinic (the Project) for
Nancy M. Magill and Charles o. Magill (the Borrowers), to be
located within the Issu rand leased to Arapahoe Orthopaedic
Professional Corporation (th T nant): and
WHEREAS, th following docum nts have been submitted to the
City Council (th Council) and filed in the office of the City
Cl rk (th Clerk) and r there available for public inspection:
(a) a Loan Agr em nt, to be dat d as of October 21, 1982
(th Lon Agr ment), betwe n the Issuer and the Borrow rs,
-1-
•
I •
•
•
• •
(b) a Trust Indenture, to be dated as of October 21, 1982
(the Indenture), between the Issuer and The Colorado National
Bank of Denver, as Trustee (the Trustee); and
(c) a Mortgage and Security Agreement, to be dated as of
October 21, 1982 (the Mort9age and Security Agreement), between
Nancy M. Magill, as mortgagor and debtor, and the Trustee, as
mortgagee and secured party; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to authorize at this time the
issuance of a City of Englewood, Colorado, Industrial
Development Revenue Bond (Arapahoe Orthopaedic Professional
Corporation Project), Series A, dated October 21 , 1982, in the
princ ipal amount of $428,000 (the Bond); and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to i ssue the Bond by ordinance and
to approve the form and authorize the execution of the
aforementioned documents thereby.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI TY OF ENG LEWOOD,
COLORADO:
Section 1 . Approvals and Author i zations. The for ms of Loan
Agreement (i nc lud i ng t h e f o 1r m o f No te attached the r eto),
Indenture (including the fo1 ·m of Bond contained therein), and
Mortgage and Security Agreement are hereby approved. Th Mayor
and the Clerk are her by authorized and dir cted to execute, as
appropr i te, the Lon Agreem .ent, the Indenture and the Bond and
affix the seal of the Issuer thereto and further to xecute and
authentic t such other documents, instruments or certificat s
a are d em d n cessary or d1!airabl by bond couns l in order to
iasu and secur th Bond. f;uch docum nta ar to b xecut din
-2-
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
substantially the form hereinabove approved, provided that such
documents may be completed, corrected or revised as deemed
necessary by the parties thereto in order to carry out the
purposes of this Bond Ordinance. Copies of all of the documents
shall be delivered, recorded, and filed as provided therein.
When executed, the Loan Agreement shall be assigned to the
Trustee as provided in the Indenture.
The proper officers of the Issuer are hereby authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to bond counsel certified copies
of all proceedings and records of the Issuer relating to the
Bond and such other affidavits and certificates as may be
required to show the facts relating to the authorization and
issuance thereof as such facts appear from the books and records
in such officers' custody and control.
The approval here by g i ven to the various documents referred
to above includes the approval of such addit i onal deta i l s
there i n as may b e nece ssar y and appropriate for the i r completion
and such modification s the r eof, de l et i on s t h e re from , and
additions thereto as may be mutually appr ove d by bond coun sel
and the City Attorney prior to the execution of the documents.
The execut i on of any instrument by the appropriate officers of
the Issuer here i n authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the
approval by the Issuer of such instrument in accordance with the
terms her of.
Section 2. Issuance of Bond. The Issuer shall issue the
Bond for the purpose, in the form and manner, and upon the terms
aet forth in this Bond Ordinance, the Loan Agreement, the
Indenture, and the f orm of Bond aet forth in the Indenture.
-3-
•
I • •
•
•
• •
The maximum net effective interest rate authorized for the
Bond is fifteen percent (151) per annum. The actual net
effective interest rate for the Bond is fourteen and one-half
percent (14.51) per annum.
Section 3. Determinations. It is hereby found, determined
and declared that:
(a) the financing of the Project will promote the public
health, welfare, safety, convenience and prosperity and promote
and develop trade or other economic activity by inducing
bus i ness enterpr i ses to locate, expand, or remain in the Issuer
and the State of Colorado in order to mitigate the serious
th r ea t of extensive unemployment and to secure and maintain a
balanced and stable economy for the Issuer and the State of
Coloradoi
(bl the amounts necessary in each year to pay the principa l
of a nd i nterest on the Bond are a s fol l ows:
YEAR PR I NCIPAL I NTEREST TOTA L
1 98 3 $ 8 ,000 $6 0 ,5 08.5 0 $68,508.5 0
198 4 10 ,000 60,900.00 70,900.00
19 8 5 15 ,000 5 9,4 5 0.00 74,4 5 0.0 0
1986 15,000 57 ,275 .00 72,275 .0 0
1987 15,000 55,100.00 70 ,100 .00
1988 20,000 52,925.00 72 ,925.00
1989 20,000 50,025.00 70,025.00
1990 2 5 ,000 47,125.00 72,125.00
1991 30,000 43,500 .00 73,500.00
1992 3 5 ,000 39,150.00 74,150.00
1993 35,000 34,075.00 69,075.00
1994 40,000 29,000.00 69 ,000.00
1995 45,000 23 ,200.00 68 ,200.00
1996 55,000 16,675 .00 71 ,675 .00
1997 60 ,000 8,700.0 0 68,700.00
(C) the amount necessary to be paid each year into any
reserve funds which th Council m y deem adv isabl to establish
-4-
I • •
-
•
•
• •
in connection with the retirement of the Bond and the
maintenance of the Project is $0;
(d) the Loan Agreement provides that the Borrowers shall
maintain the Project and carry all proper insurance with respect
thereto1
(e) the Loan Agreement requires that the Borrowers pay the
taxes which the taxing entities specified in Section 29-3-120(3)
of the Act are entitled to receive from the Borrowers with
respect to the Project;
(f) the payments required in the Loan Agreement to be made
are sufficient to pay the principal of, and interest on, and any
premium due in connection with the redemption or prepayment of
the Bond when due and to pay all other costs required in the
Loan Agreement to be paid,
Section 4. Nature of Obligation. Under the provisions of
the Act, and as provided in the Loan Agreement, the Indenture
and the Bond, the Bond shall be a special, limited obligation of
the Issuer payable solely from, and secured by a pledge of, the
revenues derived from the Loan Agreement and shall be further
secured by the lien of the Indenture upon said revenues and by
the lien and security interest of the Mortgage and Security
Agreement upon the Proj ct and the other prop rty described
therein, The Issuer will not pledge ny of its property or
secure the paym nt of the Bond with its property. The Bond
shall never constitute th debt or ind btedn sa of th Issuer
within the meaning of any provision or l mitation of the state
constitution or statute• or th hom rule charter of th Issuer
-s-
•
I • •
•
• •
and shall not constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability
of the Issuer or a charge against its general credit or taxing
powers. In entering into the Loan Agreement and the Indenture,
the Issuer will not financially obligate itself, except with
respect to the application of the revenues derived from the Loan
Agreement and the proceeds of the Bond. The Issuer will not pay
out of its general fund or otherwise contribute any part of the
cost of the Project.
Section 5. Bond Ordinance Irrepealable. After the Bond is
issued, this Bond Ordinance shall constitute an irrevocable
contract between the Issuer and the holder of the Bond and shall
be and remain irrepealable until the Bond, both principal and
interest, shall be fully paid, cancelled and discharged in
accordance with the Indenture.
Section 6. Ratification. All action heretofore taken by
the Issuer and by the officers thereof not inconsistent herewith
directed toward the financing of the Project and the issuance of
the Bond is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed.
Section 7. Repealer. All acts, orders, resolutions,
ordinances, or parts thereof, taken by the Issuer and in
conflict with this Bond Ordinance are hereby repealed, xcept
that thia repealer shall not b construed so s tor vive ny
act, order, r solution, ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore
r pealed.
s ction 8 -S v rability. If any paragraph, cl uae or
proviaion of this Bond Ordinanc, xcept S ction 4 hr of, ia
•
I • •
-•
• •
judicially adjudged inval i d or unenforceable, such judgment
shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remaining pa r agraphs,
clauses or provisions hereof.
Introduced , r ead in full , and pa s sed on first reading on the 7th da yday
of Septedler, 1982.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 8th day of September,
1982.
Read t7j t i tle and passed on fina l reading on the 20th day of
Septent>er , 198 2 .
Published t7j title as Ord i nance No . ___ , Series of 1982 , on the
22nd day of Septedler, 198 2.
Eugene L. Ot is , Mayo r
Attest:
ex officio City Cle r k-Tr asurer
I, Gary R. Hig , officio City Clerk-Treasur e r of the City of
Fr,gl , C.olor do , her t7j rtify that the bove and fo r egoing is a ru ,
accurate and complet copy of Ordinance passed on final r ading nd
published t7j tltl Ord i na • ___ , Series of 1982.
Gary R. Higbe
-7-
•
)
I • •
-
CIIDINANCE NO. 40
SERIES OF 1982
BY AUTHORITY
•
• •
COUNC I L BILL NO. 43
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MOIBER BILO
AN CIIDINANCE AUTHORIZI(I(; 'IBE ISSUANCE OF A CITY OF FN;L~D, COLORADO,
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVEllUE 800D (ARAPAHOE ORTHOPAEDIC PROFESSIONAL
COOPORATION PROJECT), SERIES A, IN 'lliE PRINCUIPAL AMOUNT OF $428,000; AND
APPROV!(I(; THE FORM AND AUTHORIZI(I(; 'lliE EXECUTION OF CERTAIN OOCUMENTS
RELATI(I(; THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Englewood, Colorado (the Issuer), is
authorized by part 1 of article 3 of title 29, Colorado Revised
St~tutes 1973, as amended (the Act), to issue revenue bonds for
the purpose of financing projects to the end that business
enterprises will locate, expand or remain in the Issuer, to
enter into financing agreements with others for the purpose of
providing revenues to pay such bonds, and further to secure the
payment of such bonds; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 30, duly adopted on June 28, 1982
(the Inducement Resolution), the Issuer committed itself to
issue such bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Act
for the purpose of financing a medical clinic (the Project) for
Nancy M. Magill and Charles D. Magill (the Borrowers), to be
located within the Issuer and leased to Arapahoe Orthopaedic
Prof ssional Corporation (the Tenant); and
WHEREAS, the following documents hav been submitted to the
City Council (the Council) and filed in the office of the City
Cl rk (the Clerk) and are there available for public inspection:
(a) a Loan Agr em nt, to be dated as of October 21, 1982
(th Lon Agreem nt), betwe n the Issuer and the Borrowers,
-1-
•
I • •
•
• •
(b) a Trust Indenture, to be dated as of October 21, 1982
(the Indenture), between the Issuer and The Colorado National
Bank of Denver, as Trustee (the Trustee): and
(c) a Mortgage and Security Agreement, to be dated as of
October 21, 1982 (the Mort~age and Security Agreement), between
Nancy M. Magill, as mortgagor and debtor, and the Trustee, as
mortgagee and secured party: and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to authorize at this time the
issuance of a City of Englewood, Colorado, Industrial
Development Revenue Bond (Arapahoe Orthopaedic Professional
Corporation Project), Series A, dated October 21, 1982, in the
principal amount of $428,000 (the Bond): and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to i ssue the Bond by ordinance and
to approve the form and authorize the execution of the
aforementioned documents thereby.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CI TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,
CO LORADO:
Se ction 1 . Appr ovals and Au thorizations. The form s of Loan
Agreement (including the form o f Note attached thereto),
Indenture (including the form of Bond c o ntai ned t he r e i n ), a nd
Mortgage and Security Agreement are hereby approved . The Mayor
and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute, as
appropriate, the LOan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond and
affix the seal of the Issuer thereto and further to execute and
authenticate such other documents , instruments or certificates
as are deemed n c ssary or desirable by bond coun sel in order to
iaau ands cure th Bond. Such documents are t o be executed in
-2-
I)
I • •
n
-•
• •
substantially the form hereinabove approved, provided that such
documents may be completed, corrected or revised as deemed
necessary by the parties thereto in order to carry out the
purposes of this Bond Ordinance. Copies of all of the documents
shall be delivered, record~d, and filed as provided therein.
When executed, the Loan Agreement shall be assigned to the
Trustee as provided in the Indenture.
The proper officers of the Issuer are hereby authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to bond counsel certified copies
of all proceedings and records of the Issuer relating to the
Bond and such other affidavits and certificates as may be
required to show the facts relating to the authorization and
issuance thereof as such facts appear from the books and records
in such officers' custody and control.
The approval hereby given to the various documents referred
to above includes the approval of such additional details
therein as may be necessary and appropriate for their completion
and such modif i cations thereof, deletions therefrom, and
addit ions thereto a s may be mutually approved by bond counsel
a nd t he City Attorne y prior to t he exec u tion o f the d o c uments .
The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officers of
the Issuer herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the
approval by the Issuer of such instrument in accordance with the
terms hereof.
Section 2. Issuance of Bond . The Issuer shall issue the
Bond for the purpose, in the form and manner, and upon the terms
set forth in thi• Bond Ordinance, the Loan Agreement, the
Indenture, and the form of Bond •et forth in the Ind nture.
-3-
I • •
-
•
•
• •
The maximum net effective interest rate authorized for the
Bond is fifteen percent (151) per annum. The actual net
effective interest rate for the Bond is fourteen and one-half
percent (14.51) per annum.
Section 3. Determinations. It is hereby found, determined
and declared that:
(a) the financing of the Project will promote the public
health, welfare, safety, convenience and pro s perity and promote
and develop trade or other economic activity by inducing
business enterprises to locate, expand, or remain in the Issuer
and the State of Colorado in order to mitigate the serious
threat of extensive unemployment and to secure and maintain a
balanced and stable economy for the Issuer and the State of
Coloradoi
(b) the amounts necessary in each year to pay the principal
of and interest on the Bond are as follows:
~ PRINCIPAL INTEREST ~
1983 $ 8,000 $60,508.50 $68,508.50
1984 10,000 60,900.00 70,900.00
1985 15,000 59,450.00 74,450.00
1986 15,000 57,275.00 72,275.00
1987 15,000 55 ,100.00 70,100.00
1988 20,000 52,925.00 72,925.00
1989 20,000 50,025.00 70,025.00
1990 25,000 47,125.00 72,125.00
1991 30,000 43,500.00 73,500.00
1992 35,000 39,150.00 74,150.00
1993 35,000 34,075,00 69,075.00
1994 40,000 29,000.00 69,000.00
1995 45,000 23,200.00 68,200.00
1996 55,000 16,675.00 71,675.00
1997 60,000 8,700.00 68,700.00
(c) the amount n cessary to be paid each year into any
reaerve funda wh ch the Council may deem advisable to eatabliah
-4 -
I • •
•
•
• •
in connection with the retirement of the Bond and the
maintenance of the Project is $0;
(d) the Loan Agreement provides that the Borrowers shall
maintain the Project and carry all proper insurance with respect
thereto;
(e) the Loan Agreement requires that the Borrowers pay the
taxes which the taxing entities specified in Section 29-3-120(3)
of the Act are entitled to receive from the Borrowers with
respect to the Project;
(fl the payments required in the Loan Agreement to be made
are sufficient to pay the principal of, and interest on, and any
premium due in connection with the redemption or prepayment of
the Bond when due and to pay all other costs required in the
Loan Agreement to be paid.
Section 4. Nature of Obligation. Under the provisions of
the Act, and as provided in the Loan Agreement, the Indenture
and the Bond, the Bond shall be a special, limited obligation of
the Issuer payable solely from, and secured by a pledge of, the
revenues derived from the Loan Agreement and shall be further
secured by the lien of the Indenture upon said revenues and by
the lien and security interest of the Mortgage and Security
Agreement upon the Project and the other property described
therein. The Issuer will not pledge any of its property or
a cure the payment of the Bond with its property. The Bond
shall never constitute the debt or indebtedness of the Issuer
within the meaning of any provision or limitation of the state
constitution or statutes or the horn rule charter of the Issuer
-s-
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
and shall not constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability
of the Issuer or a charge against its general credit or taxing
powers. In entering into the Loan Agreement and the Indenture,
the Issuer will not financially obligate itself, except with
respect to the application of the revenues derived from the Loan
Agreement and the proceeds of the Bond. The Issuer will not pay
out of its general fund or otherwise contribute any part of the
cost of the Project.
Section S. Bond Ordinance Irrepealable. After the Bond is
issued, this Bond Ordinance shall constitute an irrevocable
contract between the Issuer and the holder of the Bond and shall
be and remain irrepealable until the Bond, both principal and
interest, shall be fully paid, cancelled and discharged in
accordance with the Indenture.
Section 6. Ratification. All action heretofore taken by
the Issuer and by the officers thereof not inconsistent herewith
directed toward the financing of the Project and the issuance of
the Bond is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed .
Section 7. Repealer. All acts, orders, resolutions,
ordinances, or parts thereof, taken by the Issuer and in
conflict with this Bond Ordinance are hereby repealed, except
that this repealer shall not be construed so as to revive any
act, order, resolution, ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore
repealed.
Section 8. S verability. If any paragraph, clause or
provision of this Bond Ordinance, except S ction 4 hereof, is
-6-
•
I • •
'l_l"l
-
(
•
•
• •
judicially adjudged invalid or unenforceable, such judgment
shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remaining paragraphs,
clauses or provisions hereof.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 7th dayday
of September, 1982.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 8th day of September,
1982.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 20th day of
September, 1982.
Published by title as Ordinance No.~, Series of 1982, on the
22nd day of September, 1982.
Eugene L. Otis, Mayo r
Attest :
ex off icio Ci t y Cl e rk -Tr easur e r
I , Gary R. Higbee , ex officio City Clerk-Trea sur e r of the City of
Engle-.iood , Colorado , hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a tru ,
accur ate and com plet copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and
published by title as Ordinance No .~, Series of 1982 .
Gary R. Hi gbe
-7-
•
I • •
-
C
•
• •
C O U N C I L C O M M U N I C A T I O N
DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT Interconnection Agreement
Between Denver Water Board and
the City of Englewood September 14, 1982 7c
INITIATED BY Denver Water Board and the Englewood Water and Sewer Board
ACT I ON PROPOSED _____ Ap._.p_r_o_va_l_o_f_t_h_e_I n_t_e_rc_o_n_n_ec_t_i_o_n_A_,g._r_eeme __ n_t_w_i_t_h_t_h"""e_De'-n_v_e_r _
Water Board.
•
INTRODUCTION:
During the 1965 flood, an emergency interconnection was made at the inter-
section of Irving and Tanforan to supply water to the City of Englewood west
of the South Platte River. After the City's lines across the river were
rebuilt, the cross connection valve was closed, but the physical interconnection
between the two systems was left in place.
The Denver Water Board is seeki ng to remove such interconnections from its
system. It is not a good practice to have a direct connection in place
between two water systems. Typically, a physical break is provided which
can be readily connected in case of emergency.
The proposed Emergency Interconnection Agreement is to be used when either
municipality encounter an emergency situation and needs to receive water
from the other. It defines the locations, the costs and the methods to be
used during emergencies. With such an agreement in effect, both staffs can
react much more quickly and negotiations need not take place.
FINANCIAL DETAILS :
Englewood and Denver will share the costs equally for four (4) three (3)
inch meters for the purpose of measuring flow used during the emergency .
The rate used will be the master meter wholesale rate of the Denver Water
Department.
•
I • •
-•
• •
RECOfot'IENDATION:
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board at the July 13, 1982 meeting recoTTJTiended
approval of the Interconnection Agreement with the Denver Water Board.
•
I . •
•
• •
B'i AlJl'HORIT'i
CRDINANCE NO. COUNCIL BILL NO. 45
SERIES OF 198.~2~~-INTRODUCi:f B'i COUNCIL
M™BER <-rj
A BILL FOR
AN CRDINANCE APPROVIl'l:i AN INTERCOONECT CONTRACT wrrn 'lllE CIT'i AND COUNT'i OF
DENVER, B'i AND 'lllRoo::iH ITS BOARD OF WT\TER ca+!ISSIONERS,
WHEREAS, there is a necessity to interconnect Denver's water facilities
with the City of Englewood's water facilities to provide services in case of
an emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood Water and Sewer Board has approved the
Interconnection Contract;
NCM, 'fflEREFORE, BE IT CIUY\INED B'i 'fflE CIT'i O)UNCIL OF 'lllE CIT'i OF
EN:iLEWCXID, CDLOOAOO:
section 1. An agreement titled "Interconnection Contract", marked Exhibit A
and incorporated herein 17)' reference, is hereby approved 17)' the City Council
of the City of Englewood.
section 2. 'nlat the Interconnection Contract generally provides:
a. for a physica l connection between the City of Englewood and the
Denver water Board's facilities through a temporary fire hydrant connection
at seventeen strategic locations between the two corrmunities as set forth in
the agreement;
b. that the Wat er Board shall purchase four water meters, the cost of
which shall be divided equally between Englewood and the Denver Wat er Board;
c. Denver Wa ter Board and Englewood agree that an emergency for
purposes of this contract is defined as a ma jor fire or unforeseen system or
mechanical failure of the treated water system or a contamination of the
treated wa ter lines which causes either party to cease whole or in part
delivery of water;
d. notice shall giv n to the other party of an emergency situation
arising and the rate at which the water will be billed to the using party
shall be the Denv r Water Board's then current rate for wholesale service.
section 3. The Mayor of the City of Englewood is authorized to sign for and
on behalf of the City and th ex officio City Cl rk-Treasurer is authorized
to attest the doc1.111ent attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Introduced, r ad in full, and pa ed on firs r ading on th 20th day
of p r, 1982.
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 22nd day of September,
1982.
Eugene L. Otis, Mayor
Attest:
ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer
I , Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of
Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true,
accurate and complete copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in
full, and passed on first reading on the 20th day of September, 1982.
Gary R. Higbee
0
I • •
...... •
• -
lNTERCONNECTlON CO NTRACT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and ent red into as of the~~~~~~~~
day of , 1982, by and between THE CITY
AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipa l corporation of the State Ol
Colorado, acting by and through ,ts OARD OF WATER COMMISSlONERS ,
hereinafter referred to as "B oard ," and th CITY OF ENGLLwOOD, d
municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, here,nafLer r~(erred
to as "Englewood,"
WITNESSETH :
WHEREAS, the Board's and Englewood's water facilities a re
physically interconnected at West Ta nforan Drive and Sou h lrv,ng
Street, and
WHEREAS, there is no written cont ractual arrangement (or Lhe
physical operation, control, or maintenance of the foregoing
interconnection, and
WHEREAS, the Board and Englewood are not desirous of permanent
physical interconnections between their separate water systems, but
rather wish to identify fire hydr3nts by which their water
facilities could be temporarily interconnected in case of an
emergency, and
WH EREAS, emergency situations may occur in wh ic h it would be in
the best interest of the parties if their water systems were
temporarily connected in s uch a man ner that each could assist the
other in providing water servic during an cm rgency, and
WHEREAS, the Board and Englewood 1n the past have assisted each
other in times of emergency by means of interconnections between
their respective water aystems.
NOW TH~REFOR, 1n consideration of th premise• and the ornm1 ~ ~
and covenant• to be kept and performed by the parties hereto, 1t 11
agreed as follows,
l. The exlat1ng physical interconnection b tween Enql w ol ,nl
the Board at . Tantoran Drive and S. Irving tr et will h
disconnected from Board and Englewood [ c1l ti•• by Ho rd er w .
nglewood may inspect the cu o f o aa1d interconnecti on.
0
I • •
-
•
•
• •
The Board shall be responsible for the accounting of all the
costs concerning the cut-off. Englewood may audit the Board's
records concerning the costs associated with the cut-off.
After completion of the cut-off, the Board will bill Englewood
for 50\ of the total actual cost of the cut-off. Payment will be
due thirty (30) days after receipt by Englewood of the Board's
Invoice.
2. In the event an emergency arises, as defined herein, the
Board and Englewood may interconnect their respective water systems
through temporary fire hydrant connections at any of the locations
listed in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference made a
part hereof.
3. All emergency inte rconnections listed in·Exhibit "A" shall
be activated in strict conformance with the drawings in Exhibit "B,"
attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
4. The Board shall purchase four (4) three inch meters. Said
meters shall be of the types mentioned in Exhibit "B" (Badger Meter
Model FH-SGH or Rockwell Meter Model 125-W), or equal thereto. The
cost of purchasing the meters and required appurtenances s hal l be
equally divided between Englewo od and the Board.
s. The Board, at its sole expense, shall be responsible f or
maintenance, repair, stocking and replacement of the four meter s
mentioned in Paragraph 4.
6. The Board and Englewood agree that the identif ied f r e
hydrants wi l l only be interconnected in the event of an emer g enc y .
An emergency for the purposes of this contract 1 s defined a s a ma J o r
f i re or any unforeseen s ystem or mechanical failure of the treated
wa ter sys t em o r a c on t a min a tion of trea t ed wa••r su pp lies whlch
cause s ei t her party t o c e ase , in whole or in par t , d e l1very of
water. A shortage of untreated (raw) water shall not be dee• d an
eaergency.
7. In the event o an em rgency, as defined herein, the
r eque at1n9 pa r t y w1ll not1fy the other party ot 1ts Intenti on ·o
activate one or •ore o the f1re hydran interconnect 1o n1 as
ne c111a ry to d1l1ver wate r 1nto itl system from the o ne r p ,ty'
ayst••· Notiflcat1on to the Board w1ll beg ven tot wa•e, ~ s
ection during regular bus nes• hours or to the aosr d'1 c si,. n
•
0
I • •
n
I
•
• •
during non-busin es s hours. Not1f1cation to Englewood will h e m~de
to the Director of Utilities during regular busines s hours o r to the
P.ng lP.wood Police dispatcher during non-busi ne ss hours. Upon
notification by either party, the Board will deliver the nece ssar y
1neter or meters to the inter c onncct1on site in a timely ,nanncr.
8. All water delivered throug h an interconnection shall be
billed at the Board's then current rate for wholesale (ma ste r meter)
service by the party delivering such water and shall be paid for
within thirty (30) days after receipt of said bill by the receiving
party. Said bill shall be calculated only for the amount of wa ter
used and shall not include any service, installation or other
administrative or overhead charges .
9. It is expr essly agreed that 1n the event any of the
identified pairs of fire hydrant s are interconnected and activated,
the party receiving assistance through the interconnection shall
indemnify and hold harmless the other party in the event of any
damage, liability or e xpense, including attorney's fee s , resulting
from such activation.
10, The Boar d and Englewood shall each operate their respective
water systems , wh n receiving water through any of the i dentif1 d
emergency interconnec tions, in such manner that the engin ering
st andard s or operating procedures of the delivering entit y shall no
bt' Violated.
11. This agreement shall be effec tive for one (1) year from the
date hereof and shall be automatically renewed from year to year
unless either party g1v s written notice of term1nat1on w1th1n ~.Aty
(60) days prec ding he anniversary date of h1a contr ct. Upon
teraina ion of he agree•ent, the Board w 11 return two (2) o the
meters purchased, as refer nc d 1n Paragraph 4, to Englewood 1n gooa
working order.
ATT! T1
ere acy
CITY ANO COUNTY OP I I\ k ,
acting by and hrou q~
BOARD OP WAT R COHHJ
av .,...,.,.,..,,,__-,-___ _
resident
(!xecu 10n o this docum nt con 1nu a on Pa ~
•)-
•
I • •
-
' /
•
•
•
• •
(Execu ti on of this document continued from Pa ge 3)
APPROVED:
Planniny Division
Plant Division
ATTEST:
City Clerk
AP.r'R0\11:.0:
City Manager
REGISTE RED AND COUWTER~IGNED:
Charles 0. llyrne, Auchtur
City and CLunty of Denver
By _____________ _
CITY OF ENGLE l1 00D
Uy ___ ~---------~ 11a yor
•
I • •
• -
• •
EXHIBIT "A"
DENVER ENGLEWOOD EMERGENCY CONNECTIONS
200'
Location (Hydrant No.) System Pres. (psi) /HGL Distance Map No.
1. Clarkson & Belleview (400469) DWD 84/5639 300' SE L2
Washington & Belleview EWD 56/5574
2. NW Dartmouth & Zuni ( 7565) DWD 94/5548 SW H4
Near Dartmouth & Zuni EWD 70/5492
3. NW S. Federal & W. Tanforan Dr. (6954) DWO 122/5597 SW LS
Near S. Federal & W. Tanforan Dr. EWD 95/5534
4. SE W. Union & Hawthorne St. (6962) DWD 83/5527 700' SW KS , G
NW W. Union & S. Irving EWD 80/5520 LS ,5
s. NW W. Tufts & S. Lowel 1 ( 7422) DWO 137 /572B SW K4, 5
Near W. Tufts & S. Lowell EWD 50/5526*
6. NW S. Lowell & W. Grand Ave. (400518) DWD 114/5628 SW LS,6
NE S. Lowell & W. Grand Ave. EWD 70/5527
7. SE W. Union & Hawthorne St. (6962) DWD 83/5527 700' SW K4,5
SE Federal & Union EWD 90/5543 L4,5
8. N. of S. Clarkson & Yale (172B) DWD 68/5487 SE G2 Near S. Clarkson & Yale EWD B5/5526*
9. NE S. Downing & Yale (5013) DWD B0/5527 SE F2 Near Downing & Yale EWD 80/5526*
10 . NE. S. Lafayette & Amherst (5193) DWO 75/5523 375' SE G2
S. of S. Lafayette & Bites Pkwy. EWD 70/5512
11. NE Dartmouth ' High (5547) DWD 64/5534 60' SE G3 SE Oartnlouth , High EWO 60/5524
12. NE. S. Logan & Centennial (200433) 0 92/5647 600' SE Hl
Near S. Logan, Belleview EWO 60/5574
13. SE Centennia 1 , Sherman ( 200430) owo 100/5666 60' SE Ml
Centenn la l & Sherman EWO 60/5575*
14. NE Edgemoor Or. , S. Hoo er (30030) owo 135/5727 SW 5
Near W. Rade 11 ffe Or. & S. Hooker EWO 4B/5526*
15. NE Vasnr & De I aware ( 5956) DWO 77 /5469 SW Fl
Near Yale & Oehware EWO 87/5491
16. NE Evans a, Tejon (6713) owo 84/5524 SW E3
Near Evans a, Tejon EWO 100/5561
17. SE Adriatic Pl. & Raritan (8418) owo 84/5524 S111 LJ
Near Adrttt le Pl. I, Raritan E 0 100/5561
*EstiNte bued on Zone I HGl.-5526, Zone 2 hG -5575; all others supplied by City of Engl!l<ood .
• I • •
• •
-
I
•
• •
EXHIBIT II 8 11
METER
SUPPORT
HYDRANT OF SYSTEM
BEi~ FEO
GROUNO LINE ~ .,., •/,ip•w •.w-_., .... ..,.,.q#;,;,-,-+--'~~--
1
I ,_
DENVER WATER DEPARTMENT
STANDARD DESIGN FOR
HYDRANT INTERCONNECTS
SC ALE : _N_2!,e ___ DATE : ~t.>1, 1981
OR N. '!!!!•~In TR. ci"° b
APP. _______ Ofl.ilLNO . .J!_
SHEET I OF I SHEETS
l. The existing physical interconnection between tng,ewuu,,
the Board at w. T n oran Drive end s. Irving Street wi ll he
d1sconnected froN Board and Englewood facilities by Bo rd ~rew
Englewood 111ay inspect the cut off of a aid interconnect1 <>n .
•
I • •
•
OODINANCE NO.
SERIES OF 198"""2~~-
•
• •
BY A1JI'HORIT'i
A BILL FOR
COUNCIL BILL NO. 45
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
M™BER fl t@da_j
AN OODINANCE APPROVI?l3 AN INTERCOONECT <nfl'RACT WITH THE CIT'i AND COUNTY OF
DENVER, BY AND fflROlXiH ITS BOARD OF Wl'\TER ~ISSI~ERS.
WHEREAS, there is a necessity to interconnect Denver's water facilities
with the City of Englewood 's water facilities to provide services in case of
an emergency; and
WIBREAS, the Englewood Water and Sewer Board has approved the
Interconnection Contract;
NOri, THEREFORE, BE IT CRDo\INED BY THE CIT'i axJNCIL OF THE CIT'i OF
ENJLEWCX)[), Cl)~:
Section l. An agreement titled "Interconnection Contract•, marked Exhibit A
and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved by the City Council
of the City of Englewood.
Section 2. That the Interconnection Contract generally provides:
a. for a physical connection between the City of Englewood and the
Denver Water Board's facilities through a temporary fire hydrant connection
at seventeen strategic locations between the two conrunities as set forth in
the agreement;
b. that the Water Board shall purchase four water meters, the cost of
which shall be divided equally between Englewood and the Denver Water Board;
c . Denver Water Board and Englewood agree that an emergency for
purposes of this contract is defined as a major fire or unforeseen system or
mechanical failure of the treated water system or a contamination of the
treated water lines which causes either party to cease whole or in part
delivery of water;
d. notic shall giv n to th other party of an emergency situation
arising and th rate at which th water will be billed to the using party
shall be th Denv r ter Board's th n curr nt rat for wholesale service.
Section 3. '!be Mayor of th City of Englewood is authorized to sign for and
on behalf of th City and th x officio City Cl rk-Tr asurer is uthorized
to att st the doc1.111ent attached hereto a Exhibit A.
0
, r
r, l 82.
in ull, .-Id on first r ading on th 20th day
•
I • •
-
•
•
•
•
• •
1982.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 22nd day of September,
Attest: Eugene L. Otis, Mayor
ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer
I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of
Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true,
accurate and complete copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in
full, and passed on first reading on the 20th day of September, 1982.
Gary R. Higbee
•
I • •
•
•
• •
lNTERCON NECTION CO NTRA CT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the
day of , 1982, by and between THE C ITY
AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation of the State of
Colorado, acting by and through its BOARD OF WATER COMMISSION ERS ,
hereinafter referred to as "Board," and the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , a
mun ic ipal corporation of the State of Colorado, hereinafte r r e f er r ed
to as "Englewood,"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Board's and Englewood's water facilities are
physically interconnected at West Tanforan Drive and South Irving
Street , and
WHEREAS, there is n o written contractual arrangement (or the
physical operation, control, or maintenance of the foregoing
interconnection, and
WHEREAS, the Board and Englewood are not desirous of permanent
physical interconnections between their separate water systems, but
rather wish to identify fire hydrants by which their water
facilities could be temporarily interconnected in case of an
eme rgency, a nd
WH EREAS, emergency situa tions may occur in wh ich it would be 1n
the best interest of the parties if their water systems were
temporarily connected in such a ma nner that e ch could assist the
othe r in prov iding water service d uring an emer g ency , and
WH ERE AS , the Board and Englewood in the pa s t have assisted each
other in times of emergency by means of interconnections between
their resp ct1ve wat er systems .
NOW THEREFORE, 1n cons1d raL1on of the premise• and the orom1
an1 covenants to be kept and performed by the part1e a hereto, 1t 1s
agre d as follows:
L The existing physical 1nterconnect1on be ween f"n•J!f?woo,I anti
the Board at W. Tanforan Drive and S. Irving Str eL wi ll he
disconnected from Board and Englewood facilities by Bo rd r.r~w
Englewood may lnapect the cut off of 1ald lnterconnectl n .
. ----------------... •
I • •
....... •
• •
The Board shall be responsible for the accounting of all the
costs concerning the cut-off. Englewood may audit the Board's
records concerning the costs associated with the cut-off.
After completion of the cut-off, the Board will bill Englewood
for 50\ of the total actual cost of the cut-off. Payment will be
due thirty (30) days after receipt by Englewood of the Board's
Invoice.
2. In the event an emergency arises, as defined herein, the
Board and Englewood may interconnect their respective water systems
through temporary fire hydrant connections at any of the locations
listed in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference made a
pact hereof.
J. All emergency interconnections listed in •Exhibit "A" shal l
be activated in strict conformance with the drawings in Exhibit "B,"
attached hereto and by this reference made a pact hereof.
4. The Board shall purchase four (4) three inch meters. Said
meters shall be of the types mentioned in Exhibit "B" (Badger Meter
Model FH-SGH or Rockwell Meter Model 125-W), or equal thereto. The
cost of purchas1ng the meters and required appurtenances shall be
equally divided between Englewood and the Board.
S. The Board, at its sole expense, shall be responsible for
maintenance, repa1c, stocking and replacement of the four meters
mentioned in Paragraph 4.
6. The Board and Englewood agree that the identified fire
hydrants will only be interconnected in the event ol an emergency.
An emergency for the purposes of this contract is def1ned as a maJo r
fire or any u nforeseen s ystem or mechanical fa ilu r e of the treated
wa ter system or a contamination of treated wa ~-r su pplies whic h
causes eitner party to cease, n whole or in part, delivery of
wa ter. A shortage of untreated (raw) water shall not be deemed an
emergency.
7. In the event ot an emergency, as defined herein, the
request ng party will notify the other party of its intenti on ·o
activate one or more o the f1re hydrant 1nterconnec ions as
necessary to del1ver water into its system from the oner ?arty'
system. Notificet1on to the loard will be given o th warer .~ a
action during regular bus1ness hours or to the oard'1 c1soa;~n
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
during non-business hours. Notification to Englewood will he made
to the Director of Utilities during regular business hours or to th e
F.nglP.wood Police dispatcher during non-business hours. Upon
notific ation by either party, the Board will deliver the necessary
met er or meters to the interconnection site in a timely ,nanner.
8. All water delivered through an interconnection shall be
billed at the Board's then current rate for whole s ale (mast er meter)
service by the party delivering such water and shall be paid for
within th i rty (30) day s after receipt of s aid bi ll by the receiving
party . Sa i d b ill shall be calculated only for the amount of water
used and shall not include any service , installation or other
administrative or overhead charges .
9 . I t is expressly agreed that in the event any of the
identified pairs of fire hydrants are interconnected and activated,
the party receiving assistance through the interconnection shall
indemnify and hold harm! ss the other party in the event of any
damage, liability or expense, including attorney's fees, resulting
from such activation.
10. The Board and Englewood shall each operate their respective
water systems , whe n receiving water throuqh any of the identifi ed
emergency 1nterconnect1ons, 1n such manner that the en91neer1ng
standards or operating procedures of the delivering entity shall not
be violated.
11. This agreement shall be effective for one (1) year from the
date hereof and shall be automatically renewed from year to year
unless either party gives written notice of termination within ~lAty
(60) days pc ceding the annivecaary date of this contract. Upon
termination ot he agreement, the Bo rd will return two (2) of the
meters purchased, as referenc d in Para raph 4, to Englewood in good
working order.
ATTEST:
Secretary
CITY AND COUNTY O 1,t 'lVF~,
acting by and throu,1 11 , ..
BOARD OF WATER CO "IM I > I • .R,,
By
"P::r::e::a~i=e:cn=t-----
( !xecu t 1 on of this document c on 1nued on 1•, 4
-l-
,
I • •
In
-
,
/
•
•
•
• •
(Execution of this document continued from Page 3)
I>iv1sion
APPROVED:
Planniny Divisiou
/) ( I-(') ;· (i .. L,vy .:.. _, .1•.Y' '.' .ti
Plant Division
ATTEST :
City Clerk
AP>'ROVl:.D:
City Manager
REGISTERED Alm <.:OUNTERSIGNED:
Charles D. llyrne, Auditor
City and <.:ounty of Denver
CIT¥ OF ENCLE~OOD
•
I • •
• -
• •
EXHIBIT "A"
DENVER ENGLEWOOD EMERGENCY CONNECTIONS
200'
I
Location (H ydrant No.) System Pres. (psi )/HGL ~ ~
1. Clarkson & Belleview (400469) DWD 84/5639 300' SE L2
Washington & Belleview EWD 56/5574
2 . NW Dartmouth & Zuni ( 7565) DWD 94/5548 SW H4
Near Dartmouth & Zun i EWO 70/5492
3. NW S. Federal & W. Tanforan Or. (695 4) DWO 122/5597 SW LS
Near S. Feder a 1 & W. Tanforan Or. EWO 95/5534
4 . SE W. Uni on & Hawthorne St. (6962) OWD 03/5527 700' SW KS ,6
NW W. Union & S. Irving EWD B0/5520 LS ,6
5. NW w. Tuft s & S. Lowell (7 422) owo 137/5728 SW K4 ,5
Near W. Tufts & S. Lo we ll EWO 50/5526*
6. NW S. Lowe l 1 & w. Grand Ave. (400510 ) OWD 114/5628 SW L5 ,6
NE S. Lowell & W. Grand Ave . EWD 70/5527
7. SEW. Union & Hawthorne St. (6962) owo 83/5527 700' SW K4, 5
SE Federal & Union EWO 90/5543 L4, 5
8. N. of S. Clarkson &. Ya le (1728) OWD 68/5487 SE G2
Near S. Clarkson & Ya le EWO 85/5526*
9. NE S. Downing & Ya le (5013) owo 80/5527 SE F2
Near Downing &, Yale EWO B0/5526*
10. NE. S. Laf&yette lo Mherst (5193) owo 75/5523 375' SE G2
S. of S. Lafayette I, Bates Pkwy. EWO 70/5512
11. NE Oartaoutn I, High (5547) OWD 64/5534 60' SE G3
SE Oartaouth lo High EWO 60/5524
12 . NE. S. Logan lo Centennul (200433) D 92/5647 600' SE Ml
Hur S. Logan I, Belleview EWO 60/5574
13. SE Centennial I, Sherman (200430) 0 100/5666 60' SE Ml
Centennia 1 &, Sherman EWO 60/5575*
14. NE EdgeMOOr Or. I, S. Hooker (30030) 0 135/5727 SW KS
Near w. Radcliffe Dr. &. S. Hooker EWO 48/5526*
15. NE Vassar I, Delaware (5956) D 77 /5469 Sol Fl
Nor hle & Delaware EWO 87 /5491
16. NE Evans lo Tejon (6713) 0 84/5524 SW E3
ear Evans I, Tejon E 0 100/5561
17. SE Adriatic Pl. lo Raritan (8 418 ) 0 84/5524 s. l J
ar Adrut ic Pl. & Rart tan 0 100/5561
•Est tn11te based on Zone 1 HG -5526, Zone 2 H -5575; all others supplied by City of Engl wood.
I • •
• • n
-
I
•
•
• -
EXHIBIT II B II
3 " METER
BADGER MODEL FH -SGH
HYDRANT OF SYSTEM
BEING FED
OR ROCKWELL MODEL 125-W
Jr"'""' """ ~
GROUND LI NE -:}
A•//#»////•//#' 1"//#'.PA' Ji'~PH-,
I
I
1_
DENVER WATER DEPARTMENT
STANDARD DESIGN FOR
HYDRANT INTERCONNECTS
SCALE : _N~•-__ DATE. 5,:.!!.,~ _L_
ORN ~k2!;"!.... TR . _ _ _ CK . _ It..,,,
APP. _______ OR .,lg~N0._,2_
SHEET I OF I SHEE S
1. The existing phys1cal interconnection between r.n,iu•wuu'
the Board at w. Tanforan Drive and s. Irving Street wi ll Ile
d facilities by Bo ar d ere.,,,· disconnected from Board and Englewoo
Englewood m Y in.Peet the cut o(f of ,. id 1nterconnccr' ,n. I • •
-
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS , America 's sportsmen have been leader:; in ci1~ ~f ·ort to
conserve our wilderness , wildlife , and natural resources :;i,1cc t .c
turn of the century and have been the first to speak out ~nd act in
defense of any threat to the envirorunent; and
WHEREAS , through the years , hunters and [isherml:!n 1.iv._. urmed
the fo undation of practical conservation work in this country . Their
effo rts , individually and through their o rganizations , have resulted
in the prese rvation of thousands of ac r es o f woo ds a nd wet ands and
the impro vement o[ our lakes , streams and waterways; .:ind
WHEREAS , sportsmen 's organizations ha ve fully endors .... d thu
evyin of license fees and special taxes on their equipmen t to pay
for and acquisilions , research .. mJ habitat man.:igcment for 1sh ,111J
wi dlife to benef it all wildlife and provide enjoyment for milliom;
of Americ.:ins ;
ON , THEREFORE, I , EUGENE L . Ol'IS , Mayor of ci1e City u
Eng e wood , Colorado , in recognition of their histo r ic role and
continuing contributions to cunservation , t ake this opportun ·t y to
co1M1end the nation 's sportsmen and proclaim Saturday , the 25th ay o
.~eptember , 1982 , s
HUNTit,K; /..ND FISHING DAY
in Lhc City of Eng cwood and ca upon our citi~ens to join with al
portsmcn-conservationists in their efforts to ensure the wi se usu
an d proper management of our natural resources for the benef 1 t o(
(utu r c gen rations.
nd al this 20th day of September, 1902 .
Muyu ------------
I
-
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS , Amcric<.1 's sportsmen nav~ been lead~rs ·n U1e e [url Lv
conserve our wilderness , wildlife , ,~nd nat r al resources :,;1;1cc; Ll.e
t urn o( the century a nd have been the irst to spc.:ik ouL .. nc.; .ic:. •. ,
defense of any th r eat to the e nvironment ; and
WHEHEAS , Lhro ugh the years , hunters and (ishc:rm,m 1<1vc-.. vr :,L'd
the foundation of practica l conservation wo rk in this country . ,nc r
effo rts , indi v idually and through their organizat ·ons , have res .teu
·n the p r ese rvation of thous ands of acres of woods and wet ans nd
the improvement o[ our lakes , streams and waLcr'ways ; ..inu
WHE~EAS , spo rtsmen 's o r ganiz<.JLio ns hove (u l y cnourJ-,d Lh-,
levyin of license Eees a nd special taxes on the·r e 4u1 pment Lo pay
fur land , cqui :;i Lion:.;, r ,zc..i r ch .. md habi V L fl\iln.1yeml!nL ru, L 1.,, .111u
w · 1 i(e to benefi t al wildlife and provide enjoyrnL!nL Lor m on,;
o( Americ ns ;
™· 'l'HtREFOHI::, 1 , EUGl::NE L . arr::;, Mayor uL Lhl! Clly ul
Eng ewood , Colo r ado , in r ecognition of their histo r ic roe a nd
cont inuing contribullons to conservation , ta e thb opr r Lun Ly
omme nd the nation 's s portsmen and proclaim Satu r day , Lhc 2~Lh
;.epLember , 1982 , , :,
HU N'rl I D FI HI DAY
Lu
..iy ol
in Lh' C iLy of l::n<Jll!woud an cal µon our cillL.l!ns Lu join with <.11
sporLsmcn-conscrvationists in Lhcir -,(Lorts Lo enJurl! the wi se use
and proper man gement o( our n tur resource,; Lor the tx:nct 1 L ol
fut ,1 r l• •n r t ion,.
this 0th y ot .;eptcmt,cr , 9u2 .
-~ ____ (_
•
,-
C O U N C I L
DATE August 31 , 1982
•
• -
C O M M U N I C A T I O N
AGENDA ITEM
~A
SUBJECT TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT FOR
SENIORS
INITIATED BY Kells Waggoner, Director of Public Works ~~
ACT I ON PROPOSED Approval of Agreement
INTRODUCTION
The attached is an agreeme nt for coordination of transportation services for seniors
in Arapahoe County.
BACKGROUND
Arapahoe County Transportation Services (ACTS) has, over the past several months,
held meetings with all of the transportation providers for seniors in Arapahoe
County.
The County, in an attempt to expand the transportation services for the seniors,
has applied for Federal assistance through DRCOG. The monies will provide for
back-up services to the existing carriers and will provide communications equipment
for better coordination.
The attached agreement is an effort to reduce duplication by coordination.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial obligations for the City resulting from this agreement.
CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS
Approval of the agreement would not change our present operation to any great
extent, but it would provide some additional services to our seniors when we have
a conflict in our own scheduling.
The agreement can be revised or eliminated upon seven days' written notice.
It is reco nded that t.he agreement be approved.
•
I • •
•
•
,· -
ARAPAHOE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
LETTER OF AGREEMENT/COORDIANTION
This Agreeme nt, entered into this~~~~~~~~~-day of~~~~~~~~-·1982,
by and for the mutual benefit of Arapahoe County Transportation Services,
he reinafter referred to as "ACTS" and Englewood Senior Surrey. hnreinafte r
referred to as "ESS".
In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained here in, ACTS
and ESS agree and consent to the following items of coordination and cooperation,
TO-IHT:
1. ACTS and ESS mutually agree that providing transportation to seniors and
handicapped seniors who are sixty (60) years of age and older and who
reside in Arapahoe County will be a priority.
2. ACTS and ESS mutually agree that ACTS will only provide transportation
to seniors and handicapped seniors when all other transportation agencies
operating within Arapahoe County are unable to provide transportation to
said seniors.
3. ACTS and ESS mutually agree tha t ESS will coordinate and cooperate with
ACTS in the delivery of transportation to seniors and handicapped seniors
who reside in Arapahoe County.
4. ACTS agrees to relay all necessary demographic information to ESS about a
senior who has requested transportation.
5. ACTS and ESS mutually agree that ACTS will be the liason f or other
transportation agencies operating within Arapahoe County. As such, ACTS
will coordinate its transportation activities with other area transportation
agencies to avoid duplication of transportation services within the County.
6. ACTS and ESS mutually agree that ACTS will act as a "Broker" for all trans-
portation requests directed to ACTS. ACTS will screen each call to determine
which transportation agency can best meet the needs of the senior reriuc::tinr.
transportation. Each gency's transportation criteria will be taken into
ccount b ACTS as same a lies to each re uest for trans ortation. If the
s lected agency s cannot provide tr nsportation then ACTS will provide
transportation, provid d the senior making the request meet s ACTS' trann-
po rt tion criteria. ESS agre s to coordinate its transporto.11..ion wilh /\CT:;
when requested. Some sp cific areas are outlined below:
A. If singe or two-w y tr nsportation request from an l\rc1pahoo
County senior is referr d to ACTS by ESS or another agnecy, AC "fS
will sere n such call and determine which other agnecy(a) can
transport the s nior. ACTS will contact said agency(s) by radio
or phon to s cur transport tion for the senior. I\C'I'!; will oo .il,lt' lu
contact ch r4dio-equipp d v hicle to determine it~ status.
ACTS will then request, through its dispatcher, transportation
for the s enior, If th n d for tr n portation is irM~dlnto ,
th n ACTS will h ve direct r dio contact with tho appropri.:lto
vehicle. I \ h ne d is in the future (i.e. , 24 hours plu:.),
th n ACTS will h ve th a ency rr ng transportation. ACTS can
elect either to c 11 the enior ,md verify tr nsportation or hav
th oth r ncy c 11th s nior to verify transport tion •
•
I • •
~-•
• -
B. If ESS or another transportation agency is unable to pick up a
senior who is currently on their transportation log (i.e., such as
when the senior is late in returning from a medical appointment),
the affected driver can contact ACTS by radio and request aid in
providing the senior with transportation at a future designated
time . ACTS will contact ESS and other agencies in the immediate
area of the senior's location by radio or phone, advising them of the
need for transportation. Each dispatcher can relay its status by radio
or phone. ACTS will relay the senior 's transportation criteria to CS ~
and the other agencies. Each agency then determine if it can provide
the senior with transportation. ACTS will have ESS or another agency's
dispatcher contact the appropriate vehicle driver by radio. If ESS
radio system cannot contact driver first ACTS could contact the
appropriate vehicle driver to establish that arrangements have been
made to secure transportation for the subject senior.
C. If ESS or any other agency needs immediate assistance in securing trans-
portation for a senior(s) (i.e., because of vehcile breakdown), the
vehicle requesting assistance will contact ACTS by radio. ACTS will
conta ct ESS or the other agencies by radio or phone to secure their
cooperation in getting the senior(s) immediate transportation assistance.
7. ACTS and ESS mutually agree that it is imperative that ACTS have a common radio
link with each provider.
ACTS and ESS recognize that ACTS does not have a radio system in place, but thc1t
one is on order and will be operational in the future. ACTS and ESS must secure
the necessary federal Communi cations Commission licenses to link their respective
systems together . Until all systems are operational, ACTS will use the telephone
as its link to ESS and other transportation agencies.
8. ACTS, Inter-faith Task for ce , Engle wood Se nior Surrey and Ara p.ihoc Red Cro:i;..
are the main transportation providers that ESS will coordinate/cooperate with
in Arapahoe Cou nty .
ACTS cognizes th t ES h sonly one oper t ing vehicle that i~ rudio equi~ix·u.
ESS wil cooperate in scheduling trips thru ACTS to conunon geographical poin :i
in Ar p hoe Coun y. Thes point :: include , but not exclu,U n1: oth r Jr<.•.i:.. .-1 ..
determined by ESS and ACTS, Swed ish Hospital, Halley Senior Ce nter, r a groc 1•y
mar ets , nd oth r re within a 3 mile radiu s of Englewood.
ESS c n pl ce on on window, but not to obstruct th drive,•·, vi,don , n /1 (.J':,
o o. This will ssure Englewood residents that ESS is wor king in coopcr~tion/
coordination with ACTS nd other ACTS coordinating transport tion eencio:i.
ACT ill c ive tr n portation re ueata from other coo1 rdt!ng enciu~, calt
CSS nd cooper te with the ESS dispatch r in ch dulin ACTS and other ency
ri •· Once a sch ule is intained ACTS will contact the oth r encios
nd up-d te their ached ling;
ACTS nd ESS mt lly re that either party may requ It revisiono to or
llmination of portions o this re n't after th givin of II von (7) cl, y ·.
writ en notice to th propri r y o th party's d sire or ~uch
r visions nd/or liminationa.
By:
•
I • •
-
•
•
• •
C O U N C I L C O M M U N I C A T I O N
DATE Septembe r 15, 198 AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT Sealed Bi d
c,... Tennis & All Purpose Cou r t Resu rfacing
INITIATED BY E. P. Romans, Director of Parks & Recreation
ACT I ON PROPOSED That Counc i J approve and award to Malott Peterson Renner , Inc.,
low bid der, t he Res ur fa cing of Te nn is Cou r t s@ Roman s Par k & Si ncla ir Jr. Hi gh and
the All Pur ose Cour t @ Cent ennial Park.
Introduction
The 1982 Parks Capital Outlay included $17,700 for resurfacing of 8 tennis courts at
Romans Park (4 courts) and Sinclair Jr. High (4 courts) and the all purpose court at
Centennial Park.
Background Infonnation
Resurfacing of these courts i s part of a continuous maintenance procedure to keep courts
in excellent playable condition and to prevent large scale repair expenditures .
Financial Deta i l s
Sealed Bids were received by the Department of Fi nance (Purchasing ) on Sep t ember 15,
1982 at 10:00 a.m. a s follows :
Company
Malot t, Peterson, Renner, Inc.
Engineering Estimate and Funds available -
ndation
Total
$16,760.00
$17,700.00
Rec nd that Council approve th bid of $16,760.00 of Malott, Peterson, Renner, Inc .
for Resurfacing of Tennis Courts at R ns Par and Sinclair Jr. High and th all purpos
court at Centennial Par Sp cifications r quir a completion deadline of October 31,
1982.
Malott, Pt r on, R nn r, Inc., has an xcellent p rfo nee record nd r c ntly c -
pl t~ th t nnis court r cons rue on and r sur acing proj ct t Engl wood High School
and re ur ac ng o B lle i Par nn,s courts .
•
I • •
•
• -
C O U N C I L C O M M U N I C A T I O N
DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT
September 15 198 2 Clb Co ntract with Desi n
INITIATED BY Dir ector o f Connnun i ty De v e l o pment
ACTION PROPOSED That the con trac t wi t h Design Workshop, I n c . be a pproved,
BACKGROUND.
Th City Council approv d th Downtown R development Plan on August 23 , 19 8 2. In
the Plan, there wa a r coaaendation that a commercial rehabilitation program be
developed for th buildin s along South Broadway. There has also been strong
support and int r t froa th EDDA for such a program. Prior to developing a
program to provld i tance for rehabilitation of buildings, it is necessary
for guidelin s to pr par d to rv a a basis for the rehabilitation work.
11tere is also an for design ork on th public improvements along Broadway
so that the City or DA c n proc d with improvem nts without the concern that
they will not conform with th ov rall d velopment.
Design Workshop, Inc. ha
and aft r intervi win anoth
could provide the rvic n
nie re ult of
Eastaan to U.S.
but would all t
could look llk if
Fund ar av 11 bl for th
t Fund. A total or $16 ,
aaind r could b cha r d to
ATI
xp rience with the project thus far ,
11, the staff agreed that Deign Workshop
most economical cos t.
d ign for ach building along Broadway from
ign work would not includ construction drawings,
rchants to se what th ir buildings
19,000) in the Public Iaprov -
town Plan ccount, and th re-
contract b tw
ration o d si
of $19,000.
•
n Oelign Work -
uid Un• for I • •
•
• •
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this-----day of -------
1982, by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a Municipal Corporation, 3400 South
Ela ti Street, Englewood, Colorado ("City"), and DESIGN WORKSHOP, INC., 710 East
Durant Street, Aspen, Colorado.
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Downtown Redevelopment Plan on
August 23, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan includes a reconnendation
that Design Guidelines be prepared for private and public illlProvements in the
project area along Broadway; and
WHEREAS, the Guidelines are needed as a basis for r enovation of existing
buildings and for construction of public i~rov ments; and
WHEREAS, the firm of Design Workshop, Inc., has had extensive involveiEnt
with th planning and d sign work for th Englewood Downtown Redevelopment pro-
ject; and
WHEREAS, th firm of Design Workshop, Inc. can supply d sign guidelines for
th project in a moat xpeditious ti frame.
NOW, niEREFORE, in consid ration of th a1tu 1 proad.a a and covenants h erein,
th parti follows:
1. Design Work.shop will pr par Deai n Guid 11 a for th Broadway corridor
of th En 1 ood Downtovo d velop nt Ar a which will:
a) Sp cifically d fin th d aign int nt for lop nt effort
for both public and privat proj eta; and
b) Doc nt th Guid 11 a in a cl ar nd und ratandabl fona for ua
by public officials, priva d v lop ra, land ra, t nan ta, and
•
0
I • •
r
•
•
• •
-2-
2. The Design Guidelines prepared by Design Workshop will address the following:
Design for Broadway (from Eastman south to u. S. 285}
A) Facade Design (pre-schematic design of all storefronts along Broadway;
not construction drawings).
B) Area lighting (public and private}.
C) Signage {public and private).
D) Landscaping (will address the location and types of trees, shrubbery,
etc.)
E) Furniture (seating, bike racks, trash receptacles, fountains, etc.)
F) Irrigation
G) Drainage
B) Paving.
I) Other right-of-way changes.
3 . Design Workshop will provide an estimate of coat for the implenentation
of the Design Guid lin s as outlined in NUDO r 2.
4. Design Workshop will document th Design Guid lin a utilizing an ~· x 11"
black and whit t xt and graphics format.
wi th:
5. aign Workahop ah 11 coordinat th pr paration of th Deaign Guid lin •
A) Th City Zoning Ordinanc and Pro dur , aa w 11
8) Th Downt n v lop nt Plan.
C) Th Downt n n Plan
D) v lop r'• Sch aatic Archit ctural
S) Littl Ory Cr k Bin PTO
val Pl n).
tan.
•
th Sign Cod •
I •
-•
• •
-3-
F) Existing Service Systems (Police/Fire/Snow Removal)
6. Design Workshop will be compensated in accordance with the following
hourly rates:
Principal $65/hour
Designer 1 $50/hour
Designer 2 $40/hour
Designer 3 $35/hour
Designer 4 $27/hour
Production $23/hour
Clerical $15/hour
7. Design Workshop will b e compensated for transportation, lodging, long-
distance phone calls, tc., connec ted with its s ervices under this contract, sub-
ject to approval of the Director of Cotmnunity Develop nt or designee.
8. CompenaatJon und r thia co ntract shall not e xce d $19 1000
9. Billing 1hall b submitt don a monthl ba1i1, and sign Work1hop shall
aaint ain d tailed r port• of all • rvic • and xp ne , to b submitted with ach
bill.
10. Eith r party
Upon c a ncella tion,
anc l thia contra t upon thirt day•' vritten notic
bill d and d hall b paid bu no furth r portions
of th bud t d a unt b yond tha ahall b d
n. Thil A
t 1hall b
nt 1a au t to th 1 0 th tat o Colorado. Thil
difi d or r d a pt by atail r i tr nt in vri tin
I • •
-•
• •
-4-
signed by the original parties. lbis Agreement inures to the bene fit of the parties
hereto, their heirs, successors ~nd assigns, though the contract may not be assigned
without the prior written approval of the City.
12. lbe work outlined in the Contract will be coqileted within --2Q...__ days
of signing the Contract. (Building facade designs to be completed within 45 days.)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this contract the day
and year first above written.
Attest:
Attest:
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, OJLORAOO
a Municipal Corporation
By ____________________ _
OESIG RlCSHOP, I C.
By ___________________ _
I • •
•
•
• •
AUTOMATION or LIBRARY DEPARTME NT l'UNCTIONS
INTRODUCTION
The Englewood Public Library began the process of acquiring an automated
library management system in Spring of 1982 when it contracted for the services of
a libr:it·y ;iutom:ition consultant, llMC: Consultant s , Inc., ror the purpose or dir -
ecting and aiding Library and City personnel through the steps involved in acquir -
ing a computerized system. The document "Request for l'roposa ls for Automa tcd
Systems and Services for Englewood Public Library" was prepared by RMG Consultants
and issued to 20 vendors in mid-July 1982. An evaluation of the 6 responding firms'
proposals was conducted by the Library Review & Implementation Committee and the
consultant on Sept. 9 ~ 10.
An explanation of the benefits of an automated library system, the results of
the vendor evaluation and the costs o f a com puterized library system fol low .
ADVANTAGES or AN AUTOMATED I. fllRAnY SYSTI.M
The automated system described in the RFP would provide on-line catalogi ng ,
acquisitions, circu l ation, anJ im1uiry (pub li c access cata log) functions f"or the
purpose of accurately controlling identification and circulation of the Li brary's
co l lcction a nd providing i ntellectua l access to materials content . There arc two
(2) major benefits that LPL would Jer1vc from the procurement of s u ch an automated
I ilirary system: 111crca slJ l"O ntrol over tlw l 1hr,1ry ··o llc1:t1on, and 1>1.:rea-;cd scrvil°l'
to library patron .
lm·n·a sl"<I .control over lhl• l1h1·.11y u>lle~t 1011.
n auto atcd yst 1 1,ould p1ov1dl 111c1 c.> cd control over the lo,at 1011 ,rnJ ,ll'-
1b1l1ty of matcr1uls, co unity informat1on need , coll cllon Jc elo1 cnt, Rjt -
cr1 h budget, nd OV rJu s. I 1th th pre nt "r g1· op " yst of cir ul trn6 I i-
br ry • t rial s th ha l 1m1t know! of wh t .. t ri ls r circul ting at
ny on im und which patron kc<l th rt l out of th I ibr ry. 'lh
u rdu pr ~ t nJ o ten Ill.I \;llT,llC JUl' lO I 1 itc<l UC~ ,. 1hl11ty to
•
I •
•
•
• •
microfilmed transactions. Furthermore, there is presently no way to assess the
most popular subject areas of the collect ion to improve our purchasing po 1 ici es
and decisions.
An automated Library system would a..:curately match a patron record to an item
record, thereby enabling staff to instantaneou sly locate any item in the collection.
Patrons wlth overdue materials wouU le prevented from c harging out additional
items until the delinquent items were returned, thereby increasing the availability
of materials to other library users. With the present system, delinquent patrons
can check out scores of items before the library realizes there is a problem.
Overdue notices couJJ be quid.Jy anti automatically generated, cl 1minating the nee<l
for numerous manual files. Management reports charting the subje..:t areas & items
most frequently checked out would provide guidelines for more accurate selection f,
purchas e of matcri:1ls.
fn c reasc<l se rvice to l 1hrary patrons.
The residents of Englewood would also be the recipients of increased quality
service as n by-product of .,utomation. ·1h1s service 1nclu<lcs improve,! ancs-. to
the l.111:ll•wooJ ..:o ll c,·t1011, 1111pruvcd a..:ccs .., to uthc1 I 1h1·.1rics' hold1111:.,, .111d ,.,p-
ability to transmit and re ·c1ve 1nformntion elcctrv:tical ly to homes anJ bu:.rn sscs.
An on-line public catalog will allow u e of n incr seJ number of ubJ ct
Jcscr1ptor.., p •r item in lhL· ..:ollc..:t1on and auto llL-J suhJl'c l m1thority wlll uwhll'
ubJ ·the Jing t rminology to b kept currcn r ulting 1n n, prov~ htt rat
Junng patron loot.. ups .
Jnlonaation allout the holding:. of ollll'1 J1branc 1oroul<l .ibo be rc.1J1ly .1 111 -
bl to Cngl ood re id nt for r sourc h rm nd int rllbr ry lo n pur
int rf n b bl1 heJ b t n ut te<l ·y t m ll1 th .1rc.:a.
r-urth nllOr , th auto atcJ I ibr ry IJ b th or 1 ,o •
ulJ n bl th r r) o nJ mt r•at 1011 l ·t Qlll 11)'
0 [.1 1 oJ r 1J 11d I I Ill
I • •
•
•
• •
EVALUATION RESULTS
On Sept. 9 and 10, the Library Review f, Implementation Committee evaluated
the six vendor proposals received according to the er i ter ia set forth i.n l'a rt 1
or the Re4uest for Proposals document. llu ring the 1st halt' day or e v:1l11atio11:s,
three vendors were eliminated, because they patently failed to meet one or more
of the criteria specified in the llFI'. The remaining three vendors wer e rated :,cco rdin g
to how well they met each requirement or criteria. As a result of this process,
systems proposed by Data Research Associate s (DRJ\) and Government Systems Group
(GSG) were identified as the two top rated choices . In the opinion of the Com-
mittee the advantages of these two systems j nc lude : 111 icrocomputer backup capab i l I ty,
state-of-the-art computer hardware technology, high level programming language, and
increased computing power of the CPUs. In addition, GSG's system is Prime based
which would ensure compatability with the City's existing Prime T-1000 sy~tem. De-
tailed price information on both of these systems is included in the Cost Section
of this report.
Similar price information is also provided for a smal 1 CLSI (Computer Library
Systems, Inc .) System 23 onfiguration. CJ.SI was the I.valuation Committee 's third
cho1l'l' of vendors .ind would ht• the lc:i~t d1•s11 l•;1hl<· npt 1011 ror thl' I 1h1.11·y. l\ut,
ti' funding 1s !united and the City is 111:,1hlc to f1n:incc c1the1 1 JIit or-l,S<: sy"t u ,
, how r,
Ill < :It
CLSl would be a work bl alt rn tive. CLSI doc hav o e shortc
which cou ld present obst,cl to th l ,1hrnry 's long • cm 11. ot h
·y ·t m:
put r t
no growth pot n i 1 on Sy CCII .3 511111 1
hnology, util1.at1on ol low
al co ts for
V rn.1 r <l
30 n<l O I. 'lh
in on ye r.
() th th DltA anJ
de on tratLons r n
Cl'U, utJ I a t I n ot o Id r CUii·
to
uh t nt 1 · I ddit 1011-
,h lt1le I for Sept.
r fully V llU,ll C the
l':tp:thil1t1l' 111' tlH yi.ll ... ., 11kl to d t r1111nl .1.J lit 101.11 1,l ,lllt 11'{ -/,11 .1 lv.111!.1 :l'
ol ~ 11:h ,1 1111, lht l •ut 11! 11111 <:011111111 l' hup 1 (1 Ji 1 111 Ullll 1, II •ol I II 11>11
I • •
-
•
•
• •
with the vendor of choice on October 13. Both vendor demonstrations and
contract negotiations will, of course, be dependant upon the City Counc i I 's
appropriation of funds for the project a nd approval of the Commi ttec' s c hoice
of vcmloe .
•
)
I • •
•
•
•' •
COST I FORMATION
A. Purchase Price of Automated Systems
JUI I.:
* ll
It
(1) Data Research Associates (Vax 11 /750)
Central Ila rd war e:
CPU
121MB Fixed Disk
1~113 Memory
16 I.inc Asynchronou s Mullipl c.,c r
Serial Printer
Ta pe Drive
Software:
Atlas Software for VAX-11/750
Public Acces s
Price
$ 84,900
14,000
9,000
11,350
2 ,215
20,000
134,465
$ 60,000
7,500
Catalog Software
Circle Backup Software 5,000
Operating System for Microcomputer __ _::..9.:.6.:.0
$ 73,460
Conununications/T rminals
16 Terminals
7 J!ar Cod WanJs
2 Printer Port Termi nal s
2 Modems
2 Stat1sl1cal Mult1plcxcrs
(For Duncan)
2 Microcomputer (For Bookmobile)
2 Print rs
Misccl l.1ncou,. l.xpcn;.c-.
('.ohJ Ill)\ Jlt 'l lllllllll,iJ, l.ollll
lnstallat1011
Shq>Jll Ill!
Shi ppi n, In r.1nc
ool ·1t, C bl ing Sp r
t ff 'l rav l
(\' nJor' lh count)
th l l
ar.
$ 21,600
6,825
3,790
1,950
4,000
8,190
1,700
i1<o,355
.!, 100
•1,521
2,500
754
500
2,000
l ' 75
-4010
$228,355
ull y r.
Monthly
Ma intcn:rnc c
$ 523
96
35
(,7
22
110
$ 853
$ 208
38
70
34
$Ni
I, 20.,•
1,903
Add $7 O mo .
l t
2nJ
or
,II
y 1r
I • •
-
•
IOlAL:
•
• •
( 2) Government Systems Group (Standalone Prime 1-450)
Central Hardware :
CPU (includes tape drive,
disc drive, memory)
Port Expansion Bd.
Printer
System Console
Software:
Cfrculation System (inc ludes
cataloging, circulation control,
acquisitions, inter-library loan,
bibliographi c data)
Circu lation System for Branch
3 Appl e Backup System
Serials Control Software
Public On-Line Catalog Software
Audio-Visual !looking Sys tem
Information Referral System
Information Operating Software
Termi na ls/Conununications:
2 Microcomputers for llooJ..mol>1 l c
4 Terminals w/wands
9 Terminals without wands
3 ~licrocomputers for backup
2 Printer~
2 l'r. ~l0<k111-;
11, .ol Ill """"''"
Ot L.C Int •rfacc Cahlc
IJ ~c llan ou~ Lxpcnscs:
In t 11 t1on
Trainin nJ Oo ument t1on
Shipp1n
Price
$140,000
4,500
7,000
1,800
$153 ,300
$ 20,000
1,950
6,000
10,000
10,000
8,000
1,000
N/C
$ 56,950
7 ,000
6,600
5,850
10,500
2,400
,.ooo
I , 11110
7SO
~ 37,100
$
$
,000
4,000
2,0 0
,000
~.SS,3SO
11o nthl y
Maintenance
$ 948
24
95
28
$1,095
I<,(,
/C
6
66
83
66
90
~
,1()
120
1S8
60
10
10
:? , usu
'OT ·: To link Prim
ch s pric
I -50 with City's Pri~
nd an Jd 1t ion 1 2
1-1000,
nth to
<ld dd1tion, 1 $.0,250 to p ,r -
onthly • int n. m: I e .
I • •
-
•
•
• •
(3) CL Systems, Inc. (System 23 Configuration)
Central llarJwar e:
CPU
Printer
Software:
Ci rculatio~ Book
Acquisition , l)ata
Base Management System
Terminals:
16 Terminal s
2 Portable Terminal s
2 Terminal Printer s
Miscellaneous Expenses:
Shi.ppi.ng
TOTAL:
Price
$ 59,500
4,000
45,000
36,500
10,900
4,000
$ 2 ,SOO
$1 6 2,400
Monthly
Maint e nance $48C--
35
$ 300
$ 423
70
40
The l'ul l owing harJware ,1nJ sul'lware wi I I need lo he aJdt."1 the ncxl year tu a ·commodal c
an on-1 ine public access catalog, a mat na I s booking system and backup terminals/
capability for the Library.
'11)1 I.S :
CPU (Syst 23)
Magncuc l.ipc l.1c&11ty
Micropro ssor upport Syst
laterials Boo 111 Application
Puhl ic Acces · C,1t n l<>J' ppl 1cnt ion
lod s
hipping
PUROIASL PlllCU
1st y r
2nd y ar
Price
----n-;250
11!,UllO
l, 00
15,000
35,000
3,000
2,500
$10,550
Si<,~, o
107 ,lli
$:?Ml, SO
•
lonthly
Maintenance
$ 250
11!0
25
125
300
-$-80
$I,. ·1
!,22 (llh<) + 1,:\18) I • •
-
•
•
• -
B. Leasing Configuration for a $250,000 Sys t em.
20~. down payment $ 50,000
200,000 balance financed at 9 , 5~o
for 5 yrors approx.$ 53,000/yr.
NOTE: The leasing costs clo not inclutle th e yearly maintenance fees, or mi sce llan eo u s
ex pen ses s u ch as s hipping, training o r· installation.
C. Bibliographic Conversion Costs (with use of Local System)
104,000 pi eces x 3 min. + 60 = 5 ,200 hour s
5,200 X 7/hr. 36,400
$.07 per record (LC ) x 83,000 titles
TOTAL : $42,210
$5,810
D. On-going Cataloging Cost (SEMBCS Processing Center)
$2.25/item including catalog cards
$2/item without cards
$2. 25 x 4,500 new items/yr. -;10, 1 25
Transportation to EPL from SCMBCS $5/week
$:, X :,2 $2(,(l
TOTAL: $10,385/year
E. Site Prepar tion
Elec trL al I or!..
lle<l i ca 1 e<.I phon, I 111t•s
Auto 3tio1 uppl1 s
forms
rd
1,
S 3,000
:!,000
-!i,lHIO
7,500
C,00
2 4
2,500
S,000
.?OS
•
I • •
•
•
• •
SUMMARY OF COSTS
/\. Purchase Price of Autom.ite<l Library System
1. CLSI
Monthly Maintenance
2. ORA
Monthly Maintenance
3. GSG
Monthly Maintcn nee
$135,150
l, 118
$228,355
1,203
255,350
2,056
*C J.SI System cost and tenthly IL1intc n.rn c cost~ of C.l.'iT Ii llltA arc I s l year ·o -.t , only.
B. Leasing Configur tl011
for $250,000 ~ys
c. B1bliographlc Con c-rsaon Cos
u. On -goi ng Ca talog Option
Ii. Site Preparation
I. 11lou1.1l 1011 ~upp l 1cs
$
s
~
50,000 down payment
53,000/yr. for S ye
42,210
10,3 5/yr.
5,000
l b,0·111
1bl l till
t1on, h
rs
t I ll ,
p 11·t 1t11lar
I .
•
•
• •
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Otis and
FROM:
DATE:
Members of the City Council
Gary R. Higbee, Director of Finance?-~
September 17, 1982 (~ ;7~~v-
SUBJECT: Status of C.I.R.S.A.
The following are answers to Council Member Weist's questions
pertaining to C.I.R.S.A.
1) Attachment A shows the 1982 member cities of
C.I.R.S.A. as well as their contributions.
2) Attachment B shows the experience loss for
Englewood as well as C.I.R.S.A.
3) Attachment C is the C.I.R.S.A. budget status report.
4) C.I.R.S.A. 1, composed of five executive board members:
Tim Greer, City of Glendale, President
Mary Lou Emmert, City of Arvada, Vice President
Gary Higbee, City of Englewood, Secretary/Treasurer
Matt Lutkus, City of Westminster
Dave Chamberlin, City of Delta
The executive board meets approximately 1/2 day per
month, on a quarterly basis C.I.R.S.A. has a general
membership meeting that lasts approximately 1/2 day.
In addition, since I am the Secretary/Treasurer of
C.I.R.S.A., my secretary attends the meetings and takes
minutes.
If ther is any additional information that you may require, please
let me know.
I • •
-
-
•
•
• •
ATTACHMENT A
C. I. R. S. A.
MEMBERS CONTRIBUTIONS
1982
Arvada
Aspen
Breckenridge
Brighton
Cherry Hills
Commerce City
Delta
Durango
Englewood
Glendale
Grand Junction
Northglenn
Salida
Thornton
W s minster
Whea Ridg
Ola h
Ridgway
La Juntl'I
$ 169 ,461
80,218
15 ,801
32 ,458
9,547
35 ,548
23,614
39,775
134,618
23,179
115,298
72,748
15,912
116,087
155,288
55,328
1,899
1,132
4014 0
Sl,138,401
I • •
•
• •
ATTACHMENT B
C.I.R.S.A./ENGLEWOOD CLAIM EXPERIENCE
As Of July 31, 1982
Englewood Related Losses
Total Losses Incurred
Amount Subject to Deductible
Net CIRSA Self-Insured Losses
C.I .R,S .A. Related Losses
Total Losses Incurred
Amount Subject to Deductible
Net CIRSA Self-Insured Losses
*IBNR-CFR Reserve
Total Self-Insured
Losses Incurred
**CIRSA Loss Ratio
*IBNR -Incurred But Not Reported
*CFR -Claim Fluctuation Reserves
Payments Reserves Total
23,883
16,429
7,454
192,053
99,990
92,063
92,063
13,773
6,350
7 ,523
222,167
58!599
163,568
59,325
222 ,893
37,656
22,779
14 ,88 7
414,220
158 ,589
255,631
59 ,325
31 4,9 56
981
**Annual Loss Fund $550,000; Prorated for 7 mon ha• $320 ,833;
Total Self-Insured Losses Incurred $314 ,956 t $320,833 • 98 Los
Raio
I • •
•
•
• •
ATTACHMENT C
C.I.R.S.A. REVENUES & EXPENDITURES
1982
7/31/82
1982 Y-T-D Estimated
Bud9et Rev/Exe 8/1-12/31
Revenues
Contributions 1,138,500 1,138,401
Prepaid Claims Deductible 17,760 17,760
Investment Earnings 60,230 45,484 26,000
Total Revenues 1,216,490 1,201,645 26,000
Exeenditures
Excess Insurance 427,952 427,952 0
Administrative Fees:
Commissions 90,000 90,0 00 0
Claims Adjustment 55 ,000 5,262 49,738
Loss Prevention 45,000 30,000 15,000
Gallagher-Bassett Adm. 40,000 21;,664 13,336
Loss Payments 170 ,50 0 92,064 78 ,4 36
Miscellaneous 8,538 2,817 5,721
Total Expenditures 836,990 674,759 162 ,231
Balance 379,500 526 ,88 6
1982
Total Est.
1 ,138,4 01
17 ,7 60
71 ,484
1,227,645
427,952
90,000
55,000
45,000
40,00 0
170,500
8 ,538
836,990
390,655
NOTE: C.I .R.S.A. has a loss fund for 1982 of $550,000 of whi ch
$170 ,500 is estimat d to be paid in 1982 and $379,500 is
estimated to be the 1982 loss reserve to b paid over the
n xt six years.
I • •
•
• -
-,---------------------------i
C O U N C I L C O M M U N I C A T I O N
DATE
September 2, 1982
AGENDA ITEM
8 (b)
SUBJECT Bid Award -South Metro
Training Academy Classroom Building
INITIATED BY .......1S~o~u~t~h;L..IM~e~t~r~~i---T~r~a~iwn~iwn~g~AMc~au4~e~m~yl....JAMd~v~i~SuOur~y ....... H~A~@wr~d.._ ____ _
ACT I ON PROPOSED, ___ r.::C--"A:..__P:..P:..r_o_v_a_l_o_f_Bi_d_A_w_a_r_d __________ _
BACKGROUND
On Monday, August 23, 1982, competitive bids for the construction
of the Academy classroom were opened. A total of nine bids
were received and the bid range was from $136,000 to $183,000.
The two lowest bids were as follows :
John Folsom & Associates
Littleton, Colorado
David Keating
Parker, Colorado
$136,160
$136,910
Because of the closeness of the two bids, the Academy Board
recommended that staff personnel examine several finished
projects of the two contractors to review quality of work .
That review has now been completed and it is the rec'ommenda-
tion of the Advisory Board that the contract for the construction
of this facility be awarded t o the low bidder -John Folsom
& Associa tes -in th amount of $136,160.
Funds are availabl in the South Metro Budget for this project
($137,000) and since Council already haa an ordinance agreement
with the South Metro Training Academy, a simple motion approving
th bid award is appropriate.
•
I • •
•
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Andy Mccown, City Managex
James M. Broman, Fire Chief
DATE: September 17, 1982
•
• •
SUBJECT: SOUTH METRO FIRE TRAINING ACADEMY OFFICE BUILDING
In order to facilitate the decision making process, the following is a
brief history of the events leading up to this decision point.
/
/
On July 28, 1981, an inter jurisdictional agreement was signed to restructure
the South Metro Fire Training Academy to include the City of Littleton, Lit-
tleton Fire District, City of Englewood, castlewood Fire District and
Bancroft Fire District. section II of that contract calls for Ba.ncroft Fire
District to pay the sum of $107,700 as a purchase price. Section Iv ·o
specifies that the $107,700 is to be u&ed for "future improvementsN that
w~re ~enerally agreed to mean an office-classroom building. Section IV
further stipulates that an architect may be designated to design the im-
provements and then the plans shall be submitted for bid. The bid results
are then to be submitted to all partie11 of the Academy for a joint approval.
The S.M.F.T.A. Advisory Boa.rd, consisting of the fire chiefs and training
officers, then began con&ideration of .in architect for the project. On
February 9, 1982, the Boa.rd approved a contract with the firm of Allred/
Fisher Architects, Littleton, prJ.ncipally working with Mr. David Fisher.
At that ti.me, Mr. Fisher proposed directly awarding the general construction
contract to Mr. John Folsom of L~ttleton. A review of this propo&al revealed
that legally and contractually ti1is could not be done and formal bidding
procedures were to be foll~. Funding for the project included $137,000
for the building and $10,450 for the architect.
On April 19, 1982, approval was 1iven hy the Board on the architect's
schematic design as well as a go ahead for th de&ign development. In oarly
May, the design was approved and the plans -re to be &~t.ted for bid.
On July 26, 1982, a Nproject aan11alN was released to interested contractor&
that detailed specifications and bidd ng procedures.
On Augu&t 19, 1982, bids were opon d and t&bulat d 8 follow&:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT CONS'l'HUC'rION TIMI::
l. John Folsom" Assoc. 136,160 120 dllyli
2. David Kaating 136,910 120 d11ya
3. Palace Construction 138 .888 90 d.iy11
4. Intera:>u.ntain Allaoc. 147 ,2'1 13S days
s. Joh&n Conatruction 150.270 l4S dAys
6. McKee Conatruction 154,116 150 days
7. Buckram Contr ctora 157,015 7S day&
8. Chas Willia.a Construct on 166,000 150 day
9. cox Corporation 182,976 130 y
•
I • •
•
• •
Andy Mccown
Page Two
While I was not at the bid opening, it is my understanding that a question
arose because Mr. Folsom had taken exception in his bid to the item of
removing man-made fill and compacting of backfill. The architect was
questioned on this point and responded with a letter dated August 25, 1982,
stating that Mr. Folsom would complete all aspects of the project, including
the items he had previously excepted, with no change to his bid price.
The architect also recommended awarding the bid to Mr. Folsom.
on August 26, 1982, the Advisory met and had extended discussion about the
proper and ethical way to proceed as well as how to recommend a bid award.
It was decided to ask for council/board approval for either of the two
lowest bidders with the Advisory Board making a final determination after
more review and discussion. It was also felt that with the proximity of
the bid price to the available funds, t.here ia little or no margin for
contingency. Aa a result the Board agreed to petition each agency for an
allocation of a.n additional $2500 to provide for project contingencies. That
rec011Dendation was sent to you for the September 7, 1982, Council Agenda.
On September 7, a letter was rec~ived in the City Attorney's office from
Howard J. Beck, attorney for David Keating. This letter, as you have read,
contends that certain principles of fairness and due process were violated.
As a result, council ta.bled the item for future consideration. The City
Attorney has reviewed the situation and his opinion is contained in his
memo to Peter Vargas on Septembe1 10, 1982.
In the ir,terim, the governing bo<Jiea of City of Littleton, Bancroft and
Castlewood have approved awardin~, the bid to John Folsom even after re-
viewing Mr. Beck's letter. Littleton Fire District and Englewood have
yet to act on it. In addition, t~ose three entities have also approved
the contingency funding.
We are, therefore, at a decision point. It appears that our options are
to:
l. Approve bid award to John Folauaa at $136,160 and waive the irrQg-
ularity.
2. Throw out all bids and rebid.
3. Reject the bids of Folaom and Keating and accept the bid of
Palace Construction at $138,888.
I trust that this report will provide dequate background to lllilko this
decision.
Respectf(Y\, ~()MCQ.--
JMl3/dm I • •
•
TO: Peter Vargas, Assistant City Manager
Jim Broman, Fire Chief
O,.TE: September 10 , 1982
RE: South Metro Fire Training Academy
•
• •
I have reviewed the Project Manual for the office training facility for
the South Metro Fire Training Academy as prepared by Allred/Fisher, the
bid of John Folsom and Associates, General Contractors, Inc., the bid of
David Keating/Keating Construction, and the letter fran Mr. !<eating's
attorney.
My review of the above ~ts indicates that both John Folsan and David
Keating had exceptions in their bids that are of a minor nature. I do not
believe that either exception is of such a proportion as to void either
bid.
'A review of the contract shows that on the invitations to bid, page
00050-2, ·The owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to
waive irregularity in bidding.• 'And on page 00100-3, •'ffle owner shall
have the right to reject any and all bids.•
It is f1ff l.nierstanding that Fo lS0111 has agreed to do the entire pro j ect for
his bid IIIIO\A'\t of $129,760 plus 'Alternate 1 in the mnount of $7,150.
There is af>le authority in the contract ~ts to approve the P'olSCIII
bid after wa iver. I believe if you reject the FolS0111 bid, in order to
treat Keating consistently, you would have to re ject his bid. 'After the
re jection of these two bi ds, you may choose to accept the third bid o r you
can, in the alternative, rebid the project.
I believe as a pt'a<: ical aatter it would be less expense and time for
everyone in this particular to waive the irregularity and proceed to
accept the l11C8 bid. I ld like to point out that by iving the
irregularity, you 11 have to deal with Folsoa, and I • no aire, given
his inability to foll b dding procedures and read the plans properly
that he will be to r with. You ffllJY very we ll have difficulty with
this contractor and I sure you will hav to intain a keen f!Ye on his
construction activiti
cc: Larry rkoW itz
Littleton City A torney
Gary Diede, Director of !ngineering rvices
tt.ul r, E•q •
•
• I I •
I
t ·t
J
i
J
j
I
1 .
•
•
• •
Proposals received after the time of receipt of bids will not be
accepted. All accepted proposals will be op~ned publicly and read
aloud. All interested parties ace invited to attend.
The Bidding Documents may be examined in the following locations:
Offices of Rocky Mountain Construction
2201 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado
Dodge Plan Room
Engineers Club Building
1380 South Santa Fe Drive
Denver, Colorado
Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.
1050 Yuma
Denver, Colorado
Bid security in the aaount of 51 of the base bid will be required
to accoapany bida. The <>vner reaervea the right to reject any or
all bida and to waive irregularity in bidding.
END OF INVITATION TO BID
7-82 U 120, 00050-2
•
I • •
-
I
I
I
•
\
•
• •
1.11 MODIFICATION AND WITHDRAWL
A. Bids aay not be aodified after submittal. Bidders may
withdraw Bids at any time before bid opening, but may not
reaubllit them. No Bid may be withdrawn or modified after
the bid opening except where the award of Contract has been delayed for 60 days.
1.12 CONSIDERATION OP BIDS
7-82
A. Properly submitted Bids will be opened publicly and wil l be read aloud.
B. The owner ahall have the right to reject any or all Bids.
C. It ia the intent of the owner to award a contract to the
loweat contractor coaplying with all bidding requirement s
and who doea not exceed the funds available.
END OF DOCUMENT
U 8204 00100-3
•
I • •
-
•
•
• ••
'N\\~,~ -
1~t3 ~~~ KL~
~ ri\~~~ ~
•
I . .
-
•
•
• •
N\_l;..,.,~ -
At~ ~~'\-~~
~~~~~~
•
I . .
Jn
-•
• •
PAVING DISTRICT REPORT
PRESENTED TO
ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
September 20, 1982 I . •
-•
• •
PAVING DISI'RICT REP(RI'
'Ihe purpose of this report is to provide the City Comcil with a review
of the various means available to provide overlay and street reconstruction
services for those streets in the City of Fnglewood that do not conform
to City specifications. Included in this report is an update of the
information provided to Comcil in the Septeni>er, 1980 meioorandun by
Kells Waggoner. 'Ihat report presented Coux:il with information on ~t
other llllllicipalities were doing regarding paving districts in the Denver
metropolitan area.
In addition, research was done on a national basis with information
provided by the International City Management Association (ICMA) in
Washington, D. C. A new service recently retained by the City on a trial
basis , the Product Information Net'WOrk (PIN) in New York was also contacted
in an atteq>t to secure additional information.
Various funding sources and implementation alternatives shall be pre-
sented for Coux:il discussion. Finally, the report shall conclude with
a staff reconmendation on how the City of Fnglewood should proceed to
upgrade all of its streets to adopted specifications.
As the City Coux:il is well aware, most cities can not afford the entire
cost of replacing or reconstructing streets. 'Iherefore, most cities have
established special assessment laws ~ereby individual property owners
pay the cost of public improvaaents oo the basis of a direct benefit
ratio. Special assessment typically includes, but is not limited to,
the following inprovments : streets (base and surface); curb and gutters;
storm sewers ; sctl.tary sewers; water distribution aains ; street lif/11,ting ;
and sidewalk. Within this frame.«rck, City Coux:il taJSt review its current
policies regarding the current search for alternative methods of funding.
In early 1980 a llll!IIK)t'and\n was presented to the Mayor and Members of
City Comcil (dated February 13, 1980) from the City Manager, ~ich
explained and outlined the procedures to follow in establishing paving
districts and related the City' policy in accordance to the Olarter
and Mmicipal Code. Basically, according to current City policy, an
assessment district is divided into t'WO parts : Section 1, the property
owners' portion of th oonstructioo; and Section II, die City's portion
of oonstruction.
•
I • •
Page 2
SECTIOO I.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
•
• -
O:>nstruction Contract.
All costs not specifically set forth as chargeable to the City.
F.ngineeri~rvices.
Actual Sa expenses including social security , -workmen I$
~ensation, health and life insurance, and bonding incurred
in the design, construction, and assessment of the i~rovements.
Aaninistrative Overhead.
Ten percent of die engineering services charges represents
expenses incurred by the City for services i.tiich are primarily
provided by the following individuals or departments :
1 • Director of Public ~rks
2. Director of F.ngineering Services
3. Secretary to Director of Public ~rks
4. City Manager's Office
5. DeparODent of Finance
6. Law Deparonent (other than those directly chargeable to
acquisition of property)
Interest Expenses.
'lhe interest on previous districts has been the nearest one-half
per cent above the bond interest rate.
~land Fiscal ~Fees.
ent fees oostsed. (Fiscal agents in the issuance of
bonds including bond col.Diel.)
Title Checking Fees.
Expenses incurred from the checking of ownersh ip of parcels of
property within the district.
Legal Advertising.
&J.uipnent Rental.
Miscellaneous Su~lies and ~es.
All odier direct lientifiabeexpenaes asses able to the property
owners , such as printing, postage, ass ssment books , tc.
Contingency Reserve.
Two per cent of die actual expena incurred above \oohich shall
represent all future costs assessable, but und termined, such
as legal advertising and OOl.llty tre.asurers' collection f s.
'Jhe ti«> per cent shall not apply to inter st expena outlined
above.
•
I • •
•
•
•' -
Page 3
SECTIOO II.
The following items are costs borne by the City at-large through th e
Public I~rovement Fund.
A. Construction Contract.
B.
c.
D.
1he City's share of construction of the improvement. Thes e
are established as the following items:
1. Street and alley intersections (concrete and paving).
2. Arterial and collector streets through residentially zoned
property. In these cases, the property owner is assessed
the cost of constructing a residential street. The City
bears the difference beOieell the cost of a residential
street and the cost of an arterial or collec tor street .
3. Expenses for paving, sidewalk, curb, and gutter over a
city ditch crossing (may also include piping of a section
of the ditch or reconstruction of a ditch crossing) and
adjacent to other city~ properties.
4. Railroad crossings.
5. Storm drainage construction, including pipes under cross ings
storm sewers, storm sewer inlets , and madloles.
6. O:\arges by the Utilities Deparonent for the relocat i on o f
valves, etc., on private water services 'lohen the co s t s are
incurred in connection with the distri ct.
7 . Costs to reoove and replace in quant i ty any t r ees eliminated
due to paving construction.
Land Ac~uisiti on .
Costs o djits-of-way and property necessary for construction
of the i.q>rovment . Incl udes recording fees, court fees in
condemlat i on , titl e po licies, and other expenses directly
associated wi th acquis ition of the parcel itself .
~raisal Fees for Land Acquisition.
its for appraisals necessary to the acquisition of property
for the improvement.
Attomey Fee for Land Acquisition.
Fees orth City Attorney or other CO\A'\Sel incurred directly in
the acquisition of property for th district.
The cost of paving is distributed to abutting propertt by ral thod ,
i •• front foot method, benefit zone thod or ar thod depending ~
th Jitysical layout of ar to be a Jeased.
\ihen th useaamenta r completed and th final ass sing ord
approved, then the re of the properti ha thirty (lO) days in
'lob ich to pay all or any part of th u t and r i a 51 diacol.l'I
on th portion paid. Th diacol.l'lt only appli if bond old to
finance th illpffl'1'-l\t
•
I • •
-•
• -
Page 4
After the discount period, the assessments are certified to Arapaioe
County for collection over a period of ten (10) years. The first
year's payments are 1 /10 th of the principal. The second and subsequent
payments are 1 /10th of the principal plus interest on the unpaid balance.
!ilould any of the payments not be made, then the full remaining assessment
becomes due and payable.
LOCAL PAV!~ POLICIFS
A study on paving alternatives was ~leted in Septel!Der, 1980. A new
survey has now been coq,leted on the J11JOicipalities listed below to
determine 1'\ether they implemented any new or significant changes
regarding their paving assessment policies.
Arvada -Bill Henges (421-2550)
The City does have improvement districts. CoUlCil has not undertaken a
forced improvement district. CoUlCil can force sewer and sidewalk improve-
ments. Paving is initiated by petition. A majority of the homeowners
(50% + over) have to petition, thus, indicating financial capability and
in fact -would like to have their street paved. All improvements are
assessed to the property owners, including local storm sewers. (They
don' t have alleys.)
CMners assessed by ordinance take total asse88ed frontage along the
street up to the lot line, add this and get a total cost, giving them a
unit assessment. Concrete is the responsibility of homeowners. As!ilalt
is asse88ed the first ti.me only. The property owners are assessed for
1 /2 the width and depth of a residential street. The City pays for any
excess depth and 1 /2 the width on an arterial street. Basically , the
contractor, the developer or the property owner is responsible for all
new improvmenta.
'lhey have an improvement district fini lltlich 8CCU11Ulates all assessments
ran on the t en-year repayme,t plan. Semi-amual payme,ts are made. 'lhis
money goes into SID funds to front-end other improvement districts as they
cane along and eventually the fund is reimbursed over a period of ti.me.
'lhe fund also consists of money from the amual budget, securities, and
CCO\.nts receivable. If payment is made within 20 days, ther is no
inter st charged. 'lhey charg a 5~ to 1~ rate to cover engineering
costs, that is included in the cost of th project.
1h City is finally r sponsibl for maint and repla of existing
streets. Sidewalk.a ar r placed with ooncr t on a 50-50 basis.
Aurora -Ted Rouases (695-7300)
1h City of Aurora have improvment districts that ar l.niti.ated by
petition. However, th City CoUlCil can declar need for a forced distric t.
1h City proposed wn districts for the y r 1982 wl.th s ver l t to
in. All illlpro ta ard/or: new conatruction is ass sed to th pro rty
r, including stot"II s rs, int rs tiona and 11 y ya. Aa11H1-?nt
ii bas on th front thod (including curb, gutt ra a,d str t
and 18 f of pa t) uaing 1 /2 th width ard depth o a r 1 tlal
a t. oona tlon th , is defl. th first t th str t
•
I • •
•
• •
Page 5
has been built to meet full standards of the City. The City then pays
all future maintenance costs. Bonds are sold to finance the project.
If payment is made within 30 days, there is a 51 discount. If not paid
within 30 days, the assessment is collected annually by the County
through property tax (10 installment payments) over a ten-year period.
It was stated that the City uses State Statute on ~rovement districts
i.bereby 11 of the cost of collection fees goes to the County.
Gre~ Village -Don Wuerz (773-0252)
They have one general ~rovement district -sanitary and sewer in their
Green Oaks subdivision.
They have a ten-year street maintenance program. General Fund !OO!'lies
are appropriated for street paving. The 1982 appropriation is approxi-
mately $500,000 and the 1983 appropriation is approximately $750,000.
Currently Greenwood Village is using overlay with some petromat, as{tlalt
or rebuild and overlay. Initially, it is the developer/subdivider llho
pays for the paving of new streets. Basically, all streets are paved,
and these having been accepted by the City, are maintained by the City.
Sidewalks within the rippt-of-way are maintained by the City, otherwise
it is the total responsibility of the homeowner. The City does their
own repairing with concrete,
A statement was made that there are some gravel roads and that homeowners,
because they live in a fam area, would definitely oppose the paving
of their roads.
There is no consistent across the board system set up for street paving
or maintenance. There are special requirements for subdivisions, gravel
roads, comaercial areas, and existing roads/streets in developed are s.
It is the general fund, however, that is used to maintain and repair
existing residential streets.
Lakewod -Joe Cabola (234-8801)
Paving districts are piclced by City Comcil. 'Resident petitions ar
seldom dealt with. They usually assess as{tlalt and sidewalk to th
property <Mner on front foot basis or they may us the unit base in th
case of a cul-de-sac, thus individual lot owners share area unit con-
atruction costs. (The abo information pertains to gr vel atr ta. All
new str ta undergo chip ling aft r a thr -y r riod.)
The City pays for alley ya, atorm s and int r ections. If curl>,
gutt r or side.lalk needs repair, the City will patch with {i1 lt, ald
if th h r wuld prefer ooncret , the City will split th cost
50-50. Bonds ar sold to finance projects. Th r is a 51 dlacol.ll
us ment is paid in full -30 days after s ssnien t vied. 1h y
atill a 17-year pa)'lll!rlt plan but 10-15 y plan la
often by th h r. Th City la respon ibl or int
rep t of exi ti StYI ta.
•
I • •
•
• •
Page 6
Littleton -Charlie Blosten (795-3863)
They have special ~rovement districts only ~en a dirt road is to be
paved with as?lalt. Once the street is accepted by the City, it (City)
is responsible for all maintenance costs. Property owners are assessed
for as?1alt by using proration per lot, front foot. Rarely is an improve-
ment district (construction of a new street) imposed without consent of
property owners. Bonds are sold. Property owners can pay in one lunp
sun or over a ten-year period. As for maintenance, the City pays 100't
of street costs and sidewalks are repaired with concrete on a 50-50 basis.
(Littleton had an $85,000 ~rovement district this year with a sub-
stantial overrun for excavation quantity. Errors were made by the
engineers and the $3,000 overnri was picke:i up by the City.)
Northglem -Mr. Landeck (451-8326)
Basically, there is no change. There are no districts. Developers
provide ~rovements. There isn't any property tax; sales tax is their
main income. They don't assess property owners. There is a section
reserved in their Charter for local ~rovement districts, however, it
has never been acted upon. They have only been incorporated twelve
years. M:>st developnent is current.
There doesn't seem to have been any "new' or innovative methods of making
street paving assessments oore appealing to residential areas, though
there is sane variation in payment plans, paving district initiation
processes, etc.
It was found, however, that the City of Aurora and Lakewood have 1DOVed
toward a similar policy as that of Fnglel«X>d, in that they row state
that "City Coulcil can declare a need for a forced district." This was
not determined to be so in 1980. Thus, it appears as though lllll1icipalities
may slowly be recognizing the need to require ~rovement districts,
and also that our existing policies are in line with the rest of the
metropolitan area.
National infonnation was provided by the Mana8 t Information Servic ,
an office of th International City Hanag t As cx:i tion (ICMA ). Th
following information has from th r ports, publications, etc :
1. Financing l.ocal Improvements by Special Assessment -MFCY\,
2. Resolution 1354 mending sea t lllilllual for sidewalks.
3. Local Imp t Guide -League of Minne ota Cities.
4. I<H\ Gr Book m Finance, peg 200-210.
5. Financing l.ocal Impro ta by Special Assessment -Bur u
of Re rch cxi rv1 , Univeristy of Or pt.
6. Financing l.ocal lmpro ta by Speci l Aas sment -Bur u
o rch aid rvice, UniY nity o Or pt -Vol 2 •
•
I • •
•
• -
Page 7
Oregon Cities
tt:>st Oregon cities that make substantial street improvements marge Ill)St
of the cost to the benefited property througp special assessments. However ,
there are nunerous policies under lotlim city revenues are used to pay a
portion of the cost. Since estimation and allocation of public and
property owner costs are inexact processes, cities COIDIIOllly adopt
standardized allocation fornw.as.
The Ill)St conmon way cities share in the cost of street improvements is
by paying for intersections. In 1968 many cities, including Eugene,
Salem, Ashland, Roseburg, Dallas, Lebanon, McMinnville, tbrth Bend and
Ontario, paid the cost of intersections within the city limits. There
is oo consistent pattern among cities for policy manges between 1968 and
1980 regarding paying for intersections. Since 1968, Lebanon and Ash lJmd
have anended their policies and oo longer pay these costs. Cottage
Grove and Springfield pay for intersections only in developed areas.
The other cities mentioned above continue to pay for intersections, and
the city of Albany has adopted such a policy.
It is also coamon for cities to assune the costs resulting from construction
of an arterial street to a width or strength in excess of the requirements
for a standard access street. A 1980 survey indicated that some cities
have manged earlier policies and now pay fewer of the costs of extra-wide
streets. In 1968, Cottage Grove paid for streets in excess of 32 feet
in width ; the city now pays for those in excess of 38 feet. Dallas paid
for streets in excess of 34 feet in 1968, but now pays for streets in
excess of 36 feet in width.
Many cities vary the amount of their financial participation in street
illlprovements according to zoning or land use. Corvallis pays for improve-
ments to streets in excess of 36 feet in width in single-family residential
:zones, but only pays for illlprovements to streets in excess of 44 feet in
aw.ti-fanily and connercial zones. Lake Oswego pays for improvements
to streets in excess of 32 feet in width in residential zones. Medford
pays costs in excess of $5 per front foot for streets in residential areas.
Current city policies regarding financial participation in local i~rove-
ments reflect the trend of marging the cost of extending public facilities
to new developaent. a.gene pays for illlprovements to streets in exces
of 28 f t in width for existing single-family and duplex lots but, for
re identi 1 developaent, only pays for str ts in excess of 36 f t.
Cottage Grove pays all str t improvement oosts for intersections in
established area.a of the city. Springfield as oo oost for str t
within subdivisions, but otherwise pays incremental costs for improv ts
to str ts in excess of 36 feet in width.
Oregon citi tao have speci l deferral progr
and low and IIOder t itlOOlle f•ilies.
for senior citizens
Huon Mimi
In 1973, City Col.SlCil of Muon, Michigan directed the City Aaninistr tion
to o t ti polici concerning str inlpro ts. P
to tabllah to imp1 t a city-wide str t up-gr ding and
['0',19111!1\t p
•
I • •
•
• •
Page 8
Under this program, the City ~d contribute 50% to any reconstruction
of a major street lohich involved a new storm sewer, '\here no storm sewer
was required, the City's percentage ~d be 55%. The City -would
contribute 34% of the cost of reconstruction of a local street , lohich
included a storm sewer. '\here no storm sewer is required, the City's
share -would be 38%. It was believed that the overall percentages were
fair and equitable and hipply conducive to the property owners to have
curb and gutter as well as sidewalks installed.
The rationale for the above policy recoomendations was that without proper
street construction spectifications, without curb and gutter and without
proper drainage facilities, the city was forced to pay considerably more
for maintenance in terms of capital outlay and labor. If a street is
constructed with full i.q>rovements, in accordance with recognized so\nl
engineering principles, the life of asJilalt is usually ten to twelve
years before attention is required. With scheduled maintenance programs
thereafter, the life of any street should be approximately forty to
forty-five years before another special assessment is necessary. This
-would assure IIOSt Mason residents that they -would not be assessed more
than once in a lifetime.
S1.IIW{Y
Staff w:>uld briefly like to s\.lllD!U'ize various policies utilized by
local llllnicipalities and 80lllt! research information regarding 0re!1P",
Winter Park , Florida, and the City of Hasen, Michigan.
Engle.«>od, Aurora, Littleton, Lal<ewood, and Arvada all have paving
districts.
Northglem and Gr~ Village do not have paving districts.
lq>rovement districts can be required by Aurora, Arvada and EngltMX>d.
Districts initiated by petition -Arvada , Aurora , EhgltMX>d.
Districts initiated by city cooocil -Lal<ewood , Arvada, EhgltMX>d,
and Aurora.
F.x.cept for Northglem and Gr~ Village , 1'iho have not had a
paving i.q>rovement district, all improvements a.rd/or
construction is assessed to the property owners in th citi
of Aurora, Littleton, Lakewood, Arvada and Engle.G>d.
Regarding maintenance, once streets have been in a paving district
all local lll.lnicipalities indicated they er spauiible for
maintenance not replacenent of existing str ta.
Si l.ka maintained/repaired on a 50-50 basis -Littleton, Auror ,
Lakewood a.rd Arvada.
Front foot thod of asa
SJnicipaliti •
t l'lk)8t widely us in all local
sold in all local a,..inicipalitL to f th proj ta •
•
I • •
-
l
•
• -
Page 9
Sources of finance to pay for project :
Annual budget -Arvada and Englewood
General revenue -Lakel.«xxl
Federal funds -Lakel.«xxl
~rovement funds securities , previous projects -Arvada
Payment plans :
17 years -Lakewood
10 years -Aurora, Littleton, Arvada and Engl~
AllCM 51 discomt 1'tl.en assessment is paid in full -Lake.«>od.
AllCM 51 discount 1'tl.en paid within 30 days -Aurora and Englewood .
I n Oregon, Florida and Michigan, cities have indicated their need to
assune authority under home rule charters to finance local imp rovemen ts
by special assessment irrespective of 1'tl.ether initiated by city co t.ne il
conmission , or by petition of the property owners.
Winter Park , Florida utilizes a Board of F.qualization (conposed of all
meni>ers of the city comcil/OO!Dission) 1'tl.ich reviews all requests f or
adjustment of assessments either written or oral. 'Ihis Board s its during
the public hearing to confirm or adj ust the assessment roll. tt>s t Oregon
cities that make substantial street illlprovements charge llk)St o f the cost
to the benefited property thr<>\.Wl special assessment. Mason, Mich i gan
recounends that indi vidual property owners pay the cost of pub lic imp rove-
ments on the basis o f a direct benefit ratio. Having gone through th e
vari ous polic ies o f both local and other state areas , staff conclude s
that cities recognize their i nabi lity to afford the enti r e cost of replacing
or reconstructlng streets ; thus , most cities maintai n special asse ssmen t
laws 1'tl.ereby indi vidual property owners pay the cost of pub lic improvemen ts
on the basis of a direct benefi t rati o.
'Ih e follCM Lng is a listlng o f the various fundlng source s that could be
used to finance str eet over lay arv:l /or reconstructi on .
1 •
2.
General Oblifition Bonds . 'Ih is is the III08t conmon financial
iiieduinism ut ized by i..inicipalities. Traditionally cities
pay a portion of the bond costs with the property owner
ass sed for th r ining cost.
General Fund. CoUlCil designates expenditures out of General
reve:lues.
3. • Comcil could impose an additional mill levy for
purpo of financlng str t illlprovements. ()le mill
approximat ly $138 ,770.
4. oline. 'Ihe City could irapos a sales tax on th sale
o gaao ne n th City of Englewood. 'Ihis type of tax could
prove tr ly difficult to enforce due to th extensive
IIOl'litori th t uld ha to take place.
•
I • •
-
Page 10
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
•
• •
Increase Sales Tax. Toe Council could increase the sales tax
by an additional 1 /21.. This tax wuld generate approximately
$1 , 723,000 per year and wuld have to be imposed for a period
of four and one-half years in order to fund the cost of upgrading
the remaining streets. (Total cost is estimated at $8 ,32 8 ,508 .)
This mi!!tlt not be an option if Arapatoe Co1.a1ty is successful
in its att~t to raise the sales tax to fund construction of
a judicial ~lex.
Head Tax. Council could i.qx>se a tax on all individuals wrking
within the corporate limits of the City.
sra;al 111J>rovement Tund. Co\.l.'lCil could establish a fund and
p an assessment on all new developnent in Fnglewod for
streets, drainage, etc.
Public l!IJ>rovement Tund. CoU1Cil could designate a certain
percentage of the PIF fund for street ~rovements. This wuld
necessitate a re-evaluation of the projects currently recoomended
to CoU1Cil. CoU1Cil ahould bear in mind that in the proposed
1983 bu:lget, all revenues in the PIF are earmarked for specific
projects. There is no revenue reserve.
Federal Funds. Co\DCil could direct staff to seek federal
funds. Some funds mi!!tlt be available but the ~tition to
obtain them is tremendous. The City could apply for COOG funds
but not being an entitlement city places us in an extreme
disadvantage.
Loans from banks or other financial institutions. The existing
hiji interest rate is an effective deterrent to this particular
option.
IMPUMNrATICN OPl'ICNS
1 • One large bond issue. Co1.nCil could elect to float a bond issue
for the remaining , s~ of the city streets that have not yet
been included in a paving district. This issue could be based
on our present fOrtlllla with the City contribution set at $2,692,908
and the property owners aasessed the remaining $5,635,600. (Total
is $8,328,508.) It has been the City's practice rot to bond
th City'• portion of th paving district cost but because this
is a consider bl cost ($2,692,908). Th Co\.l.'lCil could elect
to float bond for th entir cost. Since it wuld be t:hysically
iq>OS ibl to lilh the entire paving district in one y r
(engineering tiJllllt • four-year conatruction period) bond
fund could be in ted with the inter t r venue being used to
offs t the coats of th larg bond issue. (Issue costs plus th
principal and int r st p,a)'llellts of approxiJlllltely $1 ,826 ,000
for th first y r on a -y r issue.)
2. • ln th propoeed 1983 t, Council has
,000 for a ving distrlct. I Council r
•
I • •
•
Page 11
•
• -
to maintain this level of contribution plus an additional 10%
per year to maintain a constant district size, the remaining
streets could be iq>roved within a nine-year period. This plan
w:>uld utilize our existing procedures and assessment fot"lllllas
and would call for the foll.owing contributions by the City :
1983 $300,000
1984 330,000
1985 363,000
1986 399,300
1987 439,230
1988 483,153
1989 531,468
1990 584,615
1991 627,874
Total $4,058,640
Total Assessed Property
CMners 8,493,747
'1'0TAL PROJECT $12,552,387
3. Ei@t\teen-Year Program. Under this plan the Comcil could maintain
the contribution BIIIIOI.Klt at a constant $300,000 per year for
seventeen years and $231 ,472 in the ei~teenth year to ac~lish
the program. Under the ei~teen-year program the totals would be :
City Contribution
Property owner
aasesl!llllel'lt
$5,331,472
11,157,467
$16,488,939
4. Comcil could atteq:,t to front-end the entire costs of the
project (no bond issue) and charge a lower interest rate to
the property owner. Comcil would need to make a minim.m of
$700,000 available per paving district.
5. Comcil could continue with its present method of assessing
property owners and issuing bonds.
6. After all costs have been a,mputed and assessed it may be more
appealing to the property owners to determine a percentage con-
tribution that is deducted off of the final assessment.
7. Pethaps Comcil would want to oonaider separating concrete costs
from aainalt. 'lhe City paying for the DDst expensive of th
two would bring down the cost t:o the property owner.
8. The City oould ultimately jll8t do nothing 1ohen r sidents get
tired of their l.a'\Satisfactory str ts, sldewallc:a, tc. Th y
would come to the City and request to be put in a paving
diatrlct •
•
I • •
•
• -
Page 12
9. Rather than allow a 5'% discount for payment in full within 30
days of their assessment, Co\IICil could offer a more substantial
amount, perhaps 10-15'%.
Attached please find other alternatives wiich have been previously
presented to Council in a memorandun dated September 11, 1980 by
Kells Waggoner.
The research conducted for this report indicates that there are basically
three methods of providing street iq>rovements. Special assessments, wiere
the cost of the i.q>rovements is prorated between the property CMOer and
the City based on a direct benefit fOI"!lllla. Special programs are established
wiereby the City pays a greater percentage of the cost (up to 50'% in some
areas). Finally, the City pays for the entire cost of the reconstruction
and maintenance.
In the Denver metropolitan area there appears to be a definite trend
tc.Mard sharing the costs thrO\.Wl the use of special assessment paving
districts. ~cipalities have come to the realization that as the street
systen ages, maintenance and reconstruction costs will continue to rise
making it increasing difficult for cities to bear the cost alone. Given
the current economic trends and Cot.neil's att~t to initiate a major
cbfftto,m redevelopnent project, it is staff's recoomendation that our
current policy on paving districts be maintained.
In Paving District No. 28, Co\IICil elected to include Engineering and
acbinistration fees in the City's portion of the cost. 'Ihis amcnnted to
approximately a 15% reduction in the cost assessed to the property CMOer.
Staff 11«>uld reconmend that Co\IICil consider an additional 5 to 10%
reduction in the cost assessed to the property owner as a form of rebate.
Staff 91.Mests that this 20 to 25% reduction be deducted from the final
aasesment for lllllXillun i.q>act. Depending on the size of the district
this 'Wuld add $50,000 to $60,000 to the City's cost per district.
Finally, staff 11«>uld reconmend that a long-term notification process for
property CMners be initiated. Under this process, the City &igineer
wuld present to Co\IICil a list of the streets that have not yet been
included in a paving district. Co\l'lCil would then conduct on-sigtt
visits and prioritize the streets for inclusion in paving districts.
Utilizing Coi.ncil' s prioritized list, the City &lgineer could then
dev lop a schedule for each street. Property owners would then be notified
that in year 19XX they will be included in a paving district. At the
present time, e City is on a tw-year notification program. 'Ihis process
11«>uld allow up to an eigtteen year notice. (<hriously, if certain str ts
deteriorated at a faster rate than anticipated Comcil woul.d have to
reappraise or chang the scheduled date for that str t.) Hopefully,
th is ..«>uld allow th property owner nr:>r ti.lie to plan and budget for th
assesnent and reduce their reluctance to be included in an assessment
district.
sb
•
I • •
•
•
• •
~#1
1. City would pay all construction, engineering costs, etc,, with no cost to property owners.
Pros -eliminate the need for the expense and Procedure for creating
special assessment districts; will reduce ~laints, no assessment for low income people.
Cons -discriminates against the property owners lotlo have been
assessed for ""'rovements in prior districts; City would be hard
preHed to provide the IIQ'ley necessary to finance sucn a program;
no relationship to benefit conferred upon property.
2. F.stablish a base year and limit assessments to tnit prices for that year -City paying costs above base year.
Pros -limits the amotnt that a property owner will pay and may
make it easier to create districts in the future; property owner
would not experience inflationary costs ; would make assessment
estimates easier to calculate from year to year.
Cons -discriminates against the property owner in prior districts
tnless hue year were the last year of record; no relationship to
benefit conferred ~ property; city costs would continue to rise.
3. City would pay a certain percentage of all construction and engineeri
coats, etc., thereby reducing the property owners' share.
Pros -would show city's contribution to each assessment and may make
it easier to create districts in the future; would reduce assessments ;
has scne relationship to benefit conferred.
Cons -discriminates against property owners in prior districts if
lower costs were the results; hi(lter city costs; only partial assess-ment of benefit conferred.
4. Credit property owner for existing asptalt arv:J/or other ""'t"O\li t s re~dless of condition.
Pros -would r as es ta ; may it ier to tabliah
a district ; y help to convince property r to upgrade condition
of ooncr te or aaptalt ; assessments would still r fl ct benefit to property.
Cons -may r sult in protests from property rs in prior districts
"*to r not given 8UCh a credit ; would probably an arbitrary
decision as to worth of existing ~rowments would incr as city costs.
•
I • •
-•
• •
-2-
5. City would pick up all replacement concrete costs -only new
installations would be assessed to the property ™11er.
Pros -would lower assessments for oost property ™11ers; would
probably cause property owner to request upgrade of sidewalk i.e.
width, curb cuts etc.; may reduce ~laints about construction
faults.
Cons -discriminates against property owners in prior districts
costs to city would increase; city may find it necessary to hire a
concrete crew full time to replace concrete; affects other city
policies and ordinances.
6. City 1o«>uld absorb all engineering and miscellaneous costs related
to district except construction costs, fiscal agent fees, bond
interest and a~ contingency.
Pros -reduced assessments for every property owner; very little
chance that owner could get lower prices from private contractor ;
assessments 11Dre closely related to bid prices ; no argunents as to
add on costs ; less argunents as to benefit to property.
Cons -hifjler costs to city; could discriminate against property
owner in prior districts if lower costs would occur.
7. Extend bond repayment period.
Pros -assessment period would be extended, thereby reducing the
annual payment; no change in existing procedure ; assessmen t directly
related to benefit.
Cons -interest costs on the bonds would be greater, thereby increas-
ing assessments ; total costs, if spread over repayment period, w:>uld
be greater ; no advantage to people 'oho pay early.
8 . Use an assessment deferment program for the low-income owners.
Pros -would defer assessment until owner or estate could pay ;
would eliminate initial ~t upon these people ; may help in the
creation of a district.
Cons -places an additional aaninistr tive w:,rkl.oad on th city ;
...:,uld need to establish criteria to detemine income levels ; city
could end up carrying large backlog of aasessments ; mifjlt be difficult
to keep track of inaofar as eligibility to pay from year to y r ;
city ...:,uld need 1110r upfront lll)My to repay bonds.
•
,
I • •
• -
• •
Attachment II
1982 PAVING DISTRICT SURVEY
z:
0 z: z: 0
0 IJ.J 0 0 0
0 ..J I-0 Ou.J
:JI: ~ u, IJ.J 0 3U, ct:
IJ.J ::c ...J :!'.: z: ct: 0
..J ~ ~ I-IJ.J IJ.J...J ct: u, I-><: IJ.J...J > z: ~ 0 -ct: c~-ex:
IJ.J ct: z: ...J U,> ct:
Have paving districts X X X X X
Have sidewalk districts X X X X
Have sewer districts X
Don't have districts X X
How districts are initiated:
City Council X X X
Petition X X X
Can be forced:
Pavina X X
Concrete X X X
Water and sewer X X X
Assess property owners:
Pavina & asohalt X X X X X
Sidewalk X
Concrete (Sidewalk C & Gl X X X X
Storm se wer s X X
Co ncrete assessed to property owners
1st time only X
Asphalt assessed to property owner s
1st time onlv X X X
N improvement assessed or
resoons1 bil 1tY of orooertv owner X
N w 1mprov nt is assessed or
resoons 1b111tv of contractorldevelooer X X X X I • •
Coner t (S,C & G) is the responsibil i ty
of orooertv owner X X
Don 't assess orooerty owner '( l(
• •
• ~-• •
-2-
C z ::,: z C 0 w 0 C 0 0 ...J f-0 0 w 3 ~ <!) w 0 3 <!) ex: w ::,: ...J 3: zcx: C ...J 0 f-f-w w ...J ex: t!) 0::: 0::: f-~ W...J > z ::, 0 -ex: o:::-0::: w ex: z ...J ...J t!) > ex:
c, ·ty pays for replacement of existing:
Curb & qutter onl v X
Asphalt & Pavino X X X X X X
Concrete (S, C & Gl X
Intersections X X X
Alleyways X X X X
Me thods of Assessment :
Front Foot X X X X X
Area or Unit X X
lineal foot X
Zone X
Based on annexation agreements X
Based on proration of the size
of the lot X
Homeowner helps to detennine the
method ?
Sell bonds to finance X X X X X
Don't sell bonds X X
s ources of finances to pay for project:
Annual budqet X X
Genera 1 revenue X X
Improvement fund securities,
previous projects X
Federal funds X • I • •
Accounts receivable X
• •
• -
• •
-3-
z:
0 z: z: 0
0 w 0 0 0
0 ....J I-0 o w 3: ~ (!) w 0 3: <.!l c,:
w I ....J 3: z: c,: 0
....J 0 I-I-w W....J c,:
(!) c:: c:: I-:.:: W....J > z: :::, 0 -c,: c::-c,:
w c,: z ....J ....J t!l > c,:
Pa yment plans:
17 vears X
10 vears X X X X
Deferred payment for low income/hardship
cases X
5% discount pa vment made within 30 da vs X X
5% discount when assessment is Paid in full X
Payment made within 30 d4ys with
X no interest charqe
No discount X
En gineering costs:
5-10% rate varies X
Charqed to pro.iect X
Paid bv Citv X
Consultant fee paid equally by residents X
Aan i ni strat i ve paid bv Citv X X
•
• I • •
• •
•
•
•
•
• •
TO: Mayor Otis and Members of City Council
FROM: Peter H. Vargas, Assistant City Manager ~.4f''2J.
DATE : September 20, 1982
SUBJECT : Existing City Service Contracts
Attached for your information are lists of existing City
service contracts for various departments .
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me .
PHV/sb
I • •
Name
Suzanne Furman
Ken Martin
NCR
PRIME, Inc .
Direct Mail Service
•
• •
FINANCE
EXISTING CITY SERVICE CONTRACTS
Purpose
Program Coding
Program Coding
399 Computer Mtn .
Computer Mtn .
Insert/Mail
Utility Bills
Duration
6 weeks
4 weeks
on-going
annual to 1/1/83
on-going
annual
monthly -
all year
Lehman, Butterwick Annual Audit(includes 3 years
EHA, EDDA, URA , BI-CITY, and pensions funds)
McCrea & Co.
Sterling Code
First Interstate
A. S. Hansen
David Griffiths &
Associates
BBC
Hanifen, Imhoff
Latm1 , Edstrom,
Braym r
Oedipus , Inc .
W st rn Offic
Machines
AB Dick
Annual Auction
City Code Supplement
Banking Services
Actuarial Services
A-87 Cost Allocation
Sales Tax Study
Bonding, Fiscal Advisor
Bonding Counsel
Liquor License
Application Petitioning
one time
until
cancelled
May 1, 1985
on call basis
one time
on call basis
on call basis
need basis
(paid by applicant ; flows through our books)
Maintenance Contract
Typewriters, Calculators
Print Shop Mint nanc
Contract-printing equip .
Annual
Annu 1
*varies -baa don bond i au a, fiscal a rvic , and l gal servic
• •
Cost
$ 2,400-
3,600
$30,000
$ 600/
month
$ 1, 500/
month
$ 650/
year
$39,900/
year
10% of
sales
$ 965/
year
As bidded
$20,000
$ 7,500
$ 2,000
*
*
$ 600 /
per job
$ 5,175
$ 5,595
I • •
• -
• •
EXISTING CITY SERVICE CONTRACTS
Nrme Purpose Duration Cost
l. Black & Veatch tmtheast FnglE!lo«X>d Relief
Sewer Corrplete Corrplete
M::Lellan Reservoir Study
( to be reimursed by ooax;) NovE!lber, 1982 $10,000
Sewer Rate Stuiy lt>veui:>er • 1982 15,000
l. Wry,~t-?fc!at!Wllin Boreas Pass Study February, 1983 6 ,000
City Ditch Survey Novemer, 1982 6,000 • lhion Avenue Purp Station October, 1982 &
March, 1983 Pending
3. Bl.atchl~ Assoc . en retainer . No defined top limit .
Water lneer M'.lnthly accoU1ting. Water rights transfer .
(Water engineer .)
4. Janes D. Geissinger.
Attorney -Water Ch retainer. No defined top limit .
Rights M'.lnthly accoU1ting . Water rights transfer .
•
• I . •
• • n ,..,
I
I
r!-
•
•
•
Name
Recreaticn Divisicn :
BWA Architects
162 Adams St .
Denver, Co . 80206
Parks Divisicn:
Urban Edges
1537 Washingtcn St .
Denver, Co . 80203
•
• •
AIDITirnAL
EXISTING cm SERVICZ cx:NIRACI'S
Purpose
Study of site, bldg .
plans, etc., for a
camurl.ty center.
F\nd raising narketi.ng
plan for So . Platte
River '.1...,..ail
•
wraticn Cost
9 nxnths $30,000
12 l!Dnths 3,850
I . •