nederlandco.org · 2012/11/13 · Town of Nederland . T. OWN OF . N. EDERLAND. B. OARD OF . T....

Town of Nederland

TOWN OF NEDERLAND BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING

NEDERLAND COMMUNITY CENTER 750 Hwy 72 Nederland, CO 80466 November 13, 2012, 7:00 P.M. AGENDA

A. CALL TO ORDER

B. ROLL CALL

C. CONSENT AGENDA

• Approval of November 13, 2012 Accounts Payable, Schedules A & B

• Approval of October 16, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes

• Approval of Steering Committee for Community Center site planning project

• Approval of appointments to the CCFB

D. STAFF REPORTS 1. Alisha Reis, Town Administrator 2. Teresa Myers, Town Clerk 3. Eva Forberger, Town Treasurer 4. Jake Adler, Town Marshal 5. Jason Morrison, Public Works Manager 6. Dawn Baumhover, Community Center Coordinator

E. BOARD OF TRUSTEE REPORTS 1. Mayor’s Report 2. Trustees’ Reports

F. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS (Speakers limited to 3 minutes)

Town of Nederland

G. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Presentation of Starburst Award (for Excellence in Use of Lottery Funds) for Toddler

Playground at Chipeta Park, by Matt Robbins, of the Colorado Lottery.

H. ACTION ITEMS 1. Consideration of SRU Agreement for the Kathmandu Addition 2. Consideration of Contract Approval for Sustainability Coordinator/Project Manager

for the NedPeds project. 3. Consideration of Resolution 2012-30, allowing the DDA to borrow funds from the

Town, to be paid back from TIF funds, to fund the NedPeds design. 4. Consideration of Resolution 2012-31, concerning the Board of Trustees Rules of

Procedure. 5. Consideration of Ordinance 712, an update to the floodplain regulations, as required

by FEMA. 6. Consideration of Ordinance 713, concerning annexation of the Public Works Yard on

Ridge Road. 7. Public Hearing: Construction of Salt/Sand Shed at Public Works Yard.

I. DISCUSSION ITEMS There are no planned Discussion Items.

J. OTHER BUSINESS

K. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Trustees encourages citizen participation. Public hearings and the “unscheduled citizens” agenda item allow an opportunity to address the Board. Discussion is limited to 3 minutes and please address your comments to the Board. Thank you for your cooperation. The Board of Trustees may take action on any item included on this agenda, regardless of the heading under which such item appears. Discussion items may become action items if the Board determines that deferring final action on an item to a subsequent meeting is unnecessary or unwarranted and that taking immediate action does not compromise any third-party's rights. The Board of Trustees meeting packets are prepared by Friday before the Tuesday meetings and are available for inspection at Town Hall during normal business hours. The information is reviewed and studied by the Board of Trustee members, eliminating lengthy discussions to gain basic understanding.

Town of Nederland

Short discussion on agenda items does not reflect lack of thought or analysis. The agendas are posted at Town Hall, the post office, and on the Town's website on the Friday prior to the meeting. Copies of the agenda and meeting packet are available at no cost via email from the Town Clerk or from the Town website at www.nederlandco.org.

http://www.nederlandco.org/�

TOWN OF NEDERLAND

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

REGULAR MEETING:

November 13, 2012

Responsible Department: Administration

Contact Staff Member: Teresa Myers, Town Clerk

Consent Agenda Items which are not controversial in nature; have been

previously discussed and considered

A. Approval of November 13, 2012 Accounts Payable, Schedules A & B

B. Approval of October 16, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes

C. Approval of Steering Committee for Community Center site planning project

D. Approval of appointments to the CCFB

BOARD MEMBERS MAY:

Move TO APPROVE the Consent Agenda

Or

Move TO AMEND by removing or adding from the Consent Agenda

By A roll call vote of the Board of Trustees

TOWN OF NEDERLAND WARRANTS

WARRANTS FOR 11/13/2012 SCHEDULE A

Date Number VENDOR AMOUNT DESCRIPTION26-Oct 26742 Acme Septic 325.00$ Bridge street PRV repairs

26-Oct 26743 APC 1,033.20$ asphalt patching on Jefferson/Community Center

26-Oct 26744 Accurpate Payroll Solutions 150.00$ monthly payroll processing services

26-Oct 26745 Boulder Community Hospital 24.00$ blood draw/screening test

26-Oct 26746 The Business Connection 58.08$ office supplies

26-Oct 26747 Canon Financial Services 148.00$ monthly lease payment for TH copier

1-Nov 26748 Caribou Mercantile 750.00$ monthly rent for Police Department

26-Oct 26750 Cobitco 149.04$ minor parts & equipment for public works

26-Oct 26751 Colonial Supplemental 118.90$ supplemental insurance for Town employees

1-Nov 26752 Commerce Bank 3,580.45$ monthly lease payment for PD vehicle/Front loader

26-Oct 26753 CPS Distributors 80.39$ minor parts & equipment for public works

26-Oct 26754 Dana Kepner 520.60$ minor parts & equipment for public works

26-Oct 26756 Dencol 127.04$ minor parts & equipment for public works

26-Oct 26757 Devin Estep 460.00$ public works assistance with vehicle repairs

26-Oct 26759 DPC Industries 1,210.91$ chemicals for water/sewer

26-Oct 26760 Farmer's Ditch Company 409.37$ annual dues related to Town's water rights

26-Oct 26761 Five Star Products 1,088.78$ chemicals for water/sewer

26-Oct 26762 General Air 163.98$ minor parts & equipment for public works

26-Oct 26763 Greenplay 7,005.00$ consulting services for parks & rec Master plan

26-Oct 26764 HD Supply 4,673.56$ Bridge street PRV repairs

24-Oct AUTO Home Depot 386.72$ minor parts & equipment for public works

26-Oct 26765 IIMC 145.00$ annual dues for Clerk's association

26-Oct 26766 Clarence Jagt 174.00$ community center maintenance and meeting room setup

26-Oct 26767 Pride Enterprises 64.50$ business cards for town employees

24-Oct AUTO Mutual of Omaha Credit Card 1,976.14$ see attached

26-Oct 26768 LMS 519.00$ annual maintenance for waterworks

26-Oct 26769 Mountain Peak Controls 475.00$ minor parts & equipment for public works

26-Oct 26770 Napa Auto Parts 292.35$ minor parts & equipment for public works

26-Oct 26771 Ned Composting 32.00$ 4 months composting services

26-Oct 26772 OJ Watson 67.15$ minor parts & equipment for public works

26-Oct 26773 Pipestone Equipment 21,513.65$ Bridge street PRV repairs

26-Oct 26774 Quality Pipe Services 2,035.00$ I&I investigation services for sewer

26-Oct 26775 Rocksol Consulting Group 180.75$ materials testing for wastewater plant

26-Oct 26776 Safe Systems 99.78$ quarterly monitoring for fire alarm system at the Com Center

26-Oct 26777 Safebuilt 3,862.02$ monthly building inspection and planning review services

26-Oct 26778 Vranesh & Raisch 13.00$ legal services related to Town's water rights

29-Oct AUTO Wells Fargo Equipment Finance 2,167.44$ equipment lease payment for Chevy Silverados

26-Oct 26779 Xcel Energy 6,195.32$ monthly electric/gas bill for town facilities and street lights

26-Oct 26780 Canon Business Solutions 144.85$ quarterly maintenance for TH copier

26-Oct 26782 Amber Greves 415.40$ refund for sewer charges last 3 quarters

1-Nov 26783 CEBT 9,861.82$ monthly health insurance

29-Oct 26784 Boulder County Clerk 50.00$ deposit for escrow account with County Clerk & Recorder

7-Nov 26786 Office Depot 81.46$ office supplies for Town departments

7-Nov 26787 Buffalo Lock & Key 630.00$ door closers for Community Center

7-Nov 26788 CML 1,255.00$ 2013 annual dues

7-Nov 26789 Devin Estep 225.00$ public works assistance with vehicle repairs

7-Nov 26790 Discount Tire 980.00$ new tires for PD vehicle

7-Nov 26791 Fastenal Company 110.16$ minor parts & equipment for public works

7-Nov 26792 Eva Forberger 4,200.00$ monthly accounting and treasurer services for Town business

7-Nov 26793 Frachetti Engineering 24,665.00$ 2 months construction engineering for wastewater plant

7-Nov 26794 Front Range Precast Concrete 189.00$ minor parts & equipment for wastewater plant construction

7-Nov 26795 Grainger 384.30$ minor parts & equipment for public works

7-Nov 26796 HD Supply 4,423.56$ repairs on Bridge street PRV

7-Nov 26797 Intl City/County Management Assoc 544.00$ 2013 annual dues

BOT- 111312.xls/Warrant Approvals - 1 -

TOWN OF NEDERLAND WARRANTS

WARRANTS FOR 11/13/2012 SCHEDULE A

Date Number VENDOR AMOUNT DESCRIPTION7-Nov 26798 JVA 1,104.00$ structural engineering consulting for Mag School House/PW Bldg

7-Nov 26799 Murray Dahl 4,055.69$ monthly legal fees for Town business

7-Nov 26800 Motion & Flow Control 306.36$ minor parts & equipment for public works

7-Nov 26802 Nicodemus 950.00$ plumbing services related to water meter project

7-Nov 26803 Peak to Peak Imports 100.00$ minor parts & equipment for public works

7-Nov 26804 Petty Cash 371.85$ diesel emissions tests/postage/mileage reimbursement/BOT meals

7-Nov 26805 Century Link 1,155.95$ monthly phone/internet services for Town facilities

7-Nov 26806 Century Link Long Distance 17.37$ monthly long distance for Town facilities

7-Nov 26807 Ramey Environmental 6,312.72$ monthly fees for certified operator services and lab tests (water/sewer)

7-Nov 26808 UMB Bank 96,364.38$ bond payment for Community Center bond

7-Nov 26809 Velocity Plant Services 7,250.00$ repairs on Bridge street PRV

7-Nov 26810 Western Disposal 768.75$ monthly fee for trash disposal and roll-off for 'dream yard'

7-Nov 26811 Xcel Energy 692.14$ monthly streets lights bill

7-Nov 26812 Larry Ruppel 50.00$ refund for deposit on Chipeta Park Pavilion rental

7-Nov 26813 Canyon Plumbing & Heating 1,043.20$ replacement of hot water heater at Visitor Center

7-Nov 26815 Indian Peaks Electric 72.00$ electrical repairs to Community Center West Wing

7-Nov 26816 Donna Schneider 600.00$ monthly fees for prosecutor services

7-Nov 26817 Nederland Area Seniors 814.00$ funds for Holiday Mountain Market from Boulder County Economic Grant

Total Non Payroll Warrants 232,463.08$

SCHEDULE B

26-Oct 26755 Alpenet 2,690.46$ IT services for Town departments/new projector for BOT

BOT- 111312.xls/Warrant Approvals - 2 -

1 | P a g e

TOWN OF NEDERLAND BOARD OF TRUSTEES

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES: October 16, 2012, 7:00PM

NEDERLAND COMMUNITY CENTER

750 Hwy 72 Nederland, CO 80466 ______________________________________________________________________________ A. CALL TO ORDER Meeting convened at 7:01 PM.

B. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Joe Gierlach, Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Mueller, Trustees Randy Lee, Ledge Long, and Peter Fiori. Trustee Perret arrived at 7:17 PM. Absent: Trustee Annette Croughwell Also present: Alisha Reis, Town Administrator, Teresa Myers, Town Clerk, and Eva Forberger, Town Treasurer.

C. CONSENT AGENDA

• Approval of October 16, 2012 Accounts Payable, Schedules A & B

• Approval of October 2, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes

• Approval of Approval of Boulder/Broomfield Counties HOME Consortium Agreement

Motion to approve the Consent Agenda including Schedule A was made by Trustee Lee, seconded by Trustee Fiori, and approved unanimously.

2 | P a g e

Motion to approve Schedule B was made by Trustee Fiori, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Mueller, and approved unanimously, with Trustee Lee abstaining due to a conflict. D. STAFF REPORTS

1. Alisha Reis, Town Administrator Reis reminded those in attendance that the Comprehensive Plan Potluck was the following Saturday. 2. Teresa Myers, Town Clerk 3. Eva Forberger, Town Treasurer 4. Jake Adler, Town Marshal Reis, speaking for Chief Adler, reported that the police are re-grouping after the busy summer season and preparing for winter challenges. 5. Jason Morrison, Public Works Manager Reis, speaking for Morrison, briefed the Board with progress on current projects. 7. Dawn Baumhover, Community Center Coordinator Reis, speaking for Baumhover, talked to the Board about the new tables that were purchased in conjunction with the CCFB. Martin Cheshes, of the NAS, reported that the Seniors’ bingo has been going well but they are still seeking more attendees and hoping that attendance will improve following football season. Kim Culver, of Nederland, asked that the kitchen sprayer be fixed.

E. BOARD OF TRUSTEE REPORTS

1. Mayor Joe Gierlach The Mayor’s report was contained in the packet and will be published in the Mountain-Ear later this week. The Mayor added that the Boulder County Commissioners passed a Climate Change Resolution today and the Board will be asked to approve a similar resolution. 2. Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Mueller The Planning Commission met last month and discussed the applications before the Board that evening. 3. Trustee Ledge Long

The CCFB has announced the resignation of Dianne Wohl and is interviewing two applicants for the single vacancy. The foundation is financially stable and seeking more grant funding. The Trustees discussed whether the Community Center Site Planning

3 | P a g e

Committee should be a Town steering committee, and it was unanimously agreed that it should. 4. Trustee Randy Lee Trustee Lee had a written report in the packet, but added that he and Reis had completed a proposal for emergency egress for the Big Springs neighborhood that would be submitted to the Forest Service and Boulder County shortly. 5. Trustee Peter Fiori The Sustainability Advisory Board postponed its meeting until Wednesday and will be reviewing the Sustainability Action Plan once more and hearing a presentation about the Boulder County Zero-Waste Initiative. 6. Trustee Chris Perret The BZA met and approved the applications on the Board’s agenda that evening. 7. Trustee Annette Croughwell Trustee Croughwell was absent.

F. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS (Speakers limited to 3 minutes) Barbara Hardt, of Nederland, asked for a designated press table during the Board meeting. She also complained that she had been asked to be added to the evening’s agenda and was told that the agenda was full. She then read a letter into the agenda, arguing against the use of the Boulder County Economic Development Grant for the NedWEB program rather than supporting the special events that had previously received the funding. A copy of her letter is contained in the official meeting file. Gail Eddy, of Nederland, spoke about the NedWEB program and her ambivalence about the program. She feels that the program will not help change shopping behaviors, is too cumbersome, and should be expanded to include all residents in the library district. She supports some aspects of the program and thanked those who worked on it. Janette Smith, of Nederland, spoke against diversion of the Boulder County funds from events to the NedWEB program, and related the long history and benefits of the events in Nederland.

Kathleen Chippi, of Greater Nederland, spoke against the NedWEB program because she felt that the program would not generate economic development. She further felt that Boulder

4 | P a g e

County would not approve the grant proposal and shared her disgust that the Board had approved it. She also asked for clarification around the camping ordinance. Martin Cheshes, of Nederland, asked the Board to reopen the issue of the economic development grant and reconsider it, and allow the affected organizations to comment before the decision was made. May Jarril, of Nederland, also spoke against the NedWEB program and asked that the Board revisit it. She also spoke against the NedCompost site and asked that the Board reconsider that location. Katrina Harms, of Greater Nederland, spoke in support of the NedWEB project, as she felt that the information gained from the program would help create future programs that could further the Envision 2020 economic sustainability goals. Kim Culver, of Nederland, thanked the Board for their work and the hours they dedicate. She noted that the NedWEB program is an experiment to gather information and determine how to best boost economic development in town. G. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. NedPeds Project Update Pat Everson, of the DDA, provided a written update on the NedPeds project and highlighted some aspects of her report. 2. 2013 Budget Public Hearing Forberger presented the official public hearing on the proposed 2013 Budget. Eddy thanked Forberger for her work on the budget. Hardt requested that the Board consider inclusion of money for the fireworks in its budget. Everson also commended Forberger for her work this year and over the past many years to get the town’s finances in shape.

5 | P a g e

H. ACTION ITEMS 1. Reconsideration of new information bearing on Oktoberfest 2013 Special Event Permit – Board consideration/vote only. Myers noted that the applicants had supplied a new Google map that indicates an alternate route. Mayor Pro Tem Mueller asked about part of the single track proposed and the applicants, represented by Bob Bentz, said that they were probably not going to use that and would go through Mud Lake instead. Trustee Long agreed with the Mayor Pro Tem’s point about avoiding the single track route, and asked which local non-profit the organizers were partnering with. Bentz replied that the organization would be partnering with the Peak to Peak Healthy Communities non-profit group. Trustees Fiori and Lee said that they could support the event if it has solved the problems identified in the last meeting. Trustee Perret had questions about traffic control, and Bentz explained their safety provisions. Trustee Fiori raised the question of having events place a monetary deposit and provide a parking plan. Motion to approve the Special Event Permit for Oktoberfest 2013 was made by Trustee Fiori, seconded by Trustee Long, and approved unanimously. 2. Consideration of CML policy positions concerning municipal fines and various policies concerning natural gas and oil drilling. Myers introduced the item and explained how the CML policy positions will be voted on and the resulting CML actions taken. By voice vote, the Board unanimously approved supporting the proposed policies to promote local control of oil and gas projects. By voice vote, the Board voted 4 to 2 to support the proposed policy concerning raising the ceiling for municipal fines; Trustees Fiori and Perret voted no. 3. Consideration of Resolution 2012-29, approving a Dissolution of Lot Lines Application for 171 E. 2nd St. Reis introduced the application and provided the background.

Motion to approve Resolution 2012-29, approving a Dissolution of Lot Lines Application for 171 E. 2nd St., was made by Trustee Perret, seconded by Trustee Lee, and approved

6 | P a g e

unanimously. The Mayor called a short recess and the meeting reconvened at 8:44 PM. 4. Consideration of Nederland Witches’ Ball Special Event Application. Myers introduced the item and the applicants were on hand to answer any questions. Hardt spoke in support of the event, noting its unique character and community-building nature. Everson voiced her support of the event. Motion to approve the Special Event Permit for Nederland Witches’ Ball was made by Trustee Perret, seconded by Trustee Fiori, and approved unanimously. 5. Consideration of funding of NedPed project.

a. Resolution 2012-30, allowing the DDA to borrow funds from the Town, to be paid back from TIF funds, to fund the NedPeds design.

Forberger asked to table Resolution 2012-30 until the November 13th meeting. Trustee Lee asked for the reason, and Forberger explained that the DDA had not yet approved a change in the amortization schedule. The Board agreed.

b. Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and the DDA to govern how the CDOT NedPeds funding will be managed.

Forberger introduced the item and explained the division of responsibilities as outlined in the IGA. The Trustees asked some questions of Forberger and Reis concerning the appropriation of the funds, the Town’s responsibility for the debt, and construction standards for both CDOT and Town right-of-way areas. Everson spoke in support of the IGA and urged the Board to approve it. Motion to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and the DDA to govern how the CDOT NedPeds funding will be managed was made by Trustee Lee, seconded by Trustee Fiori, and approved unanimously.

7 | P a g e

I. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Discussion of Ordinance 712, an update to the floodplain regulations, as required by

FEMA. Reis introduced the item and provided the background. Trustee Lee asked if Chief Dirr and Town Attorney Beery had weighed in on this matter, and Reis explained that Beery had not yet had a chance to give staff her comments and she agreed to consult with Chief Dirr. Trustee Long asked about the effect of the ordinance on obtaining homeowner’s insurance. Reis explained that there would negative consequences to not approving the ordinance for homeowners in town who attempted to obtain insurance. The Mayor shared some thoughts on the floodplain issue that were generated by the discussions he observed that day at Boulder County. The Mayor Pro Tem raised his concerns with floodplain management and Reis suggested that he should definitely bring those ideas to the Comprehensive Plan update. Everson helped the Board to understand how emergency management insurance is governed and the roles of FEMA and the insurance companies. J. OTHER BUSINESS Motion to reconsider the NedWEB program was made by Trustee Perret, but failed for lack of a second. The Board discussed the ways in which the Town can support and promote local events and directed staff to look into ways to further do so. Trustee Lee also asked that the Board consider events generally and whether it wants to place limits on the number of events, types of events, and requirements of events. Trustee Fiori asked for an events work session and the Board seemed to support that for early next year. Hardt asked the Board to create a committee or task force to look at events, and asked that the Town create a calendar of events. The Board agreed. K. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Trustee Perret, seconded by Trustee Fiori, and approved by unanimous voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 9:52PM.

8 | P a g e

Approved by the Board of Trustees. _________________________________ Joe Gierlach, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Teresa Myers, Town Clerk

AGENDA INFORMATION

MEMORANDUM

NEDERLAND

TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Meeting Date: November 13, 2012

Initiated By: /s/ Teresa Myers

Dept: Administration

Information _______ Action __X____ Discussion ______

______________________________________________________________________

AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Appointments to the CCFB.

SUMMARY: The Community Center Foundation Board has had two members, Diane Wohl and

Susan Gerhardt, resign, and is presenting two new applicants to the Board for

approval.

ATTACHMENTS: 1) Wohl resignation letter

2) Gerhardt resignation letter

3) Davis application

4) CCFB recommendation of Davis

5) Harrison application

6) CCFB recommendation of Harrison

October 8, 2012 To: Dale Porter Chair, Nederland Community Center Foundation Board From: Diane Wohl (by email) Re: Letter of Resignation Dear Dale, As you know, I am formally submitting my letter of resignation to the Nederland Community Center Foundation Board. For personal reasons, I need to move aside and let someone else with the requisite energy and time take my place. It has been a pleasure working with you Dale, and with all the members of the NCCF. Much has been and will continue to be accomplished in terms of improving the Nederland Community Center. I wish you all the best. Sincerely, Diane Wohl

Susan Gerhart POB 1770 Nederland, CO 80466 October 18, 2012 Nederland Colorado Board of Trustees POB 396 Nederland, CO 80466 Dear Trustees: I regret that am I unable to serve on the Nederland Community Center Foundation Board. Please accept this letter as my resignation as of the above date. Sincerely, Susan Gerhart

From: Dale PorterTo: Teresa MyersSubject: Re: Jennifer Davis" application for the CCFBDate: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:17:03 AM

Jen Davis interviewed with me and with two other board members and attended ourSeptember meeting, where she was able to answer questions and contribute to thediscussion. Our board voted unanimously to recommend her for an appointment toNCCF.

Dale

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Teresa Myers <[email protected]>wrote:

Hi Dale,

I know you’ve usually seen these by the time they get to me, but I wanted tomake sure you and the CCFB had had an opportunity to review Jennifer Davis’application for the board and to provide me with a recommendation to share withthe BOT. Would you just let me know?

Many thanks,

Teresa Myers, Clerk

Town of Nederland

45 W. First St.

P.O. Box 396

Nederland, CO 80466

303.258.3266, ext. 23

Web: www.nederlandco.org

Twitter: www.twitter.com/townofned

Facebook: Nederland Colorado Town Hall

Please consider the environment before printing this!

mailto:[email protected]



tel:303.258.3266%2C%20ext.%2023

http://www.nederlandco.org/

http://www.twitter.com/townofned

From: Dale PorterTo: Teresa MyersSubject: Re: Marylou Harrison"s appDate: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:00:53 PM

The CCFB supports Marylou's application unanimously.Dale

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Teresa Myers <[email protected]>wrote:

Hi Dale,

Just wondering if the CCFB has a position on Marylou Harrison’s application to theBoard? Just let me know.

Thanks,

Teresa Myers, Clerk

Town of Nederland

45 W. First St.

P.O. Box 396

Nederland, CO 80466

303.258.3266, ext. 23

Web: www.nederlandco.org

Twitter: www.twitter.com/townofned

Facebook: Nederland Colorado Town Hall

Please consider the environment before printing this!




tel:303.258.3266%2C%20ext.%2023

http://www.nederlandco.org/

http://www.twitter.com/townofned

AGENDA INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NEDERLAND TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Date: November 13, 2012 Initiated By: /s/

Dept: Information_______ Discussion _____ Action __X_____ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of appointments to a special committee to create a Community Center Site Development Plan SUMMARY: A slate of candidates has been recruited by the NCC Foundation to comprise a committee to set goals and guidelines, write an RFP and select candidates to provide a site development plan for the Community Center. The committee is a project committee scheduled to meet January-August 2013. HISTORY AND PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: BOT called for a site development plan project at its February 13 meeting with NCC Foundation. BOT designated the committee as a special project committee at its October 16 meeting. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve the slate of candidates presented by the NCC Foundation. ALTERNATIVES: Advertise in the community for additional candidates and interview them prior to appointments. ATTACHMENTS: List of candidates for the special project committee FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: NCC Foundation has budgeted $1,000 toward administrative expenses for this committee and project, and has applied for a LJ Musser Foundation grant of $5,000 to support architect’s fees. NCC Foundation will also create an interactive web page for committee and community communications. The Town’s proposed 2013 budget includes $10,000 toward architect’s fees.

Slate of candidates for appointment to a special project committee to create a site

development plan for the Nederland Community Center Dale Porter, current chair of the NCC Foundation, which is promoting and supporting the site development plan project. Susan Davis-Churches, graphic artist, project manager, B.F.A. She is currently owner and creative director of The Studio, based in Nederland. She recently wrote a successful major grant for Teens Inc. Susan Gerhart, ex-officio member of NCCF, with extensive corporate and project planning experience. Ledge Long, current BOT member, with experience and training in environmental design. Roger Cornell, current member of the Town Planning Commission and member of NCCF; he will act as liaison between the two groups. Dan & Linda Glasser, close neighbors of the CC site and erstwhile caretakers, who will alternate at committee meetings. Marylou Harrison, a new member of NCC Foundation with a recent graduate degree in Public Policy; her thesis was a study of interaction among Town staff, nonprofits, and business groups in Nederland. She has previous nonprofit board experience. Alisha Reis, Nederland Town Administrator.

1

MEMORANDUM To: Nederland Board of Trustees From: Alisha Reis Date: November 8, 2012 Re: Administrator's Report

AMENDMENT 64 IMPACTS ON NEDERLAND As everyone likely knows, Amendment 64 – which legalized marijuana for recreational use – passed on Election Day. State, local, and undoubtedly, federal, officials are now looking toward what that will mean for local communities. The Colorado Municipal League (CML) has issued some preliminary guidance on the issue (attached), as has Mountain States Employers Council (MSEC) in relation to workforce issues (also attached). Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has indicated he will support the will of voters, though he expects federal action on the initiative, according to various news reports following the Nov. 6 vote. The law won’t become effective until the vote is certified, likely not until about mid-December.

The amendment allows for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana by people 21 and older, as well as the ability to grow up to six plants for their use. It does not indicate any change to the existing construct for medical marijuana, and retail spaces for non-medically specific marijuana sales are not expected until at least 2014. The Colorado Department of Revenue will again be tasked with developing regulations to implement Amendment 64’s retail sales provisions, and it has until July 1, 2013 to do so. Local communities may opt out of allowing marijuana retail establishments starting in the November 2014 statewide General Election. According to CML, “Municipalities should opt whether to adopt: 1) a prohibition or 2) local restrictions on the time, place, manner and number of retail marijuana operations in their jurisdiction before July 1, 2013.”

One issue that is not clarified by Amendment 64, nor the current medical marijuana regulations, is the issue of home grows. Nederland has a substantial presence of these, with many homes being used as grow houses in the community. This has led to a significant tightening of the residential rental market in town, as well as habitability impacts to various neighborhoods. The constitutional nature of both the MMJ amendment and Amendment 64 presents an added challenge to enforcement. I have spoken with CML staff to gauge the tone of enforcement on this issue in the state, and learned that it has not yet been litigated. Town staff has been awaiting litigation of this issue by a larger municipality with the resources to carry the case to decision prior to engaging in active enforcement of grow houses (some of which are

2

engaged in grow activity in residential areas, counter to Town regulation). We have not yet experienced danger issues with such homes, but the issue is on our radar. Also on our radar is the phenomenon of “marijuana tourism,” which we have seen increase in town since the 2010 establishment of dispensaries and decriminalization of marijuana possession in town. While increased tourism has boosted the Town’s sales tax receipts in the past two years, we have also experienced an increase in more violent crime in town particularly in 2012. I recognize that tourism has increased for many reasons, not only our laid back approach to marijuana, but we have seen the community become increasingly attractive to folks looking for that lifestyle element. State tourism officials have said they will not promote Colorado as a marijuana tourism destination, but we understand locally that such promotion won’t be necessary to attract folks to visit for that purpose. Staff will keep the Board informed as we learn more on the impacts of Amendment 64 to our community and as developments occur.

2013 BUDGET

The final review draft of the 2013 Budget is set to go out to the Board on Nov. 9. Please return any questions or comments to Eva by Nov. 21, so she may make any final adjustments for the Dec. 4 final version for adoption. Eva and I are available in person or by phone for any in-depth explanations that might be needed.

Remember to come out and share a meal with your neighbors! The event will be at

the Community Center from noon to 3 p.m. on

Sunday, Nov. 18. See ya there!

Community Thanksgiving

THE VOICE OF COLORADO’S CITIES AND TOWNS 1144 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203 (p) 303-831-6411 / 866-578-0936 (f) 303-860-8175 www.cml.org

To: CML Membership From: Rachel Allen, CML Staff Attorney Kevin Bommer, CML Deputy Director Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Amendment 64 - Use and Regulation of Marijuana Passes Colorado voters approve marijuana for consumers at least 21 years old On November 6, 2012, Colorado voters passed Amendment 64 to Use and Regulation of Marijuana. Amendment 64 provides for persons 21-years-of-age or older to legally consume or possess 1 ounce or less of marijuana without a doctor’s recommendation and tax marijuana similar to alcohol. Amendment 64 also creates the framework for a regulatory scheme for retail sales of marijuana. This memo addresses issues of immediate consideration for Colorado’s cities and towns. CML will continue to monitor and report on emerging issues and developments, such as workplace issues, rulemaking, and implementation. Please consult with your municipal attorney to address retail marijuana operations in your municipality. Marijuana retail sales and home grows Unless specifically prohibited (see below), special retail stores will be allowed to sell marijuana in a system of licensed establishments regulated the by state and local governments. Amendment 64 also allows for people to grow up to six marijuana plants in their home or other enclosed, locked space. However, it is not clear at this time how this constitutional protection will interact with local land use powers, particularly any ordinances pertaining to home grows. Amendment 64 does not change existing medical marijuana laws Retail operations may be licensed as a medical marijuana center or retail marijuana establishment, not both. Medical marijuana centers choosing to convert to a retail marijuana operation will pay a reduced fee for the marijuana application, but otherwise, Amendment 64 has no impact on the existing medical marijuana regulatory scheme. Local governments may choose to prohibit or license retail marijuana or medical marijuana operations. How your municipality has addressed medical marijuana does not dictate how your municipality will or should address retail marijuana establishments. Timeline for local prohibition or regulation Amendment 64 tasks the Colorado Department of Revenue with issuing regulations and licenses for retail marijuana stores by July 1, 2013. Municipalities should opt whether to adopt 1) a prohibition or 2) local restrictions on the time, place, manner and number of retail marijuana operations in their jurisdiction before July 1, 2013. Local governments may prohibit by council action at any time, but the first opportunity to refer a retail marijuana prohibition question to the ballot is the general election on November 4, 2014. Some municipalities may choose to issue a prohibition, moratorium, or regulations until the voters have the opportunity to be heard at the next general election.

Local licenses may be issued October 1, 2013 In the event that the Colorado Department of Revenue does not issue licenses by July 1, 2013, then cities and towns may choose to issue local licenses starting on October 1, 2013, but there is no requirement for local governments to issue retail marijuana licenses in the absence of a state licensing program. CML will keep you informed The League will monitor the Colorado Department of Revenue progress and keep municipalities abreast of developments. This is critical because if the Department of Revenue doesn’t issue licenses by July 1, 2013, then municipalities that opt to issue local license will have 90 days to enact a regulation, licensing, and enforcement program. CML will also keep our members informed on employee-employer issues, as it relates to the use and possession of marijuana in the workplace. Finally, CML will investigate and report on the complex federal issues that are likely to arise as Amendment 64 is implemented in Colorado. Marijuana continues to be illegal under federal law, and it is possible that a lawsuit challenging the legality of Amendment 64 is forthcoming. That would set up a dynamic discussion of the 10th Amendment and the extent of state sovereignty on this issue. For additional information, please go to www.cml.org, call (303) 831-6411 / (866) 578-0936 toll free or contact:

Rachel Allen, CML staff attorney - [email protected] Kevin Bommer, CML Deputy Director – [email protected]

http://www.cml.org/



About MSEC About Membership Services Seminar Catalog

Contact Us | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy © 2012 Mountain States Employers Council, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Member Login

For Employers, Amendment 64 Raises Many Ques�ons, but Provides fewAnswersEmployers are justifiably concerned about the passage of Colorado Amendment 64, “legalizing” marijuana.To understand its impact on employers, it is important to consider how Amendment 64 relates to medicalmarijuana in Colorado.

Colorado’s medical marijuana law has been in effect since 2001. That law states that “nothing … shallrequire any employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.” Similarly,Amendment 64 is not “intended to require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption,possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale or growing of marijuana in the workplace.”

Relying on a series of cases in other jurisdictions, as well as federal regulations pertaining to the Americanswith Disabilities Act, Colorado employers have been able to enforce their drug policies against employeestesting positive for marijuana—medical or otherwise—even without direct evidence of on-the-job use orimpairment. This is because Colorado’s medical marijuana law only decriminalized marijuana for thoseregistered with the state; it did not legalize it.

The distinction between decriminalization and legalization is critical, because Colorado also has a legaloff-duty activities law (“CLODA”) that protects employees from being fired for engaging in legal conductwhile off-duty.

With the passage of Amendment 64, it is foreseeable that an employee terminated for marijuana use willargue that CLODA protects them from discharge unless an employer can prove they used—or wereimpaired by—marijuana in the workplace. (In fact, at least one case, Coats v. DISH Network (2012CA0595),arguing that medical marijuana use is protected by CLODA, has already been filed.)

The problem is compounded by the fact that neither urine nor saliva testing are good indicators of presentmarijuana impairment.

Employers should take heart in the fact that there are recent court decisions in their favor. For example, inHaeberle v. Blue Sky Care Connection, LLC (2011CV709), a Colorado State District Court determined thatcontracts for the sale of marijuana are against public policy and therefore void, because marijuana remains aSchedule I controlled substance under federal law. It is likely that a similar argument will be made on behalfof employers; i.e., that CLODA doesn’t protect employees against discharge for conduct that is legal understate law but illegal under federal law.

CLODA also provides exceptions when a termination is “necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with anyresponsibilities to the employer or the appearance of such a conflict of interest.” These exceptions may playa major role once a lawsuit is brought.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has called on the federal government to “make known its intentionsregarding prosecution of activities sanctioned by Amendment 64 (particularly large wholesale growoperations) as soon as possible in order to assist state regulators and the citizens of Colorado in makingdecisions about the implementation of Amendment 64.” Since the new law may not go into effect untilsometime in December, and since the federal government could intervene in the meantime, employers areadvised to do nothing differently for the time being. Also, keep in mind that Amendment 64’s regulationswon’t be in effect for some time, and if properly drafted, they could provide adequate safeguards toColorado’s businesses.

MSEC will continue to monitor and advise on this issue as more information becomes available.

www.nederlandco.org

MEMORANDUM

To: Board of Trustees From: Teresa Myers, Town Clerk Date: November 13, 2012 Re: Clerk’s Report In the last month, the Clerk’s office has been busy with the following:

1. Last month, former Trustee and Food Pantry volunteer Janette Taylor and I met with Jeffrey Zayach, Director of Public Health for Boulder County. This meeting stemmed directly from the Board’s request of the County Commissioners that more human services be steered toward the mountain communities. It was a very informative and productive meeting, and we discussed both the needs of our residents and resources currently available that could be better leveraged to expand services. I am gathering information to submit to him demonstrating our needs and providing a foundation on which to continue our discussions.

2. Michele, with help from a hard-working volunteer, has been working on record retention and organization of town property files. She estimates she is 85% complete with this huge project. This will also allow us to more fully utilize the Annex for staff meetings, TRCs, etc.

3. Michele has also been coordinating our Annual Volunteer Appreciation Holiday Party, to be held this year at the Pioneer Inn on December 11th. Invitations to eligible volunteers have gone out, and we are anticipating a great turn-out. If you happen to talk to any volunteers/advisory board members, please encourage them to attend so that we may thank them for their service to the Town.

4. I attended the CML Policy Committee meeting on October 19th and witnessed a very robust and respectful debate of some key policy issues facing many Colorado municipalities. I am attaching the summary of the positions taken by the Policy Committee as well as a very informative powerpoint presentation that was given by the Governor’s Budget Office staff. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like more information.

5. The coordinated election on November 6th went very well at the Community Center. The election judges reported brisk traffic all day and a near-record number of newly-registered voters casting ballots.

www.nederlandco.org

6. I have submitted our Economic Development Grant proposal to Boulder County and will be working with our grant manager to respond to any questions or concerns raised by the Commissioners’ office.

7. Social media update: We currently have 531 Facebook “likes” (up 16 from my last report). The Facebook posting with the broadest reach was the October 23rd announcement of an impromptu Town Hall wedding (261 people), followed by the November 6th commendation of the work of our first responders to an injury accident on 119 by the reservoir (234 people). The post with the most virality (meaning the post receiving the most prolonged attention or being spread or shared by viewers) was the photos about the Ned first responders. We have 713 Twitter “followers” (up 16 from my last report). In the past month, we were mentioned in 5 tweets, and one of our tweets was re-tweeted.

8. Web statistics for the period from October 10th to November 8th, along with an arrow indicator showing whether this is an increase or decrease my last report (you may notice that our website traffic, unlike our social media traffic, is highly seasonal):

• 7,362 visits; ↓838 • 16,638 page views (individual pages on the website); ↓2,680 • 2.26 pages per visit on average; ↓0.10 • 49.07% bounce rate (this indicates visitors who landed on our page and

immediately left; our rate is fairly low and decreases in our “off-season” as fewer people are bouncing to our page when searching for other related topics); ↑3.46%

• 2.58 minutes spent on the website on average; ↓0.48seconds • 69.15% of visits are new visits; ↑2.76%

Wednesday October 17th was the busiest day for our website during this period, with over 1,500 hits (this is more than double last month’s busiest day). On that day, I posted a notice soliciting commentary on the selection of the new playground equipment, but I suspect the website traffic was actually generated by the water system upgrades occurring that day.

THE VOICE OF COLORADO’S CITIES AND TOWNS 1144 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203 (p) 303-831-6411 / 866-578-0936 (f) 303-860-8175 www.cml.org

To: CML Policy Committee and CML Executive Board

From: CML advocacy team

Date: October 25, 2012

Subject: Summary of October 19 committee meeting

The CML Policy Committee met on October 19, and a record number of members attended the meeting, continuing the strong interest and participation in the League’s policy development process. The committee considered members’ legislative and policy recommendations, which were previously distributed. A summary of the actions that were taken by the committee are below.

In addition to considering the proposals and making recommendations to the CML Board, the committee also received a briefing from Erick Scheminske, deputy director of the Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting, on the current fiscal realities facing the state going into the upcoming legislative session. The presentation was timely, as Gov. Hickenlooper will be presenting his proposed budget for FY 2013-2014 on November 1.

Former mayor of Aurora, Ed Tauer, spoke to the group over the lunch hour about a clean water coalition with which he is working and requesting involvement from local governments.

The presentations from both guests are attached to the email containing this memorandum. Staff briefly covered a few emerging legislative items, but the committee will be given more detailed briefings at the next meeting. Staff will also prepare staff recommendations on those items for which legislation is likely to be introduced or that a position going into the 2013 session is necessary.

The committee will meet again on December 7, at which time it will consider remaining member proposals, recommendations from CML staff on known or likely legislation that will be introduced in the 2013 session, and other timely informational items. The final recommendations from the committee will go to CML’s board and be the basis for CML’s 2013 legislative agenda.

If you have any questions, please contact the appropriate lobbyist or Kevin Bommer ([email protected]). Lobbyist contact info can be found by clicking here.


http://www.cml.org/Advocacy_Team.aspx

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS – October 19, 2012

1. Increase municipal court fine cap to $5000

Presented by the City of Greenwood Village

Lobbyist: Meghan Storrie.

Policy Committee recommendation: CML initiate and support legislation

2. Oil and gas: Well emissions

Presented by the Town of Mead

Lobbyist: Geoff Wilson

Proposal for CML to create and support legislation to require 98% capture of oil and gas well emissions. Committee amended the motion such that CML would “support regulation (by rule or statute) to capture well-head emissions to the greatest extent possible according to best available technology.”

Policy Committee recommendation: Support (amended motion)

3. Oil and gas: Setbacks


Lobbyist: Geoff Wilson

Proposal that CML support a minimum 1000 setback from occupied residence or school.

Policy Committee action: Tabled

4. Oil and gas: Severance taxes


Lobbyist: Kevin Bommer

Subsequent to committee discussion, sponsor modified the proposal such that CML would support changing the severance tax distribution formula to direct a higher portion of local severance tax to areas with more direct impacts (permits and production).

Policy Committee action: Tabled

5. Oil and gas: Taxes collected on sales



Proposal withdrawn by sponsor

6. Theft of scrap metal

Presented by the Town of Akron


Proposal that CML adopt a policy position to support requiring scrap metal buyers to demand proof of ownership from sellers; require identification; and notify law enforcement agencies in the county of residence of the seller.

Policy Committee action: Defer until December 7 meeting

Perspective on Colorado’s Budget and

Economy

October 2012

Office of State Planning and Budgeting Henry Sobanet, Director

Erick Scheminske, Deputy Director www.colorado.gov/ospb

Comparison of Change in ISM Manufacturing and Nonmanufacturing Indices through August 2012

Office of State Planning and Budgeting 2

49.6

55.6

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70 Ja

n-00

Ju

n-00

N

ov-0

0 A

pr-0

1 Se

p-01

Fe

b-02

Ju

l-02

Dec

-02

May

-03

Oct

-03

Mar

-04

Aug

-04

Jan-

05

Jun-

05

Nov

-05

Apr

-06

Sep-

06

Feb-

07

Jul-0

7 D

ec-0

7 M

ay-0

8 O

ct-0

8 M

ar-0

9 A

ug-0

9 Ja

n-10

Ju

n-10

N

ov-1

0 A

pr-1

1 Se

p-11

Fe

b-12

Ju

l-12

Manufacturing Index Nonmanufacturing Index

Contracting

Expanding

Nonmanufacturing is Outperforming the

Softening Manufacturing Sector

Change in Jobs Nationally and in Colorado (2000 to July 2012)


98

100

102

104

106

108

110

The graph compares the change in the number of jobs nationally and in Colorado since January of 2000. Index: March 2000=100 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Colorado jobs level includes OSPB’s estimates of forthcoming revisions to jobs data that are currently not published . The jobs figures will be benchmarked based on Quarterly Census of Employment and Wage data to more accurately reflect the number of jobs in the state than what was estimated based on a survey of employers.

Change in Number of

Colorado Jobs

Change in Number of Jobs

Nationally

Inde

x


State General Fund Revenue, FY 2000-01 to FY 2013-14

Actual and Forecast

$6.6

$5.6 $5.5 $5.8

$6.2

$7.0

$7.5 $7.7

$6.7 $6.5

$7.1

$7.7 $8.0

$8.1

$4.0

$4.5

$5.0

$5.5

$6.0

$6.5

$7.0

$7.5

$8.0

$8.5

$ in

bill

ions

Forecast


General Fund Revenue, FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 Actual and Adjusted for Population and Inflation

$5.0

$5.5

$6.0

$6.5

$7.0

$7.5

$8.0

$8.5

Adjusted for Inflation (Using 2007 as the Base Year) Actual

Source: Office of State Planning and Budgeting, September 2012 Forecast

$ in

bill

ions


2.8%

9.6%

22.7%

34.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Job Growth Personal Income Growth

Individual Income Taxes

S&P 500 Annual Average

% Change, FY 2009-10 to FY 2011-12 in Jobs, Personal Income, Income Tax Revenue, and

Stock Market


$1

$3

$5

$7

$9

$11

$13

$15

$17

$19

$100

$300

$500

$700

$900

$1,100

$1,300

FY 91

FY 92

FY 93

FY 94

FY 95

FY 96

FY 97

FY 98

FY 99

FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

FY 08

FY 09

FY 10

FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

Colorado Individual Income Estimated Tax Payments (Actual through FY 2011-12 and Forecast through FY 2012-13) - Left Axis Colorado Capital Gain Income (Actual through 2010, Forecast through 2012 based on the Congressional Budget Office's Projections of National Capital Gain Income) - Right Axis

$ in billions

Indi

vidu

al In

com

e Ta

x E

stim

ated

Pay

men

ts R

even

ue

($ in

mill

ions

)

Estimated Income Tax Payments and Colorado Capital Gains


FY 2012-13 General Fund Appropriations


$7.168

$7.743 $8.133

$0.281

$0.298

$0.312

$8.032

$8.758 $8.445

$6.0

$6.5

$7.0

$7.5

$8.0

$8.5

$9.0

FY 2011-12 Actual Funds

(Preliminary)

Total General

Fund Spending

FY 2012-13 Projected

Funds Available

Budgeted Spending

FY 2013-14 Projected

Funds Available

Allowable Spending

with Required Reserve

General Fund Spending Required Reserve Funds Available

$582.3 million Above Required

Reserve ($59 Million to State

Education Fund)

$717.1 million Above Required

Reserve (All to State

Education Fund)

General Fund Money, Spending, and Reserves, FY 2011-12 though FY 2013-14

($ in Billions)

10 10 10 10 10

Medicaid Enrollment Growth Projected Increase of 144% from FY 2000-01 to FY 2012-13

10 10 10 10 Office of State Planning and Budgeting

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

650,000

700,000

Change in General Fund Revenue and Spending on Medicaid, FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13

(estimates, in millions of dollars)


$212.8 (2.7%)

$373.8 (25.2%)

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

General Fund Revenue HCPF General Fund Appropriations

12 12 12 12 12

K -12 Shift from Local to State Funding

12 12 12 Office of State Planning and Budgeting

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

Fiscal Year

State Share Local Share


Student’s Share of College, FY 2000-01 to FY 2012-13

Source: Colorado Department of Higher Education


$555 $602

$653 $555

$324

$615 $519 $513

$151 $382 $29

$555 $602

$653 $706 $706

$644

$519 $513

$3,928 $4,323

$4,644 $4,883

$4,451

$3,869

$3,132 $3,105

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

Stat

e Fu

ndin

g pe

r Res

iden

t Stu

dent

FTE

Tota

l Sta

te a

nd A

RR

A F

undi

ng (i

n M

illio

ns)

General Fund ARRA Total State Funding per Resident Student FTE

State Funding for Public Institutions of Higher Education (does not include Financial Aid funding)

Source: Colorado Department of Higher Education

MEMORANDUM

To: Nederland Board of Trustees From: Chief Jake Adler Date: 11/6/12 Re: Staff Report – Police Department State of the department: Fall is in the air and the team is doing well. We have had several large and high profile cases this past month, and once again we are strapped to the bone on investigative items. There have been multiple serious assaults and the evening bar crowds are showing signs of increased criminal activity once again with the onset of cooler weather. The team is as strong as it can be, and we hope for some quiet days to get caught up on pending issues. What is going on: Halloween was a complete success! We assumed traditional patrol patterns in key locations and no reported issues came out this year. We have had several major assaults in the downtown business district as of late. Drug activity seems to be picking up a bit, and we have made multiple DUI arrests this past month. The team and I have been working around the clock to close out these cases before trial as well. The department was called to an attempted murder this past month, at the Prime Haven subsidized housing area. This case has become extremely time consuming and involving all officers assigned to special investigative details.

The suspect has been apprehended at this time and the investigation continues. We saw two major convictions in our sex assault case and burglary cases this past month. The success was noted by the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office for stellar investigative work by all Nederland Police employees. Sergeant Johns and I continue the tedious work of evidence purge and tracking. Our locker is showing signs of improvement and we can actually walk into the evidence “cage” now. Court is moving along smoothly and there are no issues to report at this time. The future: With the coming holiday season, we are gearing up for several issues that come traditionally with this season, to include domestic violence concerns. We are solidifying our traffic patrol plans for the upcoming ski season as well. I am available to all of you at anytime. Chief Jake Adler

1

MEMORANDUM To: Nederland Board of Trustees From: Jason Morrison Date: November 7, 2012 Re: Staff Report -- Public Works

Collections, Distribution, and Water Treatment Plant Although most people will never see the underground utilities work that has been done over the past month or perhaps even notice a difference, a lot of needed work was completed. The replacement of the pressure-reducing valve (PRV) vault on Bridge Street is complete. The project caused less inconvenience than anticipated, but the department nonetheless established a streamlined notification protocol in the process to keep people informed about work that may impact them. With the new valves in place, water pressure in town will be more consistent and controllable. We should look at replacing these valves again in 20-30 years. The Conger Street vault has had some PRV upgrades, as well. In this case, we only had to replace the valves themselves and not the entire system. We may need to look at further upgrades in the near future but nothing like at Bridge Street. A major water leak was found and fixed in the Wolf Tongue complex this month; we believe this leak to have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 13 gallons per hour and been that way for quite some time. A leak like that one starts small and continues to grow.

With the repair of this leak and the “spring” behind the Mining Museum over the summer, the water plant has been running with greater efficiency. The issues with the raw water generator have been repaired and are ready for emergencies. Bill Bodkins, our new Class A operator seems to be working out well; he is a good fit for Nederland and brings a lot of experience to the table.

Before and after repairs to the Bridge Street Pressure-Reducing Valve (PRV) Station

2

Multiple potholes at the Community Center were repaired, making for a safer driving surface at the building’s entry drive.

Wastewater Treatment Plant The waste water plant project is still moving forward. The metal operations building has been insulated and is really coming together.

Our current lagoon treatment system had been giving the crew a bit of a hard time. Our influent and effluent flow meters spiked off the charts, showing somewhere around 200,000 gallons a day coming in but not going out. We had the flow meters evaluated and they were fine. It turned out to be a blockage of grease the size of a couple of footballs end-to-end clogging the influent pipe near where the flow meter takes its reading. With this removed, all systems returned back to normal.

Streets and Drainage Public Works has been working on potholes at the Community Center, as well as Jefferson Street between First Street and Highway 72. After cutting and digging up where the pot holes were, we discovered that not only did thicknesses of asphalt vary from under 1 inch to over 4 inches randomly, but the sub base is very undesirable material that was never compacted. Long-term

solutions are needed in both of these spots; possibly tearing all asphalt out and starting over from scratch would be the best solution. This would be costly up front but will prevent the town being nickeled and dimed to

death in repairs for these spots. The last wooden section of sidewalk on First Street near Dog

House Video has been pulled up and is being re-poured as I type this report. While pouring this, the slabs for the new bear proof recycle bins are being poured as well. There will now be three bear proof recycling and trash containers in the downtown area, thanks to a grant from Boulder County’s community outreach program.

After completing a sign check throughout town, we discovered a lot of missing signs. We will be putting up as many as we can before the ground freezes and complete the rest in the spring. We will start with all regulatory and safety-related signs first and then move on to the others.

Parks Chipeta Park has been winterized and facilities locked for the season.

MEMORANDUM

To: Board of Trustees From: Dawn Baumhover

Community Center Coordinator Date: 11/07/12 Re: Staff report

Community Center operations are routine, which is very good news! Drop-in Basketball is experiencing increased numbers and considering a second night to accommodate all players. Public Works was able to complete the upper driveway repairs, and drainage issues from Forest Road down the hill through the east lot will be the next focus for repairs.

The Witches Ball was a successful first-time event, and the organizers hope to make it an annual occurrence. The Food Pantry is serving 200+ people per month, and the Clothing Closet has adjusted their hours to run concurrently in addition to their Wednesday and Saturday hours. Emergency Family Assistance Association (EFAA) will hold their Thanksgiving food distribution at the Community Center on Saturday, Nov. 17th. Sunday, Nov. 18th is the annual Community Thanksgiving Dinner at the Center from 12 to 3 p.m. The event committee is well-organized and prepared for the event.

The new tables and chairs have arrived! Eight new 8-foot and 6-foot tables have arrived, along with caddies and 60 new folding chairs for the Community Room. Thank you to the Community Center Foundation Board for helping with this long-needed purchase.

The final payment was received for the purchase of the excess kitchen equipment and the buyer moved it out of storage in the west wing last month. He reports that

he will be able to refurbish and utilize almost all of it. I am not only glad to be rid of it but very pleased this all went to an organic farmer starting a farm-to-table operation.

The Community Center was also the recipient of a large quantity of useable items from the old Watershed School building, which has been sold. Many thanks to Public Works for the muscle power to make this happen.

Boulder County Human Resources has added the Fitness Place to their list of facilities given to their employees who participate in the county’s wellness program. This gives mountain residents working for the county a local option for their workout needs.

Trustee Report

To: Board of Trustees

From: Trustee Randy Lee

Date: November 8, 2012

On October 19th, I attended a forum on Climate change and Forest Wildfire in Golden, sponsored by

Boulder and Jefferson Counties as part of their October Wildfire Awareness month activities. Dr.

Anthony L. Westerling presented his findings in studying wildfire history and behavior in the greater

Yellowstone area in relation to climate variables and his predictions for wildfire in the future, based

upon three climate change models.

To very briefly summarize Dr. Westerling’s findings:

While the total yearly number of fires has decreased since 1980, the number of large fires has

increased (no similar trend is noticeable in non-forest – i.e. grass and brush – fires)

Most forest fires are not human caused

There is no evidence that unnaturally high tree density resulting from fire-suppression efforts is

a factor in the increase in fire size (most of the increase has occurred in moist areas where tree

density is naturally high)

Grass and shrub fires are prevalent in wet years, forest fires in dry years

There is no correlation between hot temperatures and the number of non-forest fires, whereas

forest fires do increase as temperature increases; early snow melt leads to more fires

The trend is towards more fires, larger fires, longer duration of the fire season and larger area

burned

The climate models all predict higher temperatures and lower precipitation

After 2050, there are no predicted years with no fires

By 2070 the model breaks down, as there is not enough time for forests to regenerate between

predicted fires

Dr. Westerling also presented preliminary (not peer-reviewed) predictions for Colorado, based on his

study of data since 1999:

The models predict large areas burning with a ten-fold increase in the number of fires by mid-

century

The greatest increase in fire activity will occur between 2500 and 3200 meters in elevation

(Nederland is at 2510 meters)

The climate models vary in when they predict a blowup of numbers (fires exceeding

regenerative capacity), ranging from 2030 to 2060 – all are conservative, bark beetles and the

change in vegetation (that will result from fires) is not factored in

His model predicts that Colorado will resemble Yellowstone in 1988 almost every year

Boulder County plans to make the meeting notes available, and I will distribute those when I

receive them.

Trustee Report

To: Board of Trustees

From: Trustee Randy Lee

Date: November 8, 2012

PROST Master Plan Update Process: GreenPlay and Design Concepts have completed drafts of the

master plan and gateway park master plan, respectively, and presented them to the project steering

committee. A final public meeting to gather feedback on the draft plans is scheduled for the evening of

Monday the 12th, and all Town advisory boards have been asked to evaluate the plans from the

perspective of their respective areas of concern during the month of November. Consolidated edits

and feedback will be submitted to GreenPlay on November 30th, with a goal of placing a final plan on

the BOT agenda for December 18th.

PROSAB: The board met October 18th. The public was invited to give input on replacement equipment

for the no longer usable teeter totter, and a selection of items was selected for NES students to vote

on. Other agenda items included a preliminary discussion of a Chipeta Park management plan,

preliminary discussion about standardization of parks and trails fixtures and discussion of a process

and schedule for updating the Town of Nederland Trails Master Plan (it was decided that PROSAB

could undertake this in January). PROSAB next meets November 15th and will devote the meeting to

critiquing the master plan draft.

IMA: The IMA met in Lyons on October 24th. Stan Garnett and Jane Walsh from the DA’s office

attended to acquaint us with the service they provide; they were open to the idea of staffing the office

that Boulder County leases in the Community Center a day or two a month (and likewise for other

mountain communities). The Mountain Emergency Radio Network (MERN) will hold a meeting of all

radio operators on December 1st at the Jamestown Town Hall (9:00 – 12:00) for initial emergency

network training, radio distribution and to assemble antennae. The next IMA meeting will be

November 28th in Ward.

Big Springs emergency egress proposal: Initial feedback from Boulder County is expected soon.

Economic Development Task Force: I met with Alisha, Teresa and Katrina Harms on October 25th to

discuss re-establishing an ED task force; a recommendation will come before the BOT in December.

Shooting: A multi-county task force to address shooting issues met for the first time since last winter

on October 18th. Boulder, Clear Creek, Gilpin and Larimer counties were represented, and all indicated

that they are supportive of finding a regional solution to shooting issues. District Ranger Clark says she

is hopeful the group can move forward with strategy this winter and enter into NEPA planning next

summer. We will keep pressing them to move forward.

AGENDA INFORMATION MEMORANDUM TOWN OF NEDERLAND BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Date: November 13, 2012 Initiated By: /s/ Alisha Reis Dept: Planning & Zoning Action ___X_____ Discussion _______

______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Special Review Use Application for the Kathmandu Addition (a mixed-use development by Nepal, LLC) at 110 N. Jefferson Street SUMMARY: The applicant, Nepal, LLC, owns the Kathmandu Restaurant at 110 N. Jefferson Street, located in the Central Business District (CBD) zoning district. They are proposing to build a self-supporting second-story addition to the existing single-story restaurant. The current building is having issues with roof leaking and is in need of a new roof. This proposal would address this issue, as well as provide approximately 4,300 square feet of new space. The use of the addition will include three one-bedroom apartments, an office and a storage/mechanical room. There will be covered decks on the east, south and west sides of the building, with an exterior stair case on the west side from the addition to grade. Wind screening will be provided on the west side of the building, and an airlock will be inside the west entry hallway. The approximate height of the structure is 28 feet, in keeping with the Kathmandu Plaza building to the north. The addition would be built on a steel framework above and covering the roof of the present restaurant. William F. Wilkinson, licensed structural engineer, has attested to the technical feasibility for this site. The applicant has submitted a complete site plan and has met all application requirements, including public hearing notice to property owners within 300 feet of the property. Proper public noticing has also been made in the paper and posted on the property. The public hearing for this project was conducted by the Planning Commission on October 24, 2012. HISTORY AND PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Special Review Use for the mixed-use development proposed. The recommendation included the following conditions: 1) That a drainage plan be prepared by a geotechnical engineer and

approved by Town staff, and 2) That a parking plan be prepared and approved by Town staff. Additionally, Lots 1 and 2 must be dissolved to make one lot. The building is considered non-conforming because it straddles the two lots. This application will be presented at the Planning Commission on Nov. 28, 2012 and forward on to the Board of Trustees for final consideration at a later time. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on September 26, 2012 with a concept plan for this proposal. At that time the Commission raised several conditions, including permeable paving options for parking areas, building into the building design protection from the elements, drainage management, parking design and good maintenance of parking spaces, including provision of parking stops. ANALYSIS: Nederland Municipal Code (NMC) Criteria and Conditions:

(1) Is eligible for a special review under Section 16-32 Section 16-32 Use Groups: this application falls under Mixed Uses, as the applicant is proposing residential, office, and restaurant use. In the CBD zoning district, a mixed use requires a special review.

(2) Is generally compatible with adjacent land uses;

The height and design of this second story will be in keeping with the Kathmandu Plaza at 150 N. Jefferson St. The second-level roof coverings will be similar to the awning roofs of the Plaza to the north, Whistler’s Café to the northeast, and the south side of the Caribou shopping center building. Staff feels the proposed use is compatible with adjacent land uses.

(3) Meets all requirements of Section 16-52, is in compliance with this Chapter and minimizes potential adverse impact of the special review use on adjacent properties and traffic flow; All requirements of Section 16-52 have been met, except for the proposed time schedule for development. An acceptable traffic flow pattern is depicted on the plans.

(4) Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and The applicant explained how their project would further the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan by promoting density of development, the proximity of the proposed apartments to RTD and trail system, construction will follow LEED guidelines for sustainability, and offer economical housing and office space in the CBD district.

(5) The Town has the capacity to serve the proposed use with water, sewer, fire and police protection. The Town does have the capacity to serve the proposed use with water and sewer. As per NMC Section 13-24(i) and 13-54(j), the applicant is required to purchase a separate water and sewer PIF and TAP for each housing unit.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Approval the SRU application as presented 2. Approval the SRU application with conditions 3. Deny the SRU application

ATTACHMENTS:

1. SRU Agreement with Nepal LLC for the mixed-use development 2. SRU application and narrative 3. SRU plans 4. Local Departments’ Reviews 5. Letter from Wilkinson Engineering 6. Planning Commission Minutes, October 24, 2012

SPECIAL REVIEW USE AGREEMENT KATHMANDU MIXED-USE BUILDING

110 N. Jefferson St.

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 13th day of November 2012, by and between the Town of Nederland, a Colorado municipal corporation (“the Town”) and Nepal, a Colorado corporation (“the Owner”).

WHEREAS, the Owner owns property described as Block 17, Lots 1-2 of original Nederland, also known as 110 N. Jefferson St., Town of Nederland, County of Boulder, State of Colorado, 80466 (“the Property”); and

WHEREAS, the Owner has applied for permission to operate a mixed-use development on the Property as a Special Review Use; and

WHEREAS, the Property is located within the Central Business District zoning district; and

WHEREAS, mixed-use developments are eligible as a special review use in the Central Business District zoning district, provided the criteria for a special review use are satisfied; and

WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that the Town’s review and approval of plans for the proposed special review use have been done in furtherance of the general public’s health, safety and welfare and that no immunity is waived and no specific relation with, or duty of care to the Owner or third parties is created or assumed by such review or approval; and

WHEREAS, the Nederland Planning Commission reviewed the proposed special use on October 24, 2012 and recommended approval subject to certain conditions, and

WHEREAS, following proper notice, the Nederland Board of Trustees has considered the Owner’s application to operate a mixed-use development for residential units, office and storage spaces, and to include the existing restaurant, on the Property as a special review use and has concluded that such use is proper under the terms and conditions set forth herein.

NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. The Nederland Board of Trustees grants to the Owner the right to operate a

mixed-use development on the Property in conformance with the Owner’s complete and approved Application for a Special Review Use, including but not limited to the Site Plan included therewith, said Application attached hereto as

οf 6

Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Application”), subject to the conditions set forth in Section 2, below.

2. The Owner shall be entitled to continue to use the Property to operate a mixed-

use development as described herein, so long as the Owner complies fully and completely with the following conditions:

a. A drainage plan for the site must be prepared by a geotechnical engineer

and approved by Town staff. The plan parameters must be based upon a five-year flood event.

b. Off-street parking spaces to accommodate the new uses shall be provided

as shown on the Application, and shall be provided prior to commencement of operations of the second-floor uses. Each such parking space shall comply with the Town’s requirements regarding size, marking and nature of parking spaces. Boulders will not be used for parking delineation and must be removed from such use on all sides of the building.

c. Approval of the special review use is contingent upon an approved

application for dissolution of lot lines for the property.

d. Prior to commencement of operations of the mixed-use development, the Owner shall obtain and provide to the Town Clerk written certification from the Nederland Fire District indicating that adequate fire hydrants exist in sufficiently close proximity to the building.

e. The Owner shall not expand or allow expansion of the uses of the

Property or the area of the Property permitted hereunder, without the advance written consent of the Nederland Board of Trustees. The Town Zoning Administrator shall determine whether an expansion of use or area of use constitutes an “alteration” of the use approved by this Agreement, requiring an additional application and approval process in accordance with Code Section 16-57(a).

3. The Owner shall comply with and shall ensure that the Property complies with all

applicable local, state and federal governmental regulations and requirements, including but not limited to building, zoning, design standards, rights-of-way, sidewalk, nuisance, floodplain, floodway, health regulations or any other rules or regulations. When requested by the Town, reasonable proof of such compliance shall be provided by the Owner.

4. Violation. Allegations concerning a violation of one or more of the terms or

conditions of this Agreement may give rise to a review of the special review use

οf 6

approved for the Property. Such review shall be conducted pursuant to Code Section 16-61. If, as a result of a hearing held pursuant to said Section, the Board determines that a violation exists, then the Board shall have the following options, in its discretion:

a) Terminate the Agreement, in which event the use of the Property under

the special use permit shall cease. b) Suspend the Special Review Use Permit until the breach is remedied. No

use shall be made of the Property during such suspension. c) Modify the Agreement on such terms and conditions as the Board deems

appropriate, including but not limited to, restricting the uses that may be made of the Property or the portions of the Property in which such uses may be made or adding additional terms or conditions to the Agreement.

5. Payment of other Town fees, taxes and charges. The Owner shall stay current

with all taxes, fees, water bills and other charges or obligations owed to the Town. Should the Owner be delinquent in any such payment for 90 days or more, such delinquency shall constitute a violation of this Agreement, subject to the terms of Section 4 above.

6. Termination. This Agreement and the corresponding Special Use Certificate

shall terminate upon the earliest of the following events:

a. Failure of the Owner to comply with any term of this Agreement as determined through the process set forth in Section 4, above.

b. Operation of any business on the Property other than as specifically

permitted in this Agreement.

c. Termination of the operation of the permitted use for a period of 12 consecutive months or longer.

d. Voluntarily relinquishment of rights under this Agreement by the Owner

submitted to the Town in writing. 7. Effect of termination. Upon the termination of this Agreement, the right to use the

Property for mixed uses shall terminate and the Property may then be used and developed pursuant to Town code.

8. Modification and Waiver. No modification of the terms of this Agreement shall be

valid unless in writing and executed with the same formality as this Agreement, and no waiver of the breach of any provision of this Agreement shall be

οf 6

construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision hereof. It is expressly agreed that, except as may otherwise be provided by applicable statute or ordinance, no official of the Town has the authority to waive or modify any provision of this Agreement without the approval of the Board of Trustees.

9. Title and Authority. The Owner warrants to the Town that it is the record

owner of the Property. The undersigned further warrants to have full power and authority to enter into this Agreement.

10. Transfer and Assignment. This Agreement and the corresponding Special

Review Use Certificate shall constitute a covenant running with the Property and shall continue until terminated as provided herein or by written agreement between the Town and the Owner, its heirs, successors or assigns.

11. Severability/Governing Law. This Agreement is to be governed and construed

according to the laws of the State of Colorado. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be in violation of any local, state or federal law, and thereby rendered unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect as if the unenforceable provision had never been included in this Agreement.

12. Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded with the Boulder County Clerk

and Recorder, with the Owner to reimburse the Town for such costs of recording. 13. Issuance of Special Review Use Certificate. Upon execution of this Agreement

and compliance with all other conditions precedent as stated in this Agreement, the Town shall issue a Special Review Use Certificate to the Owner. The Owner shall take no action in reliance on this Agreement and shall have no rights under the Special Review Use process until such time as the Special Review Use Certificate is issued.

ATTEST: TOWN OF NEDERLAND, COLORADO

a municipal corporation ________________________________By: ___________________________________ Teresa Myers, Town Clerk Joe Gierlach, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM:

οf 6

____________________________________ Carmen Beery, Town Attorney

OWNER:

By:___________________________________

STATE OF ___________ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) Acknowledged before me this _____ day of ____________, 2012, by ______________________ as ___________________ of Nepal LLC. Notary My Commission Expires: _______________. [S E A L]

οf 6

EXHIBIT A

[APPLICATION, AS APPROVED, INCLUDING SITE PLAN]

A0

DATE ISSUE

DEBORAH DAVENPORTCARIBOU RIDGE

ARCHITECTURE, LLCP.O. BOX 2004 NEDERLAND, CO

TEL. 720.273.9479FAX. 866.834.7538

E-MAIL [email protected]

KAT

HM

AN

DU

AD

DIT

ION

110

NO

RTH

JEFF

ERSO

N S

T.N

EDER

LAN

D, C

O 8

0466

07/30/12 PRELIMINARY

COVER SHEET

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTENMATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN

CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL ANDUNPUBLISHED WORK OF THEARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED ORDISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTENCONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT

© 2012

REVISED08/21/12CONCEPTUAL PLANREVIEW

09/12/12SPECIAL REVIEW USE10/11/12

To see all the details that are visible on thescreen, use the "Print" link next to the map.

To see all the details that are visible on thescreen, use the "Print" link next to the map.

SCALE: 1" =100'1 VICINITY MAP0 50' 100' 200' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SURVEY

0 8' 16' 32'

A1

DATE ISSUE



TEL. 720.273.9479FAX. 866.834.7538


KAT

HM

AN

DU

AD

DIT

ION

110

NO

RTH

JEFF

ERSO

N S

T.N

EDER

LAN

D, C

O 8

0466


SITE PLAN




© 2012



SLOPE: 1/4" : 1'-0"

N90°00'00"E

S00

°00'

00"W

100'

N90°00'00"E20'

N00

°00'

00"E

JEFF

ER

SO

N S

TR

EE

T

LOTS 9 & 10

LOT 3

LOTS 1 & 2

EXISTINGKATHMANDURESTAURANT

SE

RV

ICE

ALL

EY

TRASH ANDRECYCLING -KATHMANDUPLAZA

GRAVEL SERVICE ALLEY-FOR BETTER DRAINAGE

EL. 98'-6"

60' R

.O.W

WATERSERVICE

18'-4"

5

6

48

7CONC.LANDING

12'-1

"

UP

21R

GRAVEL PARKING LOTFOR WATER DETENTION;PROVIDE 24" D WASHED GRAVELOVER FILTER FABRIC, 3/4" - 1 1/2"

TRASH ANDRECYCLING -KATHMANDURESTAURANT

60!

36" PEA GRAVEL &TIMBER EDGEWALKWAY

BIKE RACK

BIKE RACKUNDER STAIRS

12" PEA GRAVEL & TIMBEREDGE WALKWAY

20'-0

"

17'-0

"

TEMP. SNOW STORAGEAND TURNAROUND AREA

GA

S S

ER

VIC

E

ELE

C. S

ER

VIC

E

60' R

.O.W

EL. 98'-6"

LOTS 1 & 2

LOT 3

LOTS 9 & 10

JEFF

ER

SO

N S

TR

EE

T

100'

N00

°00'

00"E

20'N90°00'00"E

100'

S00

°00'

00"W

N90°00'00"E

GAS METERS

N90°00'00"E80'

OVERFLOWSCUPPER

18'-0

"

27'-3" 40'-0" 12'-9"

5'-9

"87

'-6"

6'-9

"

12'-5" 9'-0" 5'-10"

20'

H.C. VAN PARKINGSPACE 16' X 20' (9'PARKING WITH 5'UNLOADING AISLE)

H.C. CAR PARKINGSPACE 13' X 20' (8'PARKING WITH 5'UNLOADING AISLE)

EXTERIOR DOWN LIGHTING ON EACH CORNER

WIND SCREEN TO BEDETERMINED

LINE OF DECK ABOVE

UP

(8) 9' X 20' PARKING SPACES

(1) 9' X 20' PARKING SPACE

(9) 9' X 20' PARKING SPACES

LIN

E O

F A

PAR

TME

NT

AB

OV

E

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONING

LOTS1 & 2 AREA ARE 8,000 S.F. OR .18 ACRE

20 PARKING SPACES (1 H.C. CAR & 1 H.C. VAN)SHOWN EAST & SOUTH OF THE LOTS

1 SPACE FOR EACH OF THE PROPOSED 2NDSTORY APARTMENTS1 SPACES FOR THE PROPOSED 2ND STORYOFFICE

UTILITIES FOR ADDITION AS SUCH:TIE INTO NATURAL GAS LINE FOR FORCE AIRHEATING.TIE INTO TOWN WATER & SEWER FOR PLUMBINGFIXTURES.TIE INTO EXISTING ELECTRICAL, PHONE &INTERNET.

ROOF TO BE DRAINED TO THE SOUTH OF THEADDITION, BE COLLECTED BY A GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT SYSTEM & DISCHARGED TO THE TOWNSTORM SEWER.

(2) 9' X 20'PARKINGSPACES

FLOWOFTRAFFIC

FLOWOFTRAFFIC

FLOWOFTRAFFIC

FLOWOFTRAFFIC

FLOWOFTRAFFIC

TRASH ANDRECYCLINGKATHMANDUPLAZA &MIXED USE

TRASH ANDRECYCLINGKATHMANDUPLAZA &MIXED USE

(3) 9' X 20'PARKINGSPACES

RESTAURANTDELIVERY

WALKWAYAND H.C.AISLE

WALKWAY

SECONDARY STAIRWELL ASREQUIRED

POSSIBLE LOCATION OF KATHMANDU GIFTSHOP

N

SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN0 4' 8' 16'

A2

DATE ISSUE



TEL. 720.273.9479FAX. 866.834.7538


KAT

HM

AN

DU

AD

DIT

ION

110

NO

RTH

JEFF

ERSO

N S

T.N

EDER

LAN

D, C

O 8

0466


MAIN AND UPPER LEVELFLOOR PLANS




© 2012



(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)(1)(1)(1) (1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(8)

(1)(2)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)(1) (1) (1)

(5)

(1) (1)

(2)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(1)

(1)

(1)(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

53'-0"

18'-0

"18

'-0"

53'-0"

18'-0

"51

'-6"+

/-18

'-0"

5'-0" 5'-0"

4,384 sq ft

268 sq ft

288 sq ft

535 sq ft

BEDROOM

BATH

CLOSETCOATBROOM

MECH

REF

DW

SINK

OVEN/VENT/MICRO/COOK TOP

DINING

KITCHEN

LIVING

ENTRY

T.V.

DECK

BEDROOM

BATH

CLOSET

COATBROOM

MECH

REF

DW

SINK


DINING

KITCHEN

LIVING

ENTRY

T.V.

DECK

BEDROOM

BATH

CLOSET

COAT

MECHREF

DW

SINK


DINING

KITCHEN

LIVING

ENTRY

T.V.

STORAGE

OFFICE

HALL

DOWN

OFFICE

BROOM

OFFICE

OFFICE

COMMON PATH OF EGRESS 80 FT.

BUILDING PROTECTED WITH ANAPPROVED AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERSYSTEM

COMMON PATH OF EGRESS 75 FT.

STORAGE

(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)

(E)

(E)

(E)

(E)

(E)

(E)

(E)

(E)

(E)

(E)(E)(E)

6'-0

"3'

-4"

3'-4

"3'

-4"

6'-0

"3'

-4"

6'-0

"3'

-4"

6'-0

"12

'-0"

3'-4

"10

1/2

"6'

-0"

2'-0

"

87'-6

3/4

"

7'-3" 5'-5"4'-0"7'-3"16'-1"

40'-0"

6'-0" 2'-4"5'-10" 2'-7" 5'-10" 11'-7"13'-10"

3'-4

"5'

-4"

4'-0

"6'

-0"

4'-0

"

10'-0"13'-0"

3,704 sq ft

EXISTING RESTAURANT

LINE OF DECK ABOVE

UP

LINE OF APT.ABOVE

LIN

E O

F A

PT.

AB

OV

E

LINE OF APT.ABOVE

LIN

E O

F D

EC

KA

BO

VE

N

SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN0 4' 8' 12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

0 4' 8' 12'

A3

DATE ISSUE



TEL. 720.273.9479FAX. 866.834.7538


KAT

HM

AN

DU

AD

DIT

ION

110

NO

RTH

JEFF

ERSO

N S

T.N

EDER

LAN

D, C

O 8

0466


NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS




© 2012



28'-0

"

28'-0

"

SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION0 2' 4' 8'

SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION0 2' 4' 8'

A4

DATE ISSUE



TEL. 720.273.9479FAX. 866.834.7538


KAT

HM

AN

DU

AD

DIT

ION

110

NO

RTH

JEFF

ERSO

N S

T.N

EDER

LAN

D, C

O 8

0466


EAST & WEST ELEVATIONS




© 2012



28'-0

"

PAINTED OR STUCCOSIDING TO COMPLIMENTTHE EXISTING CORALPAINTED BLOCK OF THEKATHMANDU RESTAURANTBELOW

PAINTED FASCIA & SOFFIT

PAINTED BEAM & POSTS

WOOD & METAL DECKING

METAL ROOFING, GUTTER &DOWN SPOUTS.

INSULATED WINDOWS WITHGRAY VINYL CLADDING

PARAPET WALL WITHPAINTED CAP

LINE OF ROOF BEYOND

PAINTED METAL BEAM

EXISTING FIRST FLOORKATHMANDU RESTAURANT

28'-0

"

SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION0 2' 4' 8'

SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION0 2' 4' 8'

1

MEMORANDUM

To: Board of Trustees From: Alisha Reis, Zoning Administrator Date: Nov. 7, 2012

Re: Local Departments’ Review, Nepal LLC SRU LOCAL DEPARTMENTS’ REVIEWS: As part of a land use application, staff forwards the application to various departments, boards and organizations relevant to the application. Fire Department (Rick Dirr): “Looks ok to me. I initially was concerned with only one egress from second floor, I checked fire code and since this is a mixed use it uses the most restrictive (residential R-2), so as long as occupancy does not exceed 10 (entire floor), one exit is permitted.” Police Department (Jake Adler): No issues. Legal (Carmen Beery): Specify Mark Stringfellow’s capacity in acting on behalf of the applicant, and the time schedule is missing as per NMC 16-52(a)(2). Public Works (Jason Morrison):

1. “Drainage onto 1st street. There are already problems with ice near this stretch of 1st street just west of Jefferson Street. This section of road does not get a lot of sunlight in winter and any runoff being dumped on 1st Street may worsen this problem. With “private parking” on 1st Street in front of the real estate office makes plowing and sanding in this area difficult already and the introduction of more water may worsen this problem. A detailed drainage plan developed with the town is necessary prior to construction. If the applicants have a problem with ice damming, they should look into ways to prevent damming in their gutters.

2. Parking. Site Plan A-1 shows parking in front of Kathmandu Plaza being at a 60-degree angle. Parking along Jefferson Street, as well as along 1st Street to the south of the building, should all be at this angle. Parking in front of the restaurant has a bit of a free-for-all kind of feel and should be tightened up a

2

bit. Parking blocks should be used instead of boulders and should have defined angled parking spaces. Jefferson Street is narrow; anything to help parking issues in town should be considered.

3. Pavement condition. The entire block of Jefferson Street should be improved. If traffic along this stretch of road increases, Jefferson Street will continue to deteriorate. I feel Town, the NDDA, the owners of Whistlers Cafe and the applicant should come up a paving plan for Jefferson Street from Highway 72 to 1st Street and from Whistlers to the front of Kathmandu restaurant to improve aesthetics in this area. Jefferson Street struggles with the amount of traffic it has currently and if there is the potential for more, I would strongly encourage all parties involved to agree to pave and/or repave this whole area. The Town has previously agreed to pave Jefferson Street, as well as the parking spots in front of Kathmandu Plaza. The owners of Whistlers had agreed to pave their spots from their building up to Jefferson Street.

4. Water valves. In the adjacent Kathmandu Plaza building, the Town is unable to shut off water to individual units from the outside. I would recommend on this expansion that water shut-off valves to each unit be accessible by Town staff somewhere on the outside of the building in case of an emergency.

I feel the Planning Commission should put as much responsibility on parking, paving and drainage as possible onto the applicant. These issues are reoccurring problems and should be dealt with before any expansion occurs, not only here but anywhere in town.” Nederland Downtown Development Authority (Paul Turnburke for the NDDA): “After review of the project, the NDDA believes that it meets many of the sustainability concepts mentioned in Sustainability Resolution 2011-2012. The applicant mentions that it does conform to a LEED standard of building up rather than horizontally. They also emphasize the advantages of using Manufactured Housing. In the new LEED Sustainable Neighborhoods manual, several criteria are mentioned. This project meets many of these criteria. 1. Small units that can be used by either singles, or couples without children, who later will move to family housing somewhere in the area, or by seniors who are scaling back from large family homes. 2. The location meets the standard that it be on bus routes and close to public facilities such as: library, Post Office, Churches, shopping, etc. 3. These units will be close to the new Ned Ped Project running down 2nd St. and might be incorporated into one of the spurs of the project on Jefferson St. We would urge the applicant or representatives to attend the DAT – Design Advisory Team

3

meetings to see how their project would fit into the overall plan of the Ned Ped Project. 4. It is important for a small community like Nederland to have housing in the CBD so that security is increased at night when a lot of the businesses have closed. It is proven that just having people living in a downtown area reduces crime. 5. One idea that would increase the desirability and sustainability of the project would be to include bike racks for 30% of the residential portion of the building. Since this will be located within a half block of the Nederland Pedestrian Multimodal Pathway, this would add another point to the scoring. 6. The Sustainable Neighborhood Development Checklist considers these criteria in scoring projects: a. Is located on a site that is any of the following (only one required): (This project qualifies on all counts) • Infill - 75% surrounded by existing development • Well connected to existing development by an existing street network • Well served by transit or neighborhood amenities b. Will get a high rating of 5 points by infill and previously developed site c. Provides affordable housing - 3 points d. Located on a site that is within walking distance of buses - 1-7 points It would appear that the applicant has adequately addressed the parking needs of the new addition. It is not clear from the plans if a change to the existing parking on the south side is being proposed. Existing parking in this area is diagonal, while the plans show head-in, perpendicular parking. If the plan is to change parking as part of the building expansion, care should be taken to insure that the perpendicular parking, which takes more space than diagonal parking, does not interfere with safe traffic circulation on First St. In conclusion, this project further extends the desirability of mixed use in the CBD district of Nederland and is supported by the NDDA.” Engineering/Environmental Impact/Geotechnical Review (Mark Weritz):

1. “Surface Drainage In its existing condition, surface drainage for the subject property and surrounding area is poor. The finished floor elevation of the restaurant building is very near or below street grade along both Jefferson and First Streets, and site grade is relatively level. The project Site Plan, dated 10-11-12, indicates that roof drainage is to be collected by gutter and downspout system and discharged to the town storm sewer. No formal storm sewer system exists in the local area, other than sheet flow eastward across the intersection of Jefferson

4

and First Streets. This surface water sheet flow deposits large amounts of sediment in the town parking lot after intense storms.

Due to the existing poor condition of surface drainage, and due to limiting constraints of both the project site and the immediate surrounding area, I strongly recommend that a detailed drainage analysis and Site Grading Plan be prepared by an experienced site engineer. The Town, and its properties, may also need to be included in the overall drainage improvements for this part of town. Use of gravel-covered surfaces, shaped subgrade, and below-grade retention basins may be necessary to provide adequate control of stormwater for the project site. The Town strongly encourages the use of infiltration methods to reduce runoff off of developed sites. The attached document describes how these methods may be incorporated into the site’s design.

2. Geotechnical Conditions The Charles C. Bowman Associates, Inc. “Subsurface Investigation” report, for the subject property, dated August 21, 1985, indicates that low permeable layers may be present in the site’s subsurface, which may reduce expected infiltration rates. The referenced subsurface investigation is attached for review. Uncontrolled fill may be present at proposed foundation subgrade elevation and should be expected to be encountered during excavation work. Provisions in structural drawings and specifications should be outlined for uncontrolled fill removal, and if necessary, replacement with structural fill.”

Xcel Energy (Barbara Temple): “I will need to know added load information for the gas and electric to determine if the existing facilities will be able to handle the additional loads. The gas service line can be upgraded, if needed, with the existing main in place. There could be issues with the electric if three phase is needed or if the existing transformer cannot handle the added load. Once you are sure this is moving forward an application will need to be submitted to the Builder’s Call Line, 1-800-628-2121, and then the project will be assigned to the designer covering this territory.”

1

Nederland Planning Commission

MINUTES

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 ~ 7:00 pm Nederland Community Center

750 Highway 72 North ______________________________________________________________________

1) Call to Order Chairman Martin called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.

2) Roll Call

Present: Chairman Bill Martin and Commissioners Denise Jackson, Steve Williams, and Mikki Osterloo. Also present: Town Administrator Alisha Reis and Deputy Town Clerk Michele Martin. Absent: Commissioners Kris Larsen, Roger Cornell and Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Mueller.

3) Approval of minutes from September 26, 2012 A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Osterloo and approved, with Commissioner Jackson abstaining.

4) Public Comment There was no public comment.

5) Action Items a. Consideration of a Special Review Use Application by Nepal LLC

for a mixed-use development at 110 N. Jefferson Street, Block 17, Lots 1-2

Mark Stringfellow, General Contractor for the applicant, Debbie Davenport, Architect, and Lok Malla, applicant, were present to discuss the application. Using the Agenda Information Memorandum prepared for the meeting, the applicant went through the 10 items that were recommended at the September 26 Commission review of the concept.

2

1. Propose different paving options that are permeable and able to be plowed:

Stringfellow did meet with Mark Weritz, the Geotechnical Engineer the Town has on staff, to review drainage for this site and how it can work with the Town’s plan to overlay Jefferson Street next year. There is a culvert that crosses the highway next to Business Connection and heads north across to the Mining Museum property. That culvert is expected to be repaired by the Town. Stringfellow further discussed an idea for drainage he had discussed with Weritz. This is the first attempt in to take sheet flow out of this area. The applicant does not plan to pave on the west side, and they understand they need to keep the flow onsite. The applicant is not adding to the existing sheet flow because they are putting a roof on top of an existing roof. Stringfellow will plan drainage with Weritz based on a five-year flood event.

2. Indicate how protection to western stairway from the elements will be provided: Stringfellow said they could put up lattice or something similar to have natural light come through, in addition to the air locked entry vestibule that has been added to the plans.

3. Strongly encourage the applicant to work with the Town and the NDDA on long-range plans to improve the aesthetics of this neighborhood and beautify that part of Town: Davenport had prepared a new elevation drawing showing the relationship between the proposed addition to the restaurant and the existing plaza. Colors were yet to be determined. The applicant plans to leave the restaurant the same color and maybe have a different color on the addition to tie it together with the neighborhood. The steel I-beams will be exposed on the outside. Davenport reported there are examples of this in downtown Golden that have been done very tastefully.

4. Provide drainage management plan for storm water (particularly from roof flows): This was discussed as part of #1 above.

5. Parking on the south side (9 spots) appear to be blocking ingress to building; need to accommodate ingress on drawings – ensure adequate pathways to building and lay out in an orderly way; consider whether diagonal parking spaces will help: The parking and pathways have been redrawn on the plans.

6. Ensure building meets any required design standards and guidelines: The new plan has been revised to include a western storefront image as shown on the elevation drawing displayed. In reviewing the Design Standards and Guidelines for the historic CBD District, the applicant is now

3

leaning towards upright pickets for the railing, instead of the more modern looking horizontal version first proposed.

7. Town to check Xcel undergrounding account to determine if enough to help provide for undergrounding of power lines: The Town has confirmed that there are not enough funds in the account to support multiple projects and the priority is East First Street. Stringfellow went on to address Xcel’s comments regarding the added load information to determine if the existing facilities will be able to handle the additional loads. The applicant is planning to add new efficient appliances and will plan for solar for the future, so very little load will be added.

8. Ensure good maintenance of parking spaces/lots, including provision of parking stops: Touched on this already and ensures they will be able to plow in the back.

9. Include a diagram of the relationship between this parcel and the Kathmandu Plaza parcel: Shown on elevation drawing.

10. Indicate in plans management of trash and access by trucks: Stringfellow thought the access would be easy for box trucks to pull through the alley; only a big semi-truck would have to back up.

Stringfellow went on to address some of the staff comments and stated that next spring is the schedule for development, and they will confirm dates prior to the Board of Trustees meeting. A lot of staff’s other concerns related to drainage and parking were already discussed. The applicant feels comfortable with staff’s recommendations. Town Administrator Reis reiterated that drainage was the main concern and how it will be coordinated with the planned overlay of Jefferson Street. Reis also stated that the Town would like to see the parking space delineations extended to the south side of the restaurant as well, and emphasized to not delineate with boulders. Marking the concrete bumpers from sidewalks would be sufficient; there is no requirement to mark with lines. Chairman Martin opened the discussion to the Commission members. Commissioner Williams was concerned about water pooling up and freezing, and wondered where the snow would be piled. Stringfellow said the snow will not be in the detention area, it will be in the northeast section to slowly melt out. A backup drainage plan for the winter months might be warranted. There was more discussion on parking and drainage. Stringfellow went on to describe the drainage flow. Right now there is a culvert needing clearing that

4

heads to the north by Business Connection. The road will be crowned from the alley, with the north section scheduled to connect to that culvert as part of the Second Street Project (NedPeds) between Jefferson Street and the highway. The drainage heading towards the south will be kept on site through this proposed detention pond. The ideal infiltration point will be the western area discussed. The Commission thought that diagonal parking was better, and Stringfellow commented that a raised sidewalk could also act as a parking bumper at the same time. It was suggested to get rid of at least one space on the south side, as it looked pretty tight in there for 10 spaces. The alley way seems pretty narrow for access, but since it is a private service alley, 11 feet was acceptable. Stringfellow said he doesn’t believe the street standards of 12 feet is required, because it is a private alley. Martin suggested removing those three spaces to the north in the alley, but Stringfellow said they will remain, and he doesn’t anticipate them being used often. Reis said the restaurant sits on both Lots 1 and 2, and suggested that a lot line dissolution application be submitted to create one lot to bring the building into code conformance. Commissioner Williams made a motion to recommend to the Board of Trustees approval of the Special Review Use application for a mixed-use development, with a parking plan and a drainage plan prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer to be coordinated and approved by Town staff as part of the Agreement, seconded by Commissioner Jackson, and unanimously passed.

1

AGENDA INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NEDERLAND TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Date: October 2, 2012 Initiated By: /s/ Alisha Reis Dept: Administration Information_______ Discussion _____ Action ___X____

___________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Contract Approval for Sustainability Coordinator/Project Manager for the NedPeds Project SUMMARY: Denver-based firm C2 Sustainability (http://www.c2green.com/#!Home/mainPage) has submitted a fee proposal for sustainability oversight and project management work for the NedPeds multi-use pathway project. The firm was one of four to submit qualifications, and one of three to interview with the local committee. The proposal includes design review of the project for opportunities for the Town to meet environmental and sustainability goals, project oversight on behalf of the Town, and other overall interaction with the project design team, comprised of the DDA, public, Town officials and hired engineers. The total cost of the contract is $19,350, to be paid through DRCOG federal funds and DDA matching funds from its tax increment financing proceeds. HISTORY AND PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: The Downtown Development Authority, which is providing the full match for the DRCOG federal funds for this project, voted unanimously on November 7, 2012 to recommend approval of the contract with C2 Sustainability to the Board. In October, the Town issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a sustainability coordinator/project manager for the pathway project. The DDA subsequently appointed a negotiating group consisting of Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Mueller, DDA Vice Chairman and Design Advisory Team leader Pat Everson, DDA Board Member Katrina Harms, DDA Executive Director Paul Turnburke, and Town Administrator Alisha Reis to negotiate with submitting firm C2 Sustainability for scope and fee.

2

The Notice to Proceed for the project was issued by CDOT on September 21, 2012. The Board approved the contract award to project engineers, Huitt-Zollars Inc., on October 2, 2012. On May 1, 2012, the Board voted unanimously to direct the Mayor to convey to DRCOG that the Town intends to proceed with the NED PED project, that staff is to continue working on the funding IGA with CDOT. On April 3, 2012, voters in the DDA approved debt authorization that included the pathway project. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board considers approval of the contract. ALTERNATIVES:

1) That the Board approves the contract, with changes. 2) That the Board declines to approve the contract.

ATTACHMENTS:

1) Standard contract for professional services, with scope and fee proposal attached FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Funding for the sustainability/project management work is contained in the DDA’s 2012-2013 budget, based upon approval of the project by DDA voters in April 2012. The project is funded in part by a grant of federal transportation funds to the Town from DRCOG.

1

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 13th day of November, 2012, by and between the Town of Nederland, a Colorado municipality (the "Town") and C2 Sustainability (“Consultant”).

WHEREAS, the Town requires professional services; and

WHEREAS, Consultant has held itself out to the Town as having the requisite expertise and experience to perform the required services.

NOW, THEREFORE, for the consideration hereinafter set forth, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

I. SCOPE OF SERVICES

A. Consultant shall furnish all labor and materials required for the complete and prompt execution and performance of all duties, obligations, and responsibilities which are described or reasonably implied from Exhibit A, attached

hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

B. A change in the Scope of Services shall constitute any material change or amendment of services or work which is different from or additional to the Scope of Services. No such change, including any additional compensation, shall be effective or paid unless authorized by written amendment executed by the Town. If Consultant proceeds without such written authorization, then Consultant shall be deemed to have waived any claim for additional compensation, including a claim based on the theory of unjust enrichment, quantum merit or implied contract. Except as expressly provided herein, no agent, employee, or representative of the Town is authorized to modify any term of this Agreement, either directly or implied by a course of action.

II. REPORTS, DATA AND WORK PRODUCT

A. The Town shall provide Consultant with reports and such other data as may be available to the Town and reasonably required by Consultant to perform the Scope of Services. All documents provided by the Town to Consultant shall be returned to the Town. Consultant is authorized by the Town to retain copies of such data and materials at Consultant's expense.

B. Other than sharing information with designated third parties as previously directed by the Town, no project information shall be disclosed by Consultant to third parties without prior written consent of the Town or pursuant to a lawful court order directing such disclosure. Consultant is specifically authorized to provide access to any books, documents, papers and records of the Consultant which are directly pertinent to the Scope of Services to any federal agency which has granted funds for the project, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives.

2

C. The Town acknowledges that the Consultant's work product is an instrument of professional service. Nevertheless, all work product prepared under this Agreement shall become the property of the Town upon completion of the work. Consultant shall retain its rights in its standard drawing details, designs, specifications, databases, computer software and any other proprietary property. Rights to intellectual property developed, utilized, or modified in the performance of the Scope Services shall remain the property of Consultant.

D. Upon request, Consultant shall provide to the Town electronic versions of all work product, in the format directed by the Town.

E. The Town shall retain records relating to this Agreement for three (3) years after final payment is made to Consultant pursuant to Section III below.

III. COMPENSATION

A. See Exhibit A for maximum compensation due to Consultant for each

fiscal year falling within the term of this Agreement.

B. At intervals determined appropriate by Consultant, Consultant shall invoice the Town for services rendered. Upon receipt of such invoices, the Town shall make payment in full within thirty (30) days.

C. Notwithstanding the maximum amount specified in subsection A hereof, Consultant shall only be paid for work performed. If Consultant completes the Scope of Services for a lesser amount than the maximum amount, Consultant shall be paid the lesser amount, not the maximum amount.

IV. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

A. Consultant hereby warrants that it is qualified to assume the responsibilities and render the services described herein and has all requisite corporate authority and professional licenses in good standing, required by law.

B. The work performed by Consultant shall be in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and the level of competency presently maintained by other practicing professional firms or individuals in the same or similar type of work in the applicable community. The work and services to be performed by Consultant hereunder shall be done in compliance with applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.

C. Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, timely completion, and the coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and other services furnished by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall, without additional compensation, correct or resolve any errors or deficiencies in its designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and other services, which fall below the standard of professional practice, and reimburse the Town for costs caused by errors and omissions that fall below the standard of professional practice.

3

D. Approval by the Town of drawings, designs, specifications, reports, and incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve Consultant of responsibility for technical adequacy of the work. Neither the Town's review, approval or acceptance of, nor payment for, any of the services shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement.

E. Because the Town has hired Consultant for its professional expertise, Consultant agrees not to employ subcontractors to perform more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the work required under the Scope of Services. Upon execution of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish to the Town a list of proposed subcontractors, and Consultant shall not employ a subcontractor to whose employment the Town reasonably objects. All contracts between Consultant and subcontractors shall conform to this Agreement.

V. INSURANCE

A. Consultant agrees to procure and maintain, at its own cost, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by law.

B. At a minimum, and without limiting the scope of the foregoing Subsection A., Consultant shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of Consultant to procure and maintain commercial general liability insurance and professional liability insurance (also known as “Errors and Omissions” insurance), each such policy with a minimum combined single limit of five hundred thousand ($500,000) dollars each occurrence and one million dollars ($1,000,000) general aggregate, applicable to all premises and operations. Such coverage shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurers acceptable to the Town. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage.

C. Any insurance carried by the Town, its officers, its employees, or its consultants shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Consultant. Consultant shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy.

D. Consultant shall provide to the Town a certificate of insurance, completed by Consultant's insurance agent, as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect. The certificate shall identify this Agreement and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be cancelled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the Town. The Town reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto.

E. Failure on the part of Consultant to procure or maintain the insurance required herein shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement upon which the

4

Town may immediately terminate this Agreement, or at its discretion, the Town may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by the Town shall be repaid by Consultant to the Town upon demand, or the Town may offset the cost of the premiums against any monies due to Consultant from the Town.

VI. GENERAL WARRANTY

N/A

VII. INDEMNIFICATION

Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town and its officers, insurers, volunteers, representative, agents, employees, heirs and assigns from and against all claims, liability, damages, losses, expenses and demands, including attorney's fees, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including, without limitation, claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or the Scope of Services if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of Consultant, any subcontractor of Consultant, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of Consultant or of any subcontractor of Consultant, or which arise out of any workmen's compensation or other employment-related claim of any employee of Consultant or of any employee of any subcontractor of Consultant. Insurance coverage requirements specified by this Agreement shall in no way lessen or limit the liability of Consultant under the terms of this indemnification obligation.

VIII. TERMINATION

This Agreement shall terminate: (a) at such time as the work described in the Scope of Services is completed and the requirements of this Agreement are satisfied or (b) upon the Town's providing Consultant with thirty (30) days advance written notice, whichever occurs first. After termination, the Town shall pay Consultant for all work previously authorized and completed prior to the date of termination. If, however, Consultant has substantially or materially breached this Agreement, the Town shall have any remedy or right of set-off available at law and equity. If the Agreement is terminated for any reason other than cause prior to completion of the Scope of Services, any use of documents by the Town thereafter shall be at the Town's sole risk, unless otherwise consented to by Consultant.

IX. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The Consultant shall disclose any personal or private interest related to property or business within the Town. Upon disclosure of any such interest, the Town shall determine if the interest constitutes a conflict of interest. If the Town determines that a conflict of interest exists, the Town may treat such conflict of interest as a default and terminate this Agreement.

5

X. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

Consultant is an independent contractor. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, all personnel assigned by Consultant to perform work under the terms of this Agreement shall be, and remain at all times, employees or agents of Consultant for all purposes. Consultant shall make no representation that it is a Town employee for any purposes.

XI. ILLEGAL ALIENS

A. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 8-17.5-102(1), Consultant hereby certifies that at the time of executing this Agreement it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under this Agreement and that it will participate in either the E-Verify Program or Department Program in order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this Agreement.

B. The Consultant shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement nor shall it enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to the Consultant that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement.

C. The Consultant has confirmed the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this Agreement through participation in either the E-Verify Program or the Department Program.

D. The Consultant is prohibited from using either the E-Verify Program or the Department Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while this Agreement is being performed.

E. If the Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, the Consultant shall be required to: (a) notify the subcontractor and the Town within three (3) days that the Consultant has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (b) terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three (3) days of receiving the notice required pursuant to C.R.S. Section 8-17.5-102 (2) (III) (A) the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that the Consultant shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three (3) days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien.

F. The Consultant shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (the “Department”) made in the course of an investigation that the Department is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in C.R.S. Section 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S.

6

G. Any violation of subsections A through F above shall be deemed to be a material breach of this Agreement and the Town may immediately terminate this Agreement for cause. If this Agreement is so terminated, the Consultant shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the Town pursuant to C.R.S. Section 8-17.5-102(3) and the Town shall notify the office of the Secretary of State of such violation and termination.

XII. MISCELLANEOUS

A. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and any legal action concerning the provisions hereof shall be brought in Boulder County, Colorado.

B. No Waiver. Delays in enforcement or the waiver of any one or more defaults or breaches of this Agreement by the Town shall not constitute a waiver of any of the other terms or obligation of this Agreement.

C. Integration. This Agreement and any attached exhibits constitute the entire Agreement between Consultant and the Town, superseding all prior oral or written communications.

D. Third Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or cause of action in favor of a third party against either the Town or Consultant. The Consultant’s services under this Agreement are being performed solely for the Town’s benefit, and no other party or entity shall have any claim against the Consultant because of this Agreement or the performance or nonperformance of services hereunder. The Town and Consultant agree to require a similar provision in all contracts with contractors, subcontractors, subconsultants, vendors and other entities involved in this Project to carry out the intent of this provision.

E. Notice. Any notice under this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be deemed sufficient when directly presented or sent pre-paid, first class United States Mail, addressed as follows:

The Town: Town of Nederland

Alisha Reis, Town Administrator P.O. Box 396 45 W. First Street Nederland, Colorado 80466

Consultant: C2 Sustainability Conor Merrigan MAILING ADDRESS MAILING CITY, STATE ZIP

F. Severability

Comment [A1]: Add

. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.

7

G. Modification

H. Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights or obligations of the parties hereto, shall be assigned by either party without the written consent of the other.

. This Agreement may only be modified upon written agreement of the parties.

I. Governmental Immunity. The Town, its officers, and its employees, are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations (presently one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) per person and six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101, et seq., as amended, or otherwise available to the Town and its officers or employees.

J. Rights and Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Town under this Agreement are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. The expiration of this Agreement shall in no way limit the Town's legal or equitable remedies, or the period in which such remedies may be asserted, for work negligently or defectively performed.

K. ARTICLE X, SECTION 20/TABOR. The parties understand and acknowledge that the Town is subject to Article X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution ("TABOR"). The parties do not intend to violate the terms and requirements of TABOR by the execution of this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement does not create a multi-fiscal year direct or indirect debt or obligation within the meaning of TABOR and, therefore, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, all payment obligations of the Town are expressly dependent and conditioned upon the continuing availability of funds beyond the term of the Town's current fiscal period ending upon the next succeeding December 31. Financial obligations of the Town payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available in accordance with the rules, regulations, and resolutions of Town of Nederland and other applicable law. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement concerning termination, upon the Town's failure to appropriate such funds, this Agreement shall automatically terminate.

8

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first set forth above.

TOWN OF NEDERLAND

Joe Gierlach, Mayor

ATTEST: Teresa Myers, Town Clerk

CONSULTANT

By: Name, Title STATE OF COLORADO )

) ss. COUNTY OF )

The foregoing instrument was subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me this day of , 20___, by as .

My commission expires: (S E A L)

Notary Public

9

EXHIBIT A

Scope of Services (ATTACH)

Exhibit A- Scope of Work – Sustainable Design Assistance and Owner’s Rep The following scope of work is proposed for the Town of Nederland to provide Sustainable Design Assistance and Owner’s Representation:

1.1 Sustainability Meeting/Workshop Assistance. C² will materially participate in board meetings, workshops, and targeted team meetings in order to provide sustainability support, add value to the design process, and confirm that sustainable measures and goals are being appropriately incorporated. This will include participation in a minimum of ten (10) two (2) hour meetings prior to the completion of construction documents, as needed estimated additional one and a half (1.5) hour site visits/meetings during construction once monthly for the first two months and then every other month for the remainder of the construction process for a total of four (4) additional meetings ,and one six (6) hour Biomimicry workshop in Denver. Travel will be billed at half-time for trips over ½ and hour (1/2 hour and under will not be charged) and trips combined in order to save costs whenever possible.

a. Total time proposed for this task is 33 hours of meeting time and 14 full hours (28 hours total) of drive time for a total of 47 hours for Task 1, Sustainability Meeting Assistance.

b. The following meetings will be attended; adjustments may be made in writing by town staff at any time:

i. SAB Schematic Design Review Meeting (11/14) – 2 hours

ii. TRC Schematic Design Review (11/16) – 2 hours

iii. BOT/NDDA Work Session (11/27)- 2 hours

iv. PC/NDDA Schematic Design Review (11/28) – 2 hours

v. 2nd Biomimicry Workshop (1/15) – 6 hours

vi. Design Advisory Team Meeting no.4 (1/16) – 2 hours

vii. Design Advisory Team Meeting no.5 (2/7) – 2 hours

viii. 90% SAB Construction Document Review Meeting (2/14) – 2 hours

ix. 90% NDDA Construction Document Review Meeting (2/20) – 2 hours

x. 90% PC Construction Document Review Meeting (2/27) – 2 hours

xi. Presentation of Construction Documents (3/19) – 2 hours

xii. Site Visits/ Progress Meetings as required- 6 hours estimated

c. Deliverables: Notes will be taken at each meeting and delivered to the Town Point of Contact at the conclusion of each meeting or the next day if needed.

1.2 Design Review: C² will provide a design review to look for sustainability opportunities and harmonization with design matrix/OPR (see below tasks) at both the Schematic Design Review Stage and the 90% Construction Documents Stage.

a. The first design review will occur in tandem with the SD design review meetings with the first comments presented as part of the BOT/NDDA work session and the complete review being presented at the DAT meeting no. 4. The second review will occur while working with the design

team with a first iteration presented at the DAT meeting no. 5 and then a final (if needed) presented immediately thereafter. Total time anticipated for this task is 48 hours.

b. Deliverables: Red-lined design drawing and documents at the BOT/DDA work session, summary reports and red-lined/annotated drawings for final reviews.

1.3 Sustainability System Review/Credit Documentation. C² will develop a tracking matrix incorporating the various sustainability metrics from desired rating systems (LEED-ND, Sustainable Sites Initiative, and the Envision Rating System) as well as critical town criteria that could apply to the project and track progress towards these goals, any alterations, and justifications for their incorporation or non-incorporation.

a. The time for development and initial completion of the matrix will be sixteen (16) hours. The matrix will be updated regularly; when possible during meetings and when not immediately following. This task should take approximately sixteen (16) additional hours for a total of thirty-two (32) hours.

b. Deliverables: The Sustainability Matrix will be publically or privately available at all times and can be managed via cloud-based servers. It could be added to the DDA website along with a comment form for no additional fee.

1.4 OPR Assistance: A set of Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) documents using the provided template will be further developed, approved, and maintained on a shared document folder with appropriate permissions. The development of this document will draw upon best practice, the design matrix, town and team input, and sound design principles. The OPR will provide further direction for both the engineers and the designers and will be comprehensible and clear.

a. The OPR completion will be an immediate priority and C² will work with the town and design team to fill out any remaining gaps. This will be further developed depending on the direction the design takes and all changes will be approved by the town. Time estimated for this task is twenty-four (24) hours.

b. Deliverables: The OPR will be managed by C² in order to keep version control and all edits will be tracked. This document will be maintained per the town’s requirements wherever appropriate.

1.5 BOD Review: C² will review the Basis Of Design (BOD) against the OPR to determine what areas if any are lacking and which areas are satisfied.

a. This task will occur as part of the design review and will be incorporated into that task.

b. Deliverables: Included as part of Design Review.

1.6 Design Team Interface: C² will be available for design meetings as needed remotely or in person and will provide input into the critical areas identified in the matrix and reviewed documents as well as general sustainability and landscape design. We will take on specific tasks as needed and identified by the design team and ensure ongoing sustainability issues are addressed without holding up the project.

a. This task includes weekly or bi-weekly meetings with the design team located in Denver. We anticipate a total of ten (10) meetings taking one (1) hour each through March with no travel expenses along with an additional six (6) hours of follow-up tasks to assist the design team with sustainability issues for a total of sixteen (16) hours.

b. Deliverables: Information provided to the design team will be recorded and provided as part of the Town Coordination.

1.7 Town Coordination/ Owner’s Rep: C² will provide Owner’s Representative services to assist the Town to ensure smooth project workflow, budget and deadline accountability, and presumptive

addressing of potential issues. This will be accomplished through close communication with town staff throughout the design and construction process and will enable town staff to focus on other work. C² will schedule meetings, review detailed invoices, and generally share the logistical responsibility of the project. C² can use a cloud-based server to schedule meetings, share documents and provide whatever services are needed. C² can coordinate permissions, invites, and compatibility issues while ensuring a smooth workflow and easy access.

a. This task will involve considerable logistical efforts that will be incorporated into our daily workflow for the life of our involvement with the project. As an ongoing effort, this will build on our existing project involvement scope and is anticipated to take approximately forty-eight (48) hours over the course of the project.

b. Deliverables: In addition to frequent e-mail and phone communication with town staff, C² will provide monthly reports including progress on specific items, overall issues and comments, and detailed billing information to date along with our invoices.

Additional Proposed Tasks

2.1 Graphic Illustration: C² can provide additional vignettes, sections, street level perspectives, or aerial perspectives as desired by the town to supplement the design team’s efforts and showcase the potential improvements in a graphical fashion that clearly communicates both the streetscape experience and any landscape or underground systems.

a. These would be billed hourly and would depend on the type of illustration required, up to 40 hours for an aerial perspective and as little as 4 hours for a single vignette.

2.2 Energy Impact Analysis: In order to capture both the energy impacts of this project (in terms of embodied and operational energy) as well as the future energy savings from increased transit and, multi-modal use of improvements, C² could track energy consumption in terms of absolute energy (likely KBTUs) and establish benchmarks for ridership/utilization that would essentially “pay off” the energy used to construct the project. This type of analysis would require looking at transportation energy, material energy, and process energy as well as working with RTD and others to analyze their predictive models of future multi-modal use patterns.

a. This project could be completed at a number of scales with varying time and cost implications. It could range as simple as tracking energy consumption for the project (estimated at 24 hours) to adding a predictive analysis (an additional 40 hours).

2.3 LEED-ND Analysis: Since we will be conducting an analysis of LEED-ND applicability for the specific improvements along 2nd Street, it would require a minimal amount of effort to provide an analysis of the suitability of LEED-ND for the Town or Developers looking at downtown or another specified area. This is scoped at a preliminary analysis level, but would provide enough detail for the town to present to developers and trustees a likely scenario of LEED-ND certifications in the future.

a. This would be completed for a flat fee of $1500 and include mapping, credit by credit analysis, and a summary report for interested parties.

2.4 Commissioning: In addition to site visits proposed this would include testing and analysis of installed measures to verify performance in accordance with the specified levels. This could require waiting for a sizeable storm event but would include evidence of success or failure along with recommendations for any alterations

a. The time estimated for this service and the reporting is 32 hours.

Task and Fee Schedule

The below schedule and associated fees provides a breakdown of the core scope services and proposed services. The proposed services would be included at the Town’s option but are not currently included as part of the scope. Hence, the subtotal of $19,350 is the estimated project fee.

Scope Tasks Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Est.

Hours Fee

1.1 Workshop & Meeting Participation 47 $ 4,230.00

1.2 Design Review 48 $ 4,320.00 1.3 Credit Documentation 32 $ 2,880.00

1.4 OPR Assistance 24 $ 2,160.00

1.5 BOD Review $ -

1.6 Design Team Interface 16 $ 1,440.00

1.7 Town Owner's Rep. Services 48 $ 4,320.00

Subtotal 215 $ 19,350.00

Proposed Tasks 2.1 Graphic Illustrations 40 $ 3,600.00

2.2.1 Energy Impact Analysis - Tracking 24 $ 2,160.00

2.2.2 Energy Impact Analysis- Predictive 40 $ 3,600.00

2.3 LEED-ND Analysis NA $ 1,500.00

2.4 Commissioning 32 $ 2,880.00

Subtotal 136

$ 12,240.00

Total 351

$ 31,590.00

AGENDA INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NEDERLAND TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Date: November 13, 2012 Initiated By: /s/Eva Forberger Dept: FINANCE/UTILITIES X ACTION DISCUSSION

________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Resolution 2012-30 authorizing a loan from the Fund Balance in the Town’s Water Fund to the Downtown Development Authority to provide funding for NedPeds Project to be repaid from the DDA’s Tax Increment Financing Reciepts. SUMMARY: Currently, the NedPeds project is estimated at $950,000. The funding sources would come from two separate entities: DDA $464,000 and CDOT/DRCOG $486,000. The DDA would utilize their TIF funding to pay for this project via a loan from the Town. To date, the DDA borrowed $37,000 for the NedPeds project and would need to borrow an additional $117,000 in order to cover the cost of the project manager and the remainder of the design budget excluding CDOT’s portion. These funds would be borrowed from the Town and repaid over a period of four years with an interest set at prime (currently 3.25%). For 2012, the DDA will have paid $3,831 in interest to the Water fund. Excluding any additional loans, the DDA will pay $9,674 in interest to the Water Fund for 2013. To date, the DDA has paid back $129,013 of a total $365,500 the DDA borrowed in July 2012. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution 2012-30

2) NEDPEDS Budget FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: After this loan, the DDA would have $360,000 left on its debt authorization. This loan would provide $8,040 in interest to the Town’s Water fund over the life of the loan.

TOWN OF NEDERLAND Boulder County, Colorado

RESOLUTION 2012 – 30

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF NEDERLAND’S BOARD OF TRUSTEES AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM FUND BALANCE IN THE TOWN’S WATER FUND TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DDA) FUND, AND PROVIDING FOR REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN FROM THE DDA’S TAX INCREMENT FINANCING RECEIPTS

WHEREAS, the Board of the Nederland Downtown Development Authority (“DDA”) has determined that, in order to support future projects associated with its approved Plan of Development, the DDA should finance the design phase of the NEDPEDS project which shall include the matching portion for the DRCOG grant as well as funds allocated to cover the cost of a project manager for the period of October 2012-December 2014.

WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-25-808(1)(g), the DDA is authorized to receive contributions, loans and other rights and privileges from the municipality or county in which it is located; and

WHEREAS, the net cost of the loan payable from a special fund of the Town of

Nederland (“Town”) for the payment of principal and interest on such advances or loans is expected to be approximately $125,040; and

WHEREAS, the DDA Fund must receive an advance or loan of money to accomplish the

refinancing, and WHEREAS, at an election held on April 2, 2012, the voters authorized the Town to

borrow up to $913,589, repayable only from tax increment revenues collected within the DDA and revenues derived by the Town pursuant to the DDA plan of development; and

WHEREAS, of that authorized amount, $436,589 has been issued, leaving remaining

authorization of $477,000; and WHEREAS, a loan from the Town Water Fund could be accomplished at less

administrative and financing cost to the DDA than a publicly financed debt; and WHEREAS, the Town Water Fund balance can provide the necessary funding without

hampering the operations or replacement schedules of the Water Fund; and WHEREAS, the Town Board of Trustees has therefore determined that it is in the best

interest of the Town to loan a portion of the fund balance in the Town’s Water Fund to the DDA Fund, the loans bearing interest at the WSJ’s published prime rate.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF NEDERLAND, COLORADO:

Section 1. The Board of Trustees of the Town of Nederland hereby authorizes a loan from the fund balance in the Town’s Water Fund in the amount of $117,000 to the DDA Fund, which loan shall bear interest at the WSJ’s current prime rate not to exceed 7% and not fall below 2.5%, for the purposes of financing the design phase of the NEDPEDS project which shall include the matching portion for the DRCOG grant as well as funds allocated to cover the cost of a project manager for the period of October 2012-December 2014.

Section 2. The Town Treasurer shall repay this loan in monthly installments over a twenty-four month period, with accrued interest, from the DDA Tax Increment Financing receipts to the Water Fund by December 6, 2016. RESOLVED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ___ day of _________, 2012. TOWN OF NEDERLAND By: ________________________________ Joe Gierlach, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Teresa Myers, Town Clerk

Attachment A

DDA LOAN - AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE

Mutual of Omaha Loan

$ 117,000.00

Start Date

12/6/2012

Monthly Payment

$2,605.00

Interest Rate

3.25%

Term in Years

4

No Prepayment Penalty

Total Payment

Interest Payment

Principal Payment

Remaining Principal

7061702 7061703

1 1/6/2013 2,605.00 327.44 2,277.57 114,722.43 2 2/6/2013 2,605.00 321.06 2,283.94 112,438.49 3 3/6/2013 2,605.00 284.22 2,320.78 110,117.71 4 4/6/2013 2,605.00 308.18 2,296.83 107,820.88 5 5/6/2013 2,605.00 292.01 2,312.99 105,507.90 6 6/6/2013 2,605.00 295.28 2,309.73 103,198.17 7 7/6/2013 2,605.00 279.50 2,325.51 100,872.66 8 8/6/2013 2,605.00 282.30 2,322.70 98,549.96 9 9/6/2013 2,605.00 275.80 2,329.20 96,220.76

10 10/6/2013 2,605.00 260.60 2,344.41 93,876.35 11 11/6/2013 2,605.00 262.72 2,342.28 91,534.07 12 12/6/2013 2,605.00 247.90 2,357.10 89,176.97 13 1/6/2014 2,605.00 249.57 2,355.43 86,821.54 14 2/6/2014 2,605.00 242.98 2,362.02 84,459.52 15 3/6/2014 2,605.00 213.49 2,391.51 82,068.01 16 4/6/2014 2,605.00 229.68 2,375.33 79,692.68 17 5/6/2014 2,605.00 215.83 2,389.17 77,303.52 18 6/6/2014 2,605.00 216.34 2,388.66 74,914.85 19 7/6/2014 2,605.00 202.89 2,402.11 72,512.75 20 8/6/2014 2,605.00 202.93 2,402.07 70,110.68 21 9/6/2014 2,605.00 196.21 2,408.79 67,701.89 22 10/6/2014 2,605.00 183.36 2,421.64 65,280.24 23 11/6/2014 2,605.00 182.69 2,422.31 62,857.93 24 12/6/2014 2,605.00 170.24 2,434.76 60,423.17 25 1/6/2015 2,605.00 169.10 2,435.90 57,987.27 26 2/6/2015 2,605.00 162.28 2,442.72 55,544.55 27 3/6/2015 2,605.00 140.40 2,464.60 53,079.95 28 4/6/2015 2,605.00 148.55 2,456.45 50,623.50 29 5/6/2015 2,605.00 137.11 2,467.90 48,155.60 30 6/6/2015 2,605.00 134.77 2,470.23 45,685.36

31 7/6/2015 2,605.00 123.73 2,481.27 43,204.09 32 8/6/2015 2,605.00 120.91 2,484.09 40,720.00 33 9/6/2015 2,605.00 113.96 2,491.04 38,228.95 34 10/6/2015 2,605.00 103.54 2,501.47 35,727.49 35 11/6/2015 2,605.00 99.99 2,505.02 33,222.47 36 12/6/2015 2,605.00 89.98 2,515.03 30,707.45 37 1/6/2016 2,605.00 85.94 2,519.07 28,188.38 38 2/6/2016 2,605.00 78.89 2,526.12 25,662.27 39 3/6/2016 2,605.00 67.19 2,537.82 23,124.45 40 4/6/2016 2,605.00 64.72 2,540.29 20,584.16 41 5/6/2016 2,605.00 55.75 2,549.25 18,034.91 42 6/6/2016 2,605.00 50.47 2,554.53 15,480.38 43 7/6/2016 2,605.00 41.93 2,563.08 12,917.30 44 8/6/2016 2,605.00 36.15 2,568.85 10,348.45 45 9/6/2016 2,605.00 28.96 2,576.04 7,772.40 46 10/6/2016 2,605.00 21.05 2,583.95 5,188.45 47 11/6/2016 2,605.00 14.52 2,590.48 2,597.97 48 12/6/2016 2,605.00 7.04 2,597.97 (0.00)

NEDERLAND DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYDRAFT BUDGET 2013NEDPEDS BUDGET

Original

Budget

Revised

Budget 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014

Design Phase DAT: Design (Civil Engineer/landscape Architect) 78,000 140,000 42,000 98,000 - 140,000 Project Manager/Sustainability Coordinator 68,000 6,000 62,000 - 26,000 42,000 Survey Work 6,000 6,000 6,000 Total 78,000 214,000 54,000 160,000 - - 172,000 42,000

Source of Funds DDA (Loan through TIF Funds) 18,000 154,000 154,000 154,000 DR COG/CDOT Commitment 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Total 78,000 214,000 154,000 60,000 - 214,000

Construction Engineer Const Project Manager 57,600 82,000 65,600 16,400 - 82,000 Construction 518,400 654,000 523,200 130,800 - 654,000 Total 576,000 736,000 588,800 147,200 - 736,000

Source of Funds DDA 150,000 310,000 310,000 - 310,000 DR COG/CDOT Commitment 426,000 426,000 377,400 48,600 426,000 Total 576,000 736,000 687,400 48,600 - 736,000

Total Capital Outlays 654,000 950,000 54,000 748,800 147,200 - 172,000 778,000

Source of Funds DDA 168,000 464,000 154,000 310,000 - - 154,000 310,000 DR COG/CDOT Commitment 486,000 486,000 - 437,400 48,600 - 60,000 426,000 Total 654,000 950,000 154,000 747,400 48,600 - 214,000 736,000

Nederland Fiscal Year (Calendar) CDOT Fiscal Year (July-June)

AGENDA INFORMATION MEMORANDUM

NEDERLAND

TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Meeting Date: November 13, 2012

Initiated By: /s/ Teresa Myers

Dept: Administration

Information_______ Discussion ____ Action __X____

______________________________________________________________________

AGENDA ITEM

Consideration of Resolution 2012-31, approving new Board of Trustees Rules of

Procedure

SUMMARY

The attached resolution and proposed Rules of Procedure address meeting and

hearing procedures previously established for the Board via municipal code and as a

matter of course. Given the Board’s discussions in May, June, and August to

streamline related municipal code, the procedures have all been contained in the

attached document.

HISTORY AND PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION:

On June 5, 2012, the Board reviewed changes to Chapter 2 of the Nederland

Municipal Code, which governs administration and personnel, proposed by the

Town Attorney. Upon this discussion, the Board directed Town staff to draft a

manual of meeting procedures prior to consideration of approving a streamlined

version of Chapter 2.

On May 1, 2012, the Board discussed a memorandum from the Town Attorney that

recommended certain changes to Chapter 2 of the Code. Those recommended

changes arose out of the Town Attorney’s review of Chapter 2 for a determination of

which provisions were appropriate for inclusion there as well as from Town Staff’s

experience with interpreting and applying the Chapter. On that date, the Board

directed Staff to draft a memorandum that made those changes suggested by the

Town Attorney, with certain minor amendments.

Additionally, on March 20, 2012, the Board adopted a Code of Conduct for Town

Boards which addresses some of the same topics addressed by Chapter 2, rendering

those Code provisions unnecessary.

On August 7, 2012, the Board discussed the draft of the Rules of Procedure and

asked to table action until such time as the Trustees could provide written

commentary, and the Town Attorney could weigh in on various Trustees’ concerns.

Following that meeting, I have worked with Carmen to address those concerns and

comments. The attached redline draft retains some of those comments and the

answers, for the edification of the whole Board.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Staff recommends adopting the Resolution and attendant procedures document.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Move to amend the Resolution and adopt it as amended, if changes are desired.

2. Decline to adopt the Resolution.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2012-31

2. Rules of Procedure

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

None.

TOWN OF NEDERLAND Boulder County, Colorado

RESOLUTION 2012 - 31

A RESOLUTION OF THE NEDERLAND BOARD OF TRUSTEES ADOPTING BY REFERENCE RULES OF PROCEDURE

WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-15-201, the general administrative powers of the Town of Nederland (“Town”) are vested in the Town Board of Trustees (“Board”); and

WHEREAS, the Board, on June 5, 2012, reviewed proposed changes to Chapter 2 of the

Nederland Municipal Code, concerning Administration and Personnel; and WHEREAS, as a part of that review, the Board recognized the need to adopt Rules of

Procedure to govern administrative matters that are not legislative and therefore not required to be codified; and

WHEREAS, the Board, on June 5, 2012, directed Town staff to draft a Rules of

Procedure document, which the Board now wishes to formally approve and adopt.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF NEDERLAND, COLORADO:

Section 1. The Board of Trustees hereby adopts the attached Rules of Procedure by reference.

Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

RESOLVED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13th day of November, 2012

TOWN OF NEDERLAND By: ________________________________ Mayor Joe Gierlach ATTEST: _________________________________ Teresa Myers, Town Clerk

NEDERLAND BOARD OF TRUSTEES RULES OF PROCEDURE

RULE I

PURPOSE These Rules of Procedure are to govern the actions of Town of Nederland Board of Trustees in the conduct of its business and serve as a reference in resolving procedural issues. Upon taking office, all Trustees shall review and become familiar with the Rules of Procedure.

RULE II CONDUCT OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETINGS

A. Regular Meetings/Business Meetings/Work Sessions – Scheduling 1. Regular meetings of the Nederland Board of Trustees shall consist of “business meetings” and “study sessions” also known as "work sessions". As a general proposition, business meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m., on the first and third Tuesday of each month and work sessions will be held as determined necessary and set by the Mayor and Town Administrator. Generally, all such meetings shall be held in the Multi-purpose Room at the Nederland Community Center. 2. Business meetings present the appropriate forum for formal Board of Trustees action. Business meetings shall also provide an opportunity for general public input and comment as well as scheduled public hearings. Proclamations, public recognitions and awards are appropriate to business meetings as are committee reports from Board of Trustees Members.

3. Work sessions will provide the Board of Trustees with an opportunity to explore and discuss in detail matters that have been placed on the work session agenda. Members of the public, speakers, or persons (not including Town staff or consultants) presenting information to the Board of Trustees at work sessions shall be allowed to address the Board of Trustees only with the approval of the majority of the Board of Trustees present at the work session or as previously approved by the Mayor or a majority of Board of Trustees present when setting the agenda for such sessions. Work sessions shall also be utilized to review and establish upcoming agendas for both work sessions and business meetings. No final action shall be taken at work sessions. 4. Special meetings may be either business meetings or work sessions. The Town Clerk may call a special meeting on the request of the Mayor or any two (2) members of the Board of Trustees with at least 48 hours written notice to each Trustee and the Town Administrator, served personally or left at such person’s usual place of residence. Any

Comment [RL1]: This is too short to allow members to adjust schedules

Comment [CB2]: Policy choice for the BOT. This reflects current Code language, Sec. 2-52(a). This is a minimum; could be exceeded.

Nederland Board of Trustees Rules of Procedure, August 2012 Page 2

Trustee may waive notice of the meeting, and a Trustee’s presence shall constitute a waiver of notice of the meeting. No business may be conducted at a special meeting except that specifically provided for in the notice. 5. Emergency meetings may be called by the Mayor or any two (2) Board of Trustees members in the event of an emergency that requires the immediate action of the Board of Trustees in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Town. Notice of such emergency meeting may be given to the Board of Trustees by telephone or whatever other means are reasonable to meet the circumstances of the emergency. At such emergency meeting, any action within the police power of the Board of Trustees that is necessary for the immediate protection of the public health, safety and welfare may be taken; provided, however, that any action taken at an emergency meeting shall be effective only until the first to occur of (a) the next regular meeting, or (b) the next special meeting of the Board of Trustees at which the emergency issue is on the public notice of the meeting. At such subsequent meeting, the Board of Trustees may ratify any emergency action taken. If any emergency action taken is not ratified, then it shall be deemed rescinded. B. Attendance at Board of Trustees Meetings

1. It shall be the responsibility of each Board member to contact the Town Clerk or Town Administrator as soon as it is known that such member will not be in attendance at a meeting of the Board of Trustees. In the event a Board member is not in attendance at a meeting, such absence shall be considered excused, unless any Board member objects to the excusal of such absence. In the event of objection, the Board of Trustees shall determine by majority vote whether the absence is excused or unexcused. In the event a Board member is absent for two (2) consecutive regular meetings, any consecutive absence thereafter shall be considered unexcused unless the Board of Trustees has previously approved the extended absences.

2. When a member's absence from a meeting is declared unexcused by the Board of

Trustees, at the next succeeding regular meeting attended by the unexcused member, the member may explain the reason for the subject absence and request that the Board of Trustees reconsider its determination. Such reconsideration may occur upon the concurrence of a majority of the Board of Trustees present. C. Attendance at Other Entity Meetings and Social Gatherings. 1. The Town may be represented by its elected officials at meetings of other entities, including, without limitation, intergovernmental organizations, neighborhood organizations, business and service organizations, and other organizations or groups with whom the Town has a relationship. 2. Trustees may attend social gatherings or meetings of other groups without the public notice required by the Open Meetings Law, C.R.S. § 24-6-401, et seq., however public notice must occur when three or more Trustees attend and the meeting is convened to discuss public business.

Comment [RL3]: Meaning what in plain English?

Comment [CB4]: Meaning if a Trustee is not personally served notice and a dog/bear/child takes the notice left on her porch, this lack of notice does not invalidate the meeting on a procedural technicality. Also meaning – if you hear about a special meeting from Alisha, you can tell her – don’t bother sending over written notice.

Comment [CB5]: This last clause means that if you show up to a meeting and you didn’t receive written notice, you are deemed to have waived that requirement and, once again, the meeting is saved from being invalidated for failure to follow your own notice requirements.

Comment [RL6]: Comma?

Comment [CB7]: Agreed.

Comment [RL8]: I think any absence without prior notification should be considered unexcused. If there are extenuating circumstances, the member can request a reclassification at a subsequent meeting, as below. Leaving a business meeting without seeking and obtaining permission from the presiding officer (NMC 2-91) should also result in an unexcused absence.

Comment [CB9]: Policy choice for BOT re: what is excused or unexcused.

Comment [CB10]: Consequence of unexcused absences should be inserted here. I recommend removing NMC 2-31 re: “removal from office,” which currently addresses unexcused absences, from the Code. Removal is governed by state statute and the (really old) cases construing that statute. However, the BOT could declare, in this document, that 3 consecutive unexcused absences or X # in a year, etc., constitutes “cause” for removal from office as dereliction of duty.


D. Board of Trustees Packets/Agenda Items

1. Board of Trustees’ agendas shall be posted to the Town of Nederland website, at Town Hall, and at the Nederland Post Office at least two (2) days preceding the Board of Trustees business meeting or special meeting. Packets, containing the agenda and applicable documents, will be posted to website at least 24 hours in advance and usually on the Friday prior to the Tuesday regular meeting.

2. Trustees will be notified of the packet’s posting via email. Each Trustee is

responsible for thoroughly reviewing all material within the packet prior to the applicable meeting. If a Trustee has a question or issue for the Town staff, the Trustee should attempt to contact the administrator, appropriate staff member or attorney within a reasonable time prior to the meeting, when possible, so he/she may prepare a response or be prepared to respond. 3. Direction for preparation of an agenda item shall require at least a majority of Trustees present to direct staff to expend substantial time on any matter. The preparation of agenda items that require significant staff time, as determined by the Town Administrator, must be approved by a majority of the Trustees present. The Mayor may set the order of the agenda. As standard procedure, agenda items should not be added or deleted after the agenda has been finalized by the Town Clerk’s office, but such may occur with the consent of the Mayor and in accordance with applicable laws such as open meetings notice requirements. 4. The Mayor may delegate to the Town Administrator the preparation of the Board of Trustees agenda. The agenda may be modified by the Mayor or Town Administrator within twenty-four (24) hours of a meeting or work session, subject to compliance with legal notice requirements and notice to Trustees (such as personal, written, telephonic and electronic communications). A Trustee may request the Mayor or Town Administrator to modify the agenda, subject to the discretion of the Mayor or Administrator to comply with such request. 5. Items for inclusion on the agenda shall be submitted to the Town Clerk no later than six (6) days prior to a business meeting or work session.

6. Members of the public may petition the Mayor and Town Administrator to have an issue placed on the agenda by submitting a form available from the Town Clerk. Acceptance of such potential agenda item is at the discretion of the Mayor and Town Administrator. E. Mayor's Duties 1. The Mayor shall, at the designated date and time, call the Board of Trustees to order and upon ascertainment of a quorum proceed with business. 2. As the Board of Trustees chair, the Mayor is responsible for conducting the meeting in an orderly and democratic fashion, and


a) Shall decide all questions of order, subject to a member’s right to

appeal to the Board of Trustees as a whole;

b) May speak to points of order in preference to other Trustees;

c) May respond to from the podium;

d) Shall appoint, where applicable, all advisory groups, such as committees and task forces, whether standing, joint or special, unless Nederland Municipal Code provides otherwise;

e) May call a recess at any time during a meeting to determine a rule of order or at the request of a majority of the Board of Trustees or for the convenience of Trustees or staff.

f) Ensure that all discussions are related to the topic at issue. g) Shall announce the result promptly upon completion of every vote. h) Shall sign all ordinances and resolutions passed by the Board of Trustees.

3. Cancelation of Meetings The Mayor may cancel or reschedule any regular meeting with at least 48 hours

notice to Trustees, except that at least one (1) regular meeting shall be held per month. 4. Removal for Disorderly Conduct.

In the event any person(s) interrupts the business of the Town Board of Trustees or

causes a disorder, the Mayor may require such person to cease such behavior and/or leave the Board of Trustees meeting room. Should such person fail to comply, the Mayor may request a police officer be summoned and have such person removed. 5. In the absence or inability of the Mayor to serve, the Mayor Pro Tem shall preside and have all powers and duties of the Mayor. F. Members’ Duties 1. In order for the Board of Trustees to conduct official business, either the Mayor or the Mayor Pro Tem must be present to chair the meeting. 2. Trustees should be on time for all meetings and promptly return from any recess or break.

Comment [RL11]: What if both mayor and mayor pro tem are unavailable for an entire month? There is no provision for anyone else to chair this required meeting F.1. below).

Comment [CB12]: In that event, a quorum can, legally, convene the regular meeting and then either: 1. Move to temporarily suspend Rule F.1 below and elect someone else to chair the meeting; or 2. Move to adjourn to a date certain.


RULE III ORDER OF BUSINESS

A. Business Meetings

1. After the Mayor’s Call To Order, the Board of Trustees will generally consider business in the following order:

a) Roll Call Following Roll Call, the Mayor will announce whether a quorum is present.

b) Consent Agenda (Warrants, Minutes, and Previously discussed business) Includes items that can be approved without discussion or debate and are usually approved by unanimous vote. Prior to the motion to approve, a Board member may request removal of an item on the Consent Agenda. Items removed will be considered in the order they appeared on the agenda.

c) Staff Reports (second meeting of the month)

d) Mayor and Trustee Reports (second meeting of the month)

e) Public Comment

f) Information Items (Reports, Proclamations, Recognitions and Awards)

g) Action Items (Approval of Ordinances, Resolutions, Town projects, Town policies, Contracts, etc.)

h) Discussion Items (Discussion of future Action Item topics, without formal action taken)

i) Other Business (New business, Updates to previous reports, etc.)

j) Adjournment

2. At 10:00 p.m., if the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees has not adjourned, the Board of Trustees shall follow these procedures:

a) All agenda items not previously considered shall be continued to an hour and day

set by the Board of Trustees; or

b) The Board of Trustees may vote for a thirty-minute extension of the proceedings, but may not continue for more than two (2) thirty-minute extensions.

Comment [RL13]: How about a provision that members may excuse themselves after 10:00?

Comment [CB14]: Policy choice; if this is added, it should address whether a Trustee may excuse him/herself after 10:00 if doing so results in lack of quorum. I would think excusal would not be permitted, in that event. That would get unworkable.


3. Trustees should limit discussion of Other Business to a brief review of the matter. If a majority of Trustees request that formal action be taken, the matter shall be placed on the agenda for a future work session or business meeting. At such work session or business meeting, Trustees may discuss the specific details of the matter.

B. Work Sessions After the call to order, Board of Trustees will generally consider business in the following order:

1. Roll Call

2. Work Session Agenda Items

3. General Comments of Board of Trustees/Staff

4. Adjournment C. Executive Sessions

1. Executive sessions are held in accordance with state statute and permit an

affirmative vote of two-thirds of a quorum present to call an executive session at either a regular or special meeting. No formal action can occur at an executive session. The motion for executive session shall describe as specifically as possible the subject of the executive session so long as such description does not disclose any information that would potentially harm the public interest.

2. Only the following matters may be discussed at an executive session:

a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal or other property interest;

b) Conference with the Board's attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions;

c) Matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law;

d) Details of security arrangements or investigations; e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations,

developing strategy for negotiation and instructing negotiators; f) Personnel matters, unless the employee requests an open meeting; g) Consideration of documents protected by the Open Records Act; and h) Other matters allowed by state law.


D. Modification of Order of Business

Unless an objection is raised by a Trustee, the Mayor may proceed out of order or return to a matter previously considered. In case of objection, the agenda’s order or reconsideration of a matter will not be changed unless approved by a majority of Board of Trustees present. A Trustee may move to consider an item out of order, with the approval of the Mayor. E. Quorum

A quorum shall be a majority of the members of the Board of Trustees in office at the time for the transaction of business at all Board meetings. In the absence of a quorum, a lesser number may adjourn any meeting to a later time or date, and in the absence of all members, the Town Clerk may adjourn any meeting for not longer than one (1) week. For meetings at which less than a quorum is in attendance, a majority of the members present are authorized to send the Town Marshal or other person for the absent members, as such majority of members may agree. F. Public Participation Regular Board meetings and study/work sessions are open to the public. At regular Board meetings, provision is made for public comment so interested individuals or spokespersons for various organizations may present their views directly to the Board of Trustees. The time limits for procedures in this Section may be suspended for any agenda item by majority vote of the quorum present. 1. Members of the public shall have the opportunity to comment on certain matters before the Board. Each person shall first sign a public comment sheet listing his name, address, and identifying the issue on which he would like to comment. Public comment sign-up sheets shall be prepared by the Town Clerk and placed at the entrance to the Board chambers. 2. Public comment to the Board of Trustees on other than agenda items is scheduled at the beginning of each formal Board meeting and shall be scheduled for a total period not to exceed thirty (30) minutes.

3. The presiding officer will call each individual listed, who will have three (3) minutes to address the Board of Trustees. All individuals or spokespersons desiring to address the Board of Trustees on any agenda item or other business must state name and general address before offering their comments.

4. Individuals who are not registered or have additional comments will be allowed one (1) minute to address the Board of Trustees on any item following the registered listing call. 5. All individuals shall observe proper decorum and avoid the use of abusive or profane language in the meeting room and when addressing the Board of Trustees. In the

Comment [RL15]: Provide for discussion without action?

Comment [CB16]: This is true without explicitly stating here. 3 of you could talk, if meeting properly noticed, but you couldn’t make any decisions, take votes, conduct any business.

Comment [RL17]: This has never been uniformly enforced. It’s irritating for members of the public to be cut off at three minutes while “pillars of the community” are allowed to speak at length. Under what, if any, circumstances are people allowed to sign up and donate their minutes to another person? There needs to be limits on this, if allowed at all.

Comment [CB18]: 1st comment – enforcement is up to the Chair. 2nd comment – this is typically done by folks who have signed up just saying they are going to donate to person X. Common practice. If this Board wants to disallow this practice, it should explicitly provide here.


event that abusive or profane language is used or an individual otherwise disrupts the meeting, such individual may be removed from the meeting room by the Town Marshal.

6. Persons other than members of the Board of Trustees and Town officers shall not be permitted to address the Board of Trustees except upon recognition by the presiding officer. If anyone other than a Town official desires to speak to a member of the Board of Trustees while the Board is in session, the member, if agreeable to the request and upon approval of the presiding officer, shall rise and retire to the rear of the Board chambers or elsewhere until the conversation is finished. 7. Unsigned communications shall not be introduced to the Board of Trustees.

RULE IV RULES OF SPEAKING/DECORUM

A. Recognition

1. No Trustee shall speak until such member has addressed and/or been recognized by the Mayor.

2. When recognized by the Chair, a member's comments shall be confined to the

question under debate, avoiding personalities and refraining from impugning the motives of any other member's argument or vote. All discussion shall occur only upon recognition of the presiding officer.

3. When a Trustee is speaking, no other Trustee shall interrupt or conduct a private conversation. B. Decorum

1. All Trustees shall be familiar with and at all times abide by the Nederland Board of Trustees’ Code of Conduct.

2. Except in the event of a personal need or emergency, no member may leave the

meeting while a meeting is in progress without the request and permission of the Mayor. In such event, the Mayor may delay Board of Trustees action or proceed without the absent member(s) unless the matter before Board of Trustees is quasi-judicial.

3. No Trustee shall engage in conversation or commit any other act tending to

distract the attention of Board of Trustees from the business before it. 4. When speaking or debating, Trustees shall confine their remarks to the question

under discussion or debate and shall not engage in discussion directed to personal matters or issues. Trustees shall respect the divergent opinions and comments of others and shall not engage in personal, verbal attacks or comments or behavior disrespectful of each other, staff, or other persons. All discussion shall occur only upon recognition of the presiding officer.


C. Right of Appeal

Any member may appeal to the Board of Trustees from a ruling of the presiding officer. If the appeal is seconded, said member making the appeal may briefly state a reason for the same, and the presiding officer may briefly explain the basis for said officer's ruling; but there shall be no debate on the appeal and no other member shall participate in the discussion. The presiding officer shall then put the question, "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" If a majority of the members present vote "Yes," the ruling of the Chair is sustained; otherwise it is overruled. D. Limitation of Debate

No member of the Board of Trustees shall be allowed to speak more than once upon any one (1) subject until every other member choosing to speak shall have spoken, and no member shall speak more than twice upon any one (1) subject, nor for a longer time than ten (10) minutes, without consensus of the Board of Trustees. E. Conflict of Interest

In the event that the Mayor or a Board member has a conflict of interest that requires disclosure pursuant to state law, such person shall disclose such interest, in writing or during a meeting, as soon as the conflict of interest is known. If the Mayor or a Board member has a conflict of interest which such person has not disclosed, such a conflict may be addressed by any other Board member, and the Board of Trustees may determine by a majority of those present that a conflict of the Mayor or a Board member exists. If the Mayor or a Board member has a conflict of interest, whether self-disclosed or determined by the Board of Trustees, such person shall abstain from voting on the issue. If the vote of a member is necessary to obtain a quorum or otherwise enable the Board of Trustees to act, the member may vote only after disclosure in the office of the Secretary of State as provided by state law. F. Recesses

1. In the Mayor's sole discretion, the Mayor may call a recess at any time during a formal Board meeting.

2. During a recess:

a) Board members may discuss procedures for considering a particular substantive issue before them;

b) Three or more Board members shall not convene and discuss substantive

issues before them, including through electronic means; c) Board members shall not take formal votes, make final policy decisions or take

any other formal action; and

Comment [RL19]: And why not?

Comment [CB20]: To limit the scope of argument on the appeal to the “two parties” – the party questioning the ruling and the person (Chair) making the ruling. All others are the deciding votes and are asked to simply vote instead of debate it.

Comment [RL21]: Total? How can this possibly be tracked?

Comment [CB22]: Clerk?


c) No one shall be excluded from Board of Trustees discussions involving a sufficient number of members to constitute a quorum.

RULE V VOTING

A. Voting Generally 1. Every Trustee, including the Mayor, must vote unless: a) the matter concerns Trustee’s own conduct; b) Trustee has a conflict of interest, which, by applicable law, requires Trustee to abstain from voting. In those instances, the Trustee shall not participate in the discussion of the issue. The failure to vote when required to do so shall be considered an affirmative vote. 2. Votes may be taken either by voice vote or by roll call vote. A voice vote is achieved by asking those in favor of an item to indicate such as a group and then by asking those in opposition to an item to likewise indicate as a group. A roll call vote is achieved by having each board member individually indicate his vote either in favor of or in opposition to the item. All votes are announced by the Mayor with the assistance of the Town Clerk, if necessary. 3. Roll call votes are recorded in the minutes and indicate the names of the Board members who voted in opposition. Any Board of Trustees member may call for a roll call vote at any time.

4. The order of a roll call vote shall rotate with each vote taken. 5. All ordinances, resolutions and order for the appropriation of funds require

an affirmative vote of a majority of the Town Board through a roll call vote. All other actions may be approved by a majority of those present. No votes may be taken unless a quorum is present.

6. In case of a tie vote on any motion, the motion shall be considered defeated.

In the event an applicant/proponent is present for the matter in question, the Mayor may, prior to calling for a vote, ask such individual whether, because an even number of Town Trustees are present, the applicant/proponent wishes to continue the matter until all members of Board of Trustees are present. The decision of the applicant/proponent shall be determinative. In the event the applicant/proponent is not present, Trustees present shall decide whether to proceed on the item despite the presence of an even number of Trustees. B. Voting Requirements Matters coming before the Board of Trustees shall be subject to the following voting requirements:

Comment [RL23]: This is inadequate to fulfill the intent of the sunshine law.

Comment [CB24]: I think this is o.k., when read in conjunction with (b). 3+ can’t discuss substantive issues under (b), so this really means that anyone can listen in on Trustee discussions re: procedural matters or purely social chit chat. Actually, I think this provision promotes Sunshine Law compliance by reminding Trustees, and the public, that the public can observe their discussions at meetings, whether during a recess or not.

Comment [RL25]: Why not a straw poll? Perhaps, “No binding votes …”

Comment [CB26]: Vote = action and no action can occur w/out quorum.


Situation

To pass any ordinance

Votes Required for Passage Majority of the quorum present. A roll call vote is required.

To pass an ordinance as emergency ordinance or to call a special election

Vote of three-fourths of all members of the Board. A roll call vote is required.

To pass a resolution

Majority of quorum present.

To appoint officers

Vote of a majority of all members of the Board in office at the time. A roll call vote is required.

Motions/resolutions involving Town funds

Majority of quorum present. A roll call vote is required.

C. Making Motions

Any Board of Trustees action, which requires a vote, must be preceded by a motion by a Trustee. All motions presented by any Trustee require a second. The Mayor shall be entitled to participate in the discussion of motions, and may make or second a motion. Motions are generally introduced by voice. However, if the motion is long or involved, motions may be put into writing. Any Trustee may demand that a motion be put into writing. D. Presentation and Disposition of Motions The following steps shall be taken for the presentation and disposition of motions:

1. The presiding officer recognizes a Board member.

2. The Board member proposes a motion.

3. Another Board member seconds the motion.

4. The presiding officer may cause the motion to be restated.


5. The Board debates/discusses the motion (amendments to the motion or other

substitute motions may be made during the debate/discussion). 6. At the conclusion of the debate/discussion, the presiding officer may cause the

motion to be restated. 7. Vote is taken and the presiding officer announces the result of the vote.

E. Types of Motions The following motions are the most commonly used:

1. Motion to amend: A motion to amend may take the form of inserting, striking

out or striking out and inserting words, sentences, or paragraphs. A motion to amend must be pertinent to the main motion. It is proper to make a motion to amend an amendment. Motions shall be discussed in the reverse order from which they were proposed.

A motion to amend an amendment shall be in order, but one to amend an amendment to an amendment shall not be heard unless otherwise agreed by the member making the first amendment. An amendment modifying the intention of a motion shall be in order, but an amendment relating to a different matter shall not be in order.

2. Motion to continue: A motion to continue has the effect of moving an item to a future agenda. The motion shall include the date to which the item is being continued.

3. Motion to lay on the table: This motion is used to set aside an item currently

under discussion for a more pressing matter. It is not used to “kill” an item. Once the more pressing matter has been disposed with, a motion to take from the table is in order. This motion shall be made at the same Board meeting or at the next Regular Board meeting.

4. Motion to postpone to a definite time or indefinitely: Approval of this

motion effectively “kills” the item. If the motion fails, discussion on the motion and a vote can be had. All motions to postpone, excepting a motion to postpone indefinitely, may be amended as to time. If a motion to postpone indefinitely is carried, the principal questions shall be declared lost. Reconsideration of a Motion postponed indefinitely shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of the Board.

5. Motion to move the previous question: This motion is used to cut off debate

and to bring an immediate vote on the pending motion. This motion cannot be made while a Board member has the floor. The motion requires a second, cannot be debated, and requires a two-thirds vote to approve. A vote is first taken on the motion; if successful, debate is halted and a vote on the main motion is made. If the vote on the motion to move the previous question fails, debate on the main motion may continue.

6. Motion to reconsider: Any action taken by the Board may be reconsidered. A

motion to reconsider must be made at the same meeting at which the action occurred or at the next following regular meeting. The motion must be made by a Board member who voted on the prevailing side and he shall so state that in his motion. A vote is then taken on


the motion to reconsider. The passage of a motion to reconsider suspends all action on the original motion. The original question is then placed before the Board in the exact form it was in when previously adopted. Once the vote is taken and the results determined, no further reconsideration can be granted without unanimous consent of the Board.

In the event a contract has been signed by the Mayor or other legal obligations made

or entered into with Board of Trustees approval, a motion to reconsider may be made at any time before the final adoption.

In the event a quasi-judicial matter is to be reconsidered, the applicable notice

requirements shall be followed and the reconsideration of the original question shall be postponed to a future business or special meeting. The notice shall inform the public when the original question is to be reconsidered. In the event the reason supporting the reconsideration motion is based upon new information or evidence, the Board of Trustees shall reopen the public hearing to take evidence on the narrow issue of the new information or evidence. In such circumstance, staff shall be directed to make a good faith effort to notify, in writing, all persons who testified at the original public hearing of the date and time for the continued public hearing.

In the absence of new or additional evidence or information, the Board of Trustees

shall not reopen the public hearing for purposes of additional public testimony. The matter shall be scheduled for a future business or special meeting.

7. Motion to refer: If a Board member believes more information is needed before

a decision can be made, such member may move to refer the item to a board or commission for further study. The motion should identify the board or commission as well as instructions regarding actions to be taken by that body and when a report should be made to the Board. This motion should not be used to receive further information from staff. In that case, a motion to continue should be made.

8. Motion to adjourn: A motion to adjourn shall be in order at any time, except as

follows: a) When repeated without intervening business or discussion; b) When made as an interruption of a member while speaking; c) When the previous question has been ordered; and d) While a vote is being taken.

A motion to adjourn is debatable only as to the time to which the meeting is adjourned.


F. Precedence of Motions

When a main motion is before Board of Trustees, no subsidiary motion shall be

entertained except: (a) to fix the hour of adjournment, (b) to adjourn, (c) to lay on the table, (d) for the previous question (which is essentially a demand that the vote be taken on the motion at hand), (e) to postpone to a certain day, (f) to refer, (g) to amend, and (h) to postpone indefinitely. These motions shall have precedence in the order indicated. Any such motion, except a motion to amend and a motion to postpone indefinitely, shall be put to vote without debate. G. Withdrawal of Motion

Any motion may be withdrawn by the mover with the consent of the Board of Trustees. H. Division of Question

If the question contains two or more divisible propositions, the Mayor may divide the motion. I. Motions Out of Order The Mayor may at any time, unless overridden by a majority vote of the member's present, permit a Trustee to introduce an ordinance, resolution, or motion out of the regular order of the agenda. J. Procedure in Absence of Rule

In the absence of a rule to govern a point of procedure, reference shall be to Robert’s Rules of Order. The principles and provisions of Robert’s Rules of Order shall apply only to the extent that they are appropriate to a governing assembly such as Board of Trustees, with consideration being given to the size of Board of Trustees, as well as its political and legal status.

RULE VI

MISCELLANEOUS A. Confidentiality

It shall be a conflict of interest and a violation of this policy for any member of the

Board of Trustees to disclose any confidences of the Town, any matter discussed in executive session, or any matter which is subject to the attorney-client privilege between the Town and the Town Attorney, unless a majority of the Board of Trustees determines that such disclosure should be made.

Comment [RL27]: Who is to determine this? Does failure of the board to follow established Rules of Procedure constitute grounds for appeal/reconsideration/litigation?

Comment [CB28]: 1st question: probably the Mayor, in consultation with me. 2nd question: it depends on the agenda item and extent of deviation from procedural rules. In quasi-judicial context, the risk of a successful appeal is much higher if the BOT deviates from its procedural rules than in the legislative context. Even then, in the QJ context, the baseline requirement is due process. if that is met, an appeal will fail if the only assertion is a deviation from Rules that did not result in due process deprivation.


A decision to breach confidentiality, or to waive a privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege, shall only be made by Board of Trustees acting as a whole, whenever the confidentiality requirement or the privilege applies to the Town as a whole or to Board of Trustees as a whole. Any Trustee who individually breaches such confidentiality, or who purports to waive such a privilege will be considered to be acting outside the performance of Trustee’s authority, and will be subject to any consequential liability for such act. B. Protest

Any Board of Trustees member shall have the right to express dissent from or protest against any ordinance or resolution of the Board of Trustees, and have the reason therefor entered upon the record. Such dissent or protest must be filed in writing, couched in respectful language, and presented to the Board of Trustees not later than the next regular meeting following the date of passage of the objectionable ordinance or resolution.

RULE VII ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

A. Introduction All ordinances and resolutions, except emergency ordinances, shall be introduced to the Board of Trustees in printed or written form at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. Emergency ordinances shall be introduced to the Board of Trustees and in the meeting in printed or written form. B. Review All proposed ordinances shall be reviewed by the Town Attorney and bear the Attorney's certification that they are in correct form. The Town Administrator shall attach to each proposed ordinance a brief digest of the provision thereof, and where it is proposed to amend an existing ordinance. The digest shall show the name of the department or party at whose request the proposed ordinance was prepared. C. Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions Ordinances shall be read in full or by title only where copies are available to the Board of Trustees and those in attendance and may be amended prior to adoption. After proper publication, the ordinances will be in effect thirty (30) days following adoption with the exception of ordinances that are repealed prior to the thirty-day limit. All ordinances adopted containing an emergency clause are effective immediately. D. Amendment of Ordinances If an ordinance is proposed as an amendment to a previously adopted ordinance, it shall be reported as an amending ordinance. An amending ordinance shall be accompanied by an exhibit showing the part of the original ordinance to be amended, properly identified by page, section or paragraph referenced to the original ordinance, and having a line drawn


through the part stricken out and that part added shown in italics or in a different colored ink or underscored. E. Report by Committee All ordinances and resolutions referred to committee must be reported by the committee within ten (10) days after date of reference, except as otherwise provided in these rules, or at the next meeting succeeding the expiration of ten (10) days. If not reported as above provided, any member of the Board of Trustees may call the document out of committee by notifying the Town Clerk and Mayor in open session of said member's intention. It shall then be the duty of the Clerk to place the document before the Board of Trustees for consideration at the next succeeding meeting without any further reference.

RULE VIII PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. General

1. This Rule shall apply to all Town Boards conducting public hearings,

including the Board of Trustees, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

2. All persons desiring to speak before a Town Board conducting a public

hearing shall sign up to be heard prior to the hearing’s commencement. All persons speaking before a Town Board at a public hearing shall provide their names and addresses.

B. Public Hearing Procedures on Land Use Matters

1. The meeting shall be chaired by the Mayor or board chairperson. The hearing

shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapters 16, 17, and 18 of the Nederland Municipal Code. The purpose of such Code provisions is to provide a reasonable opportunity for all interested parties to express themselves, as long as the testimony or evidence presented is reasonably related to the purpose of the public hearing. The Mayor/Chairperson has the authority to limit debate to a reasonable length of time to maintain reasonable equality of time for all positions on an issue.

2. The Mayor/Chairperson shall cause all such persons to promise and agree

that all statements and evidence they present shall be the truth. 3. Any person speaking may be questioned by a member of the board or, where

appropriate, by members of Town staff, or an attorney or representative of one in opposition to such person.

4. When the number of persons wishing to speak may unduly prolong the

hearing, the Mayor/Chairperson may impose a time limit upon each speaker. 5. Town staff’s duties are to enter, as part of the record, a copy of the matter’s

public notice; all application documents for the proposed project and copies of any other

Comment [NC29]: This is in the NMC, but we don’t currently follow it. Do we want to get rid of it?

Comment [AR30]: I think 10 days is steep but there should be some deadline. Perhaps with this policy we can compel the Board to assign a deadline with any referral to committee.


information and documents that are an appropriate part of the public hearing record; to provide a synopsis or summary of the issues before the board including issues considered in prior public meetings/hearings of boards and/or commissions; make recommendations as to the matters to be determined by the board; and answer specific questions as requested by the board or the parties to the hearing.

6. The property owner, applicant or proponent or representative(s) of the

project/issue before the board, shall present evidence and describe the nature of the request. The burden of presenting the case for the proponent of the project/issue is upon such proponent or its representative, not the Town staff.

7. All testimony in support, or opposition, or questions shall be directed through

the Mayor/Chairperson, who will direct the appropriate person to respond. 8. The property owner, applicant or proponent or representative(s) of the

project/issue will be afforded an opportunity for brief rebuttal statements/evidence following public input.

9. If final action is not to be taken at the same time as the public hearing, the

Mayor/Chairperson will advise the audience/public when the matter will be considered. 10. If a board member is absent during a public hearing, he/she shall not be

eligible to vote on the matter unless he/she has listened to and reviewed the entire record of the hearing. It is not the purpose or intent of this provision to postpone or unduly delay a decision by the board because of the absence of a member to enable him/her substantial time to review the record.

11. The essence of the following shall be presented by the Mayor/Chairperson at the outset of the public hearing:

“We welcome your comments and input. Because we will strive to proceed through the public hearing in a timely manner, we require that all persons observe the following procedures with respect to comments and testimony: When you are recognized to speak, please approach the podium and state your name and address. All comments and testimony shall be made from the podium, no comments or testimony shall be presented from the audience. Comments and testimony are to be directed to the board. Dialogue and inquiries from the person at the podium to members of staff or the seated audience is not permitted. Inquiries that require staff response will be referred to staff by the Mayor/Chairperson. It is our desire to give everyone an opportunity to speak and be heard in a timely manner and within an atmosphere of respect and diplomacy. These procedures are to foster that atmosphere. Thank you for your cooperation, and we look forward to hearing your comments.”


C. Non-Land Use Public Hearing Procedures Persons wishing to speak may do so whether in favor, opposed or neutral. No specific order of those in favor or in opposition will be used. With the advice of the Town attorney, the Mayor/Chairperson shall conduct the hearing in such manner as to provide for free speech and expression of opinion of all persons speaking, subject only to the limits of courtesy and respect to other persons and their opinions as long as the subject is related to the issue or the public hearing. Notwithstanding these purposes, the Mayor/Chairperson has the authority to limit comments to a reasonable length of time. Any person speaking may be questioned by members of the board or by the Town staff. The Mayor/Chairperson shall rule upon all disputed matters or procedures. D. Liquor License Hearing Procedures

The Nederland Board of Trustees sits as the Nederland Liquor Licensing Authority and hears licensing, suspension, and revocation cases.

The meeting shall be chaired by the Mayor. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in statute and regulations. The purpose of such laws and regulations is to provide a reasonable opportunity for all interested parties to express themselves, as long as the testimony or evidence presented is reasonably related to the purpose of the public hearing. The Mayor has the authority to limit debate to a reasonable length of time to maintain reasonable equality of time for all positions on an issue.

The Mayor shall cause all such persons to promise and agree that all statements and

evidence they present shall be the truth. Any person speaking may be questioned by a member of the Board or, where

appropriate, by members of Town staff, or an attorney or representative of one in opposition to such person.

When the number of persons wishing to speak may unduly prolong the hearing, the

Mayor may establish a time limit upon each speaker. Town staff’s duties are to enter, as part of the record, a copy of the matter’s public

notice; all application documents for the proposed project and copies of any other information and documents that are an appropriate part of the public hearing record; to provide a synopsis or summary of the issues before the Board including issues considered in prior public meetings/hearings of boards and/or commissions; make recommendations as to the matters to be determined by the board; and answer specific questions as requested by the board or the parties to the hearing.


The liquor license applicant shall present evidence and describe the nature of the

request. The burden of presenting the case for the applicant is upon such applicant or its representative, not the Town staff.

All testimony in support, or opposition, or questions shall be directed through the

Mayor, who will direct the appropriate person to respond. The liquor license applicant will be afforded an opportunity for brief rebuttal

statements/evidence following public input. If a member of the Board is absent during a public hearing, he/she shall not be

eligible to vote on the matter unless he/she has listened to and reviewed the entire record of the hearing. It is not the purpose or intent of this provision to postpone or unduly delay a decision by the board because of the absence of a member to enable him/her substantial time to review the record.

The essence of the following shall be presented by the Mayor/Chairperson at the outset of the public hearing:

“This is a public hearing before the Nederland Board of Trustees, sitting as the Nederland Liquor Licensing Authority, on an application for a new (type of license) liquor license, submitted by (name of applicant) for the premises with a street address of (physical address of establishment) within the Town of Nederland. Before the hearing begins, I will outline the manner in which the hearing will be conducted and the order in which we would receive testimony. Does the Board have any questions about the process for this hearing before I begin? Although the Authority is acting as a judge of this case, I note for the applicant and members of the public that strict rules of evidence do not apply. Any evidence that is relevant to the matter at hand may be considered by this Authority. It is then up to each member of the Authority to determine the credibility and weight of all such evidence as it relates to their decision. As Chair, I may limit testimony or evidence determined to be irrelevant, repetitive or cumulative. The order of this public hearing will be as follows: 1. This Authority will accept the preliminary investigation reports and findings of Town staff. The Town Clerk will provide this information. 2. The applicant may present an opening statement (if any). 3. The applicant will present its request to the Authority. Prior to excusing the applicant’s witnesses, cross-examination shall be permitted in the following order:


a. Authority members b. Any other party in interest. 4. The Town may present evidence and witnesses (if any). Prior to excusing the Town’s witnesses, cross-examination shall be permitted in the following order: a. The applicant or its representative b. Authority members c. Any other party in interest. 5. Any “party in interest” may present evidence and testimony. Before excusing witnesses, cross-examination of interested parties and their witnesses shall be permitted in the following order: a. The applicant or its representative b. Authority members *Under the Colorado Liquor Code, a “party in interest” includes:

• An adult resident of the relevant neighborhood; • An owner or business manager of a business located in the relevant

neighborhood; • A representative of a school located within 500 feet of the premises for

which the license is under consideration. *Under Nederland Municipal Code Section 6-32, the relevant neighborhood is the entirety of the Town. 6. The applicant may then present any rebuttal evidence it wishes to; the Town may then also provide rebuttal evidence, if any. 7. The applicant is then permitted to give a closing statement, if s/he chooses. Throughout this process, the Authority may ask questions. After all evidence and testimony has been received, I will close the public hearing. The Authority will then begin its deliberations on this application. The Authority will make a decision by motion and roll call vote.

[OPENING THE HEARING]

“I now open the public hearing on an application for a new (type of license) Liquor License, submitted by (name of applicant) for the premises with a street address of (physical address of the premises), Nederland, Colorado. I


invite the Town Clerk to provide the Authority with the Town’s preliminary investigation reports and findings.”

[After the Town Clerk is done, invite the applicant to make an opening statement (# 2 above); then follow the order of testimony in # 3 through 7 above]

“Not hearing any more evidence to be brought before the Authority on this matter, I now close the public hearing. Liquor Authority, you may begin your deliberations.”

[When the Authority appears to be done with deliberations, the Mayor may call for a motion if no one makes one without prompting.]

RULE IX AMENDMENT/SUSPENSION OF RULES

A. Amendment of the Rules These rules may be amended or new rules adopted by a majority vote of all Trustees. Any such amendments shall be submitted in writing at a business meeting or work session preceding formal action to amend. The amendments shall be placed on the discussion agenda of a subsequent business meeting with a resolution. This requirement may be waived by unanimous consent with a recorded vote of all Trustees present. B. Suspension of the Rules Any provision of these rules not governed by the Municipal Code may be temporarily suspended at any meeting of Board of Trustees by a majority vote of all Trustees. The vote on any such suspension shall be entered upon the record. When making a motion to suspend the rules, the Trustee shall specify which rule or part of such rule being temporarily suspended and the purpose for which the rule is to be suspended.

1

AGENDA INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NEDERLAND TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Date: November 13, 2012 Initiated By: /s/ Alisha Reis Dept: Administration Information_______ Discussion _______ Action ___X____

_____________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM Consideration of Ordinance 712, updating the Nederland Municipal Code regarding Town flood plain regulations, as required by FEMA. SUMMARY

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a federal program that enables property owners to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. The Insurance Program is administered by the Federal Insurance Administration, a part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This program issues flood plain maps as part of its program.

FEMA has revised the Boulder County Flood Insurance Rate Maps. There appeared to be no changes to the flood plain boundaries in Nederland. However, there is a change in the height of the flood area, determined via review by the Town’s geotechnical engineer, Mark Weritz. Weritz has indicated he does not foresee this change impacting property owners within the flood plain, but he stressed the importance of the Town using the updated maps when reviewing development in Nederland. The maps and accompanying Flood Insurance Study will become effective December 18, 2012. By that date, all Boulder County communities will need to adopt or revise local flood plain management regulations to reference the revised study date and incorporate any other changes necessary to meet or exceed the NFIP minimum standards.

The State has issued a model ordinance that is compliant with both the NFIP minimum standards and the State regulations, which has been reviewed and finally drafted by the Town Attorney.

HISTORY AND PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION The Board reviewed the model ordinance and discussed the flood map update at its meeting of October 16, 2012.

2

The flood regulations and maps were last updated via Ordinance 286 on September 15, 1987 and via Ordinance 404 on May 2, 1995. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board considers adoption of Ordinance 712, repealing and reenacting Article VII of Chapter 18 of the Nederland Municipal Code concerning floodplain building regulations. ATTACHMENTS

1) Ordinance 712 2) FEMA Letter, dated Nov. 2, 2012 3) Local Departments’ Review

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS None. The National Flood Insurance Program will issue the finalized maps and flood plain studies in hard copy and in GIS-based electronic format.

1

TOWN OF NEDERLAND, COLORADO

ORDINANCE NUMBER 712

AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 18 OF THE NEDERLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING FLOODPLAIN BUILDING REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the State Legislature has, in Title 29, Article 20 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, delegated the responsibility of local governmental units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the Town of Nederland, Colorado (“Town”), acting by and through its Board of Trustees (“Board”) previously adopted a comprehensive set of floodplain building regulations, codified as Article VII of Chapter 18 of the Nederland Municipal Code (“Code”); and WHEREAS, the flood hazard areas of the Town are subject to periodic inundation, which can result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, and extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, all of which adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the public; and WHEREAS, these flood losses are created by the cumulative effect of obstructions in floodplains which cause an increase in flood heights and velocities, and by the occupancy of flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to floods and hazardous to other lands because they are inadequately elevated, floodproofed or otherwise protected from flood damage; and WHEREAS, the Town has been notified by both the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) that certain amendments at the federal and state level of floodplain regulation necessitate an update of the Town’s floodplain regulations in order to permit the Town to continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); and WHEREAS, the Board finds that continued participation in the NFIP is desirable as it serves the interests of preventing loss of life and property, as well as the social and economic hardships that result from flooding; and WHEREAS, the CWCB presented the Town with a proposed comprehensive set of floodplain regulations that meet or exceed the minimum NFIP requirements and that also meet state floodplain regulatory standards, which the Town is required to meet no later than January of 2014; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that it is necessary and desirable to adopt said comprehensive set of floodplain regulations as a new Article VII of Chapter 18 of the Code, as set forth herein.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Nederland, Colorado, as follows:

2

Section 1. Article VII of Chapter 18 of the Nederland Municipal Code, concerning floodplain regulations, is hereby repealed and reenacted to read in its entirety as follows:

ARTICLE VII

Floodplain Regulations

Sec. 18-151. Statement of Purpose. It is the purpose of this Article to promote public health, safety and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to:

(a) Protect human life and health;

(b) Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects;

(c) Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public;

(d) Minimize prolonged business interruptions; (e) Minimize damage to critical facilities, infrastructure and other public facilities such as water,

sewer and gas mains; electric and communications stations; and streets and bridges located in floodplains;

(f) Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of flood-prone areas in such a manner as to minimize future flood blight areas; and

(g) Insure that potential buyers are notified that property is located in a flood hazard area. Sec. 18-152. Methods of reducing flood loss. In order to accomplish its purposes, this Article uses the following methods:

(a) Restrict or prohibit uses that are dangerous to health, safety or property in times of flood, or cause excessive increases in flood heights or velocities;

(b) Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;

(c) Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which are involved in the accommodation of flood waters;

(d) Control filling, grading, dredging and other development which may increase flood damage;

(e) Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards to other lands.

3

Sec. 18-153. Definitions.

Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this Article shall be interpreted to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this Article its most reasonable application.

100-year flood means a flood having a recurrence interval that has a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded during any given year (1-percent-annual-chance flood). The terms "one-hundred-year flood" and "one percent chance flood" are synonymous with the term "100-year flood." The term does not imply that the flood will necessarily happen once every one hundred years.

100-year floodplain means the area of land susceptible to being inundated as a result of the

occurrence of a one-hundred-year flood.

500-year flood means a flood having a recurrence interval that has a 0.2-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded during any given year (0.2-percent-chance-annual-flood). The term does not imply that the flood will necessarily happen once every five hundred years.

500-year floodplain means the area of land susceptible to being inundated as a result of the occurrence of a five-hundred-year flood.

Addition means any activity that expands the enclosed footprint or increases the square footage of an existing structure.

Alluvial fan flooding means a fan-shaped sediment deposit formed by a stream that flows

from a steep mountain valley or gorge onto a plain or the junction of a tributary stream with the main stream. Alluvial fans contain active stream channels and boulder bars, and recently abandoned channels. Alluvial fans are predominantly formed by alluvial deposits and are modified by infrequent sheet flood, channel avulsions and other stream processes.

Area of shallow flooding means a designated Zone AO or AH on a community's Flood

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) with a one percent chance or greater annual chance of flooding to an average depth of one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow.

Base flood elevation (BFE) means the elevation shown on a FEMA Flood Insurance Rate

Map for Zones AE, AH, A1-A30, AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/A1-A30, AR/AH, AR/AO, V1-V30, and VE that indicates the water surface elevation resulting from a flood that has a one percent chance of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year.

Basement means any area of a building having its floor sub-grade (below ground level) on all

sides.

4

Channel means the physical confine of stream or waterway consisting of a bed and stream banks, existing in a variety of geometries.

Channelization means the artificial creation, enlargement or realignment of a stream channel. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) means the codification of the general and permanent

Rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation.

Community means any political subdivision in the state of Colorado that has authority to

adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations through zoning, including, but not limited to, cities, towns, unincorporated areas in the counties, Indian tribes and drainage and flood control districts.

Conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) means FEMA's comment on a proposed project,

which does not revise an effective floodplain map, that would, upon construction, affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodplain.

Critical facility means a structure or related infrastructure, but not the land on which it is

situated, as specified in Sec. 18-170, that if flooded may result in significant hazards to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any time before, during and after a flood. See Sec. 18-170.

Development means any man-made change in improved and unimproved real estate,

including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials.

DFIRM database means a database (usually spreadsheets containing data and analyses that

accompany DFIRMs). The FEMA Mapping Specifications and Guidelines outline requirements for the development and maintenance of DFIRM databases.

Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) means FEMA digital floodplain map. These

digital maps serve as “regulatory floodplain maps” for insurance and floodplain management purposes.

Elevated building means a non-basement building (i) built, in the case of a building in Zones

A1-30, AE, A, A99, AO, AH, B, C, X, and D, to have the top of the elevated floor above the ground level by means of pilings, columns (posts and piers), or shear walls parallel to the flow of the water and (ii) adequately anchored so as not to impair the structural integrity of the building during a flood of up to the magnitude of the base flood. In the case of Zones A1-30, AE, A, A99, AO, AH, B, C, X, and D, "elevated building" also includes a building elevated by means of fill or solid foundation perimeter walls with openings sufficient to facilitate the unimpeded movement of flood waters.

5

Existing manufactured home park or subdivision means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of the floodplain management regulations adopted by a community.

Expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision means the preparation of

additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads).

Federal register means the official daily publication for Rules, proposed Rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.

FEMA means the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the agency responsible for administering the National Flood Insurance Program.

Flood or flooding means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation

of normally dry land areas from:

1. The overflow of water from channels and reservoir spillways; 2. The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any

source; or 3. Mudslides or mudflows that occur from excess surface water that is combined

with mud or other debris that is sufficiently fluid so as to flow over the surface of normally dry land areas (such as earth carried by a current of water and deposited along the path of the current). Flood insurance rate map (FIRM) means an official map of a community, on which the

Federal Emergency Management Agency has delineated both the Special Flood Hazard Areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community.

Flood insurance study (FIS) means the official report provided by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency. The report contains the Flood Insurance Rate Map as well as flood profiles for studied flooding sources that can be used to determine Base Flood Elevations for some areas.

Floodplain or flood-prone area means any land area susceptible to being inundated as the

result of a flood, including the area of land over which floodwater would flow from the spillway of a reservoir.

Floodplain Administrator means the Town Administrator, or his or her designee.

Floodplain development permit means a permit required before construction or development begins within any Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). If FEMA has not defined the SFHA within a community, the community shall require permits for all proposed construction or other development in the community including the placement of manufactured homes, so that it may determine whether

6

such construction or other development is proposed within flood-prone areas. Permits are required to ensure that proposed development projects meet the requirements of the NFIP and this floodplain management Article.

Floodplain management means the operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including but not limited to emergency preparedness plans, flood control works and floodplain management regulations.

Floodplain management regulations means zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations,

building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as a floodplain ordinance, grading ordinance and erosion control ordinance) and other applications of police power. The term describes such state or local regulations, in any combination thereof, which provide standards for the purpose of flood damage prevention and reduction.

Flood control structure means a physical structure designed and built expressly or partially

for the purpose of reducing, redirecting, or guiding flood flows along a particular waterway. These specialized flood modifying works are those constructed in conformance with sound engineering standards.

Floodproofing means any combination of structural and/or non-structural additions, changes,

or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents.

Floodway (regulatory floodway) means the channel of a river or other watercourse and

adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. The Colorado statewide standard for the designated height to be used for all newly studied reaches shall be one-half foot (six inches). Letters of Map Revision to existing floodway delineations may continue to use the floodway criteria in place at the time of the existing floodway delineation.

Freeboard means the vertical distance in feet above a predicted water surface elevation

intended to provide a margin of safety to compensate for unknown factors that could contribute to flood heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size flood such as debris blockage of bridge openings and the increased runoff due to urbanization of the watershed.

Functionally dependent use means a use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless it

is located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking facilities, port facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers, and ship building and ship repair facilities, but does not include long-term storage or related manufacturing facilities.

Highest adjacent grade means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to

construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. Historic structure means any structure that is:

1. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register;

7

2. Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as

contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district;

3. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic

preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or 4. Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with

historic preservation programs that have been certified either: a. By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the

Interior or; b. Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved

programs.

Levee means a man-made embankment, usually earthen, designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding. For a levee structure to be reflected on the FEMA FIRMs as providing flood protection, the levee structure must meet the requirements set forth in 44 CFR 65.10.

Levee system means a flood protection system which consists of a levee, or levees, and

associated structures, such as closure and drainage devices, which are constructed and operated in accordance with sound engineering practices.

Letter of map revision (LOMR) means FEMA's official revision of an effective Flood

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM), or both. LOMRs are generally based on the implementation of physical measures that affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), or the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).

Letter of map revision based on fill (LOMR-F) means FEMA’s modification of the Special

Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) based on the placement of fill outside the existing regulatory floodway.

Lowest floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). Any

floor used for living purposes which includes working, storage, sleeping, cooking and eating, or recreation or any combination thereof. This includes any floor that could be converted to such a use such as a basement or crawl space. The lowest floor is a determinate for the flood insurance premium for a building, home or business. An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking or vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirement of Section 60.3 of the National Flood insurance Program regulations.

Manufactured home means a structure transportable in one or more sections, which is built

on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle".

8

Manufactured home park or subdivision means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land

divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. Mean sea level means for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the North

American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988 or other datum, to which Base Flood Elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced.

Material safety data sheet (MSDS) means a form with data regarding the properties of a

particular substance. An important component of product stewardship and workplace safety, it is intended to provide workers and emergency personnel with procedures for handling or working with that substance in a safe manner, and includes information such as physical data (melting point, boiling point, flash point, etc.), toxicity, health effects, first aid, reactivity, storage, disposal, protective equipment, and spill-handling procedures.

National flood insurance program (NFIP) means FEMA’s program of flood insurance

coverage and floodplain management administered in conjunction with the Robert T. Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The NFIP has applicable Federal regulations promulgated in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The U.S. Congress established the NFIP in 1968 with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.

New manufactured home park or subdivision means a manufactured home park or

subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date of floodplain management regulations adopted by a community.

No-rise certification means a record of the results of an engineering analysis conducted to

determine whether a project will increase flood heights in a floodway. A No-Rise Certification must be supported by technical data and signed by a registered Colorado Professional Engineer. The supporting technical data should be based on the standard step-backwater computer model used to develop the 100-year floodway shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

Physical map revision (PMR) means FEMA’s action whereby one or more map panels are

physically revised and republished. A PMR is used to change flood risk zones, floodplain and/or floodway delineations, flood elevations, and/or planimetric features.

Recreational vehicle means a vehicle which is:

1. Built on a single chassis; 2. 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections; 3. Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck;

and 4. Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary

living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.

Special flood hazard area means the land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year, i.e., the 100-year floodplain.

9

Start of construction means the date the building permit was issued, including substantial improvements, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for basement, footings, piers or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building.

Structure means a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank, which is

principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home. Substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of

restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure just prior to when the damage occurred.

Substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other

improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before "Start of Construction" of the improvement. The value of the structure shall be determined by the local jurisdiction having land use authority in the area of interest. This includes structures which have incurred "Substantial Damage", regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either:

1. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of

state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary conditions or

2. Any alteration of a "historic structure” provided that the alteration will not

preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure."

Threshold planning quantity (TPQ) means a quantity designated for each chemical on the list of extremely hazardous substances that triggers notification by facilities to the State that such facilities are subject to emergency planning requirements.

Town means the Town of Nederland, Colorado. Variance means a grant of relief to a person from the requirement of this Article when

specific enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship. A variance, therefore, permits construction or development in a manner otherwise prohibited by this Article. (For full requirements see Section 60.6 of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations).

Violation means the failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the

community's floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in Section

10

60.3(b)(5), (c)(4), (c)(10), (d)(3), (e)(2), (e)(4), or (e)(5) is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided.

Water surface elevation means the height, in relation to the North American Vertical Datum

(NAVD) of 1988 (or other datum, where specified), of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas.

Sec. 18-154. Lands to which this Article applies. This Article shall apply to all Special Flood Hazard Areas and areas removed from the floodplain by the issuance of a FEMA Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F) within the Town of Nederland. Sec. 18-155. Basis for establishing the special flood hazard area. The Special Flood Hazard Areas identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in a scientific and engineering report entitled, "The Flood Insurance Study for Boulder County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas dated December 18, 2012, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and any revisions thereto are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Article. These Special Flood Hazard Areas identified by the FIS and attendant mapping are the minimum area of applicability of this Article and may be supplemented by studies designated and approved by the Town Board of Trustees. The Floodplain Administrator shall keep a copy of the Flood Insurance Study (FIS), DFIRMs, and FIRMs on file and available for public inspection. Sec. 18-156. Establishment of floodplain development permit. A Floodplain Development Permit shall be required to ensure conformance with the provisions of this Article. Sec. 18-157. Penalties for noncompliance. No structure shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted or altered without full compliance with the terms of this Article and other applicable regulations. Violation of the provisions of this Article by failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with conditions) shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this Article or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall upon conviction thereof be fined as set forth in Section 1-72 of this Code, and in addition, shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the case. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the Town from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Sec. 18-158. Abrogation and greater restrictions. This Article is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this Article and another ordinance, easement, covenant, nor deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. Sec. 18-159. Interpretation.

11

In the interpretation and application of this Article, all provisions shall be considered as minimum requirements; liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes. Sec. 18-160. Warning and disclaimer of liability. The degree of flood protection required by this Article is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. On rare occasions greater floods can and will occur and flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This Article does not imply that land outside the Special Flood Hazard Area or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This Article shall not create liability on the part of the Town or any official or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Article or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. Sec. 18-161. Duties & responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator.

Duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(a) Maintain and hold open for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this Article, including the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures and any floodproofing certificate required by Section 18-162.

(b) Review, approve, or deny all applications for Floodplain Development Permits required by this Article.

(c) Review Floodplain Development Permit applications to determine whether a proposed building site, including the placement of manufactured homes, will be reasonably safe from flooding.

(d) Review permits for proposed development to assure that all necessary permits have been obtained from those Federal, State or local governmental agencies (including Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1334) from which prior approval is required.

(e) Inspect all development at appropriate times during the period of construction to ensure compliance with all provisions of this Article, including proper elevation of the structure.

(f) Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the Special Flood Hazard Area (for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions) the Floodplain Administrator shall make the necessary interpretation.

(g) When Base Flood Elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Section 8-155, the Floodplain Administrator shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any Base Flood Elevation data and Floodway data available from a Federal, State, or other source, in order to administer the provisions of this Article.

12

(h) For waterways with Base Flood Elevations for which a regulatory Floodway has not been designated, no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within Zones A1-30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one-half foot at any point within the community.

(i) Under the provisions of 44 CFR Chapter 1, Section 65.12, of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations, a community may approve certain development in Zones A1-30, AE, AH, on the community's FIRM which increases the water surface elevation of the base flood by more than one-half foot, provided that the community first applies for a conditional FIRM revision through FEMA (Conditional Letter of Map Revision), fulfills the requirements for such revisions as established under the provisions of Section 65.12 and receives FEMA approval.

(j) Notify, in riverine situations, adjacent communities and the State Coordinating Agency, which is the Colorado Water Conservation Board, prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to FEMA.

(k) Ensure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained.

Sec. 18-162. Permit procedures. (a) Application for a Floodplain Development Permit shall be presented to the Floodplain Administrator on forms furnished by him/her and may include, but not be limited to, plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the location, dimensions, and elevation of proposed landscape alterations, existing and proposed structures, including the placement of manufactured homes, and the location of the foregoing in relation to Special Flood Hazard Area. Additionally, the following information is required:

(1) Elevation (in relation to mean sea level), of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new and substantially improved structures;

(2) Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any nonresidential structure shall be

floodproofed;

(3) A certificate from a registered Colorado Professional Engineer or architect that the nonresidential floodproofed structure shall meet the floodproofing criteria of Sec. 18-165 and

(4) Description of the extent to which any watercourse or natural drainage will be altered or

relocated as a result of proposed development.

(b) Approval or denial of a Floodplain Development Permit by the Floodplain Administrator shall be based on all of the provisions of this Article and the following relevant factors:

(1) The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;

13

(2) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner;

(3) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;

(4) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;

(5) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles;

(6) The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions including maintenance and repair of streets and bridges, and public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems;

(7) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the flood waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site;

(8) The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;

(9) The availability of alternative locations, not subject to flooding or erosion damage, for the proposed use; and

(10) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan for that area. Sec. 18-163. Variance procedures.

(a) The Board of Zoning Adjustment shall hear and render judgment on requests for variances from the requirements of this Article.

(b) The Board shall hear and render judgment on an appeal only when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision, or determination made by the Floodplain Administrator in the enforcement or administration of this Article.

(c) Any person or persons aggrieved by the decision of the Board may appeal such decision in the courts of competent jurisdiction.

(d) The Floodplain Administrator shall maintain a record of all actions involving an appeal and shall report variances to the Federal Emergency Management Agency upon request.

(e) Variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level, providing the relevant factors in Section 8-162 have been fully considered. As the lot size increases beyond the one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases.

(f) Upon consideration of the factors noted above and the intent of this Article, the Board may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purpose and objectives of this Article.

14

(g) Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.

(h) Variances may be issued for the repair or rehabilitation of historic structures upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure.

(i) Prerequisites for granting variances:

(1) Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.

(2) Variances shall only be issued upon:

i. Showing a good and sufficient cause;

ii. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and

iii. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased

flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.

(3) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the structure will be permitted to be built with the lowest floor elevation below the Base Flood Elevation, and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor elevation.

(j) Variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements and for other development necessary for the conduct of a Functionally Dependent Use provided that:

a. The criteria outlined in subsections (a) through (h) of this Section are met, and

b. The structure or other development is protected by methods that minimize flood

damages during the base flood and create no additional threats to public safety. Sec. 18-164. General standards. In all Special Flood Hazard Areas the following provisions are required for all new construction and substantial improvements:

(a) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy;

(b) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed by methods and

practices that minimize flood damage;

15

(c) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials

resistant to flood damage;

(d) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding;

(e) All manufactured homes shall be installed using methods and practices which minimize flood damage. For the purposes of this requirement, manufactured homes must be elevated and anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable State and local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces.

(f) All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system;

(g) New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system and discharge from the systems into flood waters; and,

(h) On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding.

Sec. 18-165. Specific standards.

In all Special Flood Hazard Areas where base flood elevation data has been provided as set forth in (i) Sec. 18-155, (ii) Sec. 18-161(g), or (iii) Sec. 18-170, the following provisions are required:

(a) Residential construction. New construction and Substantial Improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor (including basement) electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities (including ductwork), elevated to one foot above the base flood elevation. Upon completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor, including basement, shall be certified by a registered Colorado Professional Engineer, architect, or land surveyor. Such certification shall be submitted to the Floodplain Administrator.

(b) Nonresidential construction. With the exception of Critical Facilities, outlined in Section 18-

171, new construction and Substantial Improvements of any commercial, industrial, or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to one foot above the base flood elevation or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be designed so that at one foot above the base flood elevation the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy.

16

A registered Colorado Professional Engineer or architect shall develop and/or review structural design, specifications, and plans for the construction, and shall certify that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice as outlined in this subsection. Such certification shall be maintained by the Floodplain Administrator, as proposed in Section 18-162.

(c) Enclosures.

(1) New construction and substantial improvements, with fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement and which are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered Colorado Professional Engineer or architect or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:

a. A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch

for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. c. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or

devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters.

(d) Manufactured homes.

(1) All manufactured homes that are placed or substantially improved within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE on the community's FIRM on sites (i) outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, (ii) in a new manufactured home park or subdivision, (iii) in an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or (iv) in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as a result of a flood, be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated to one foot above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement.

(2) All manufactured homes placed or substantially improved on sites in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision within Zones A1-30, AH and AE on the community's FIRM that are not subject to the provisions of paragraph (d)(1) above, shall be elevated so that either:

a. The lowest floor of the manufactured home is one foot above the base flood

elevation, or

b. The manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in height above grade and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement.

(e) Recreational vehicles.

17

(1) All recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE on the community's FIRM either:

a. Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, b. Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, or c. Meet the permit requirements of Section 18-162 and the elevation and anchoring

requirements for "manufactured homes" in subsection (d) of this section.

A recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and has no permanently attached additions.

Sec. 18-166. Floodways.

Floodways are administrative limits and tools used to regulate existing and future floodplain development. The State of Colorado has adopted Floodway standards that are more stringent than the FEMA minimum standard (see definition of Floodway in Section 18-153). Located within Special Flood Hazard Area established in Section 18-155, are areas designated as Floodways. Since the Floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion potential, the following provisions shall apply:

(a) Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory Floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed by a licensed Colorado Professional Engineer and in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase (requires a No-Rise Certification) in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.

(b) If subsection (a) above is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Sections 18-164 through 18-171, inclusive.

(c) Under the provisions of 44 CFR Chapter 1, Section 65.12, of the National Flood Insurance Regulations, a community may permit encroachments within the adopted regulatory floodway that would result in an increase in Base Flood Elevations, provided that the community first applies for a CLOMR and floodway revision through FEMA.

Sec. 18-167. Alteration of a watercourse.

For all proposed developments that alter a watercourse within a Special Flood Hazard Area, the following standards apply:

(a) Channelization and flow diversion projects shall appropriately consider issues of sediment transport, erosion, deposition, and channel migration and properly mitigate potential problems through the project as well as upstream and downstream of any improvement activity. A detailed analysis of sediment transport and overall channel stability should be considered, when appropriate, to assist in determining the most appropriate design. (b) Channelization and flow diversion projects shall evaluate the residual 100-year floodplain.

18

(c) Any channelization or other stream alteration activity proposed by a project proponent must be evaluated for its impact on the regulatory floodplain and be in compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local floodplain rules, regulations and ordinances. (d) Any stream alteration activity shall be designed and sealed by a registered Colorado Professional Engineer or Certified Professional Hydrologist. (e) All activities within the regulatory floodplain shall meet all applicable Federal, State and Town floodplain requirements and regulations. (f) Within the Regulatory Floodway, stream alteration activities shall not be constructed unless the project proponent demonstrates through a Floodway analysis and report, sealed by a registered Colorado Professional Engineer, that there is not more than a 0.00-foot rise in the proposed conditions compared to existing conditions Floodway resulting from the project, otherwise known as a No-Rise Certification, unless the community first applies for a CLOMR and Floodway revision in accordance with Section 18-167(c).

(g) Maintenance shall be required for any altered or relocated portions of watercourses so that the flood-carrying capacity is not diminished.

Sec. 18-168. Properties removed from the floodplain by fill. A Floodplain Development Permit shall not be issued for the construction of a new structure or addition to an existing structure on a property removed from the floodplain by the issuance of a FEMA Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F), unless such new structure or addition complies with the following:

1. RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION

The lowest floor (including basement), electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities (including ductwork), must be elevated to one foot above the Base Flood Elevation that existed prior to the placement of fill.

2. NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION

The lowest floor (including basement), electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities (including ductwork), must be elevated to one foot above the Base Flood Elevation that existed prior to the placement of fill, or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that the structure or addition is watertight to at least one foot above the base flood level that existed prior to the placement of fill with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads of effects of buoyancy.

Sec. 18-169. Standards for subdivision proposals.

19

(a) All subdivision proposals including the placement of manufactured home parks and subdivisions shall be reasonably safe from flooding. If a subdivision or other development proposal is in a flood-prone area, the proposal shall minimize flood damage.

(b) All proposals for the development of subdivisions including the placement of manufactured home parks and subdivisions shall meet Floodplain Development Permit requirements of Sections 18-156; 18-162; and the provisions of Sections 18-164 through 18-171, inclusive, as applicable.

(c) Base Flood Elevation data shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed development including the placement of manufactured home parks and subdivisions which is greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is lesser, if not otherwise provided pursuant to Section 18-155 or Section 18-161.

(d) All subdivision proposals including the placement of manufactured home parks and subdivisions shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards.

(e) All subdivision proposals including the placement of manufactured home parks and subdivisions shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage.

Sec. 18-170. Standards for critical facilities. A Critical Facility is a structure or related infrastructure, but not the land on which it is situated, as specified in Rule 6 of the Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado, that if flooded may result in significant hazards to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any time before, during and after a flood.

(a) Classification of critical facilities. Critical Facilities are classified under the following categories: Essential Services; Hazardous Materials; At-risk Populations; and Vital to Restoring Normal Services.

(1) Essential services facilities include public safety, emergency response, emergency medical, designated emergency shelters, communications, public utility plant facilities, and transportation lifelines. These facilities consist of:

a. Public safety (police stations, fire and rescue stations, emergency vehicle and equipment storage, and, emergency operation centers); b. Emergency medical (hospitals, ambulance service centers, urgent care centers having emergency treatment functions, and non-ambulatory surgical structures but excluding clinics, doctors’ offices, and non-urgent care medical structures that do not provide these functions); c. Designated emergency shelters; d. Communications (main hubs for telephone, broadcasting equipment for cable systems, satellite dish systems, cellular systems, television, radio, and

20

other emergency warning systems, but excluding towers, poles, lines, cables, and conduits); e. Public utility plant facilities for generation and distribution ( hubs, treatment plants, substations and pumping stations for water, power and gas, but not including towers, poles, power lines, buried pipelines, transmission lines, distribution lines, and service lines); and f. Air Transportation lifelines (airports (municipal and larger), helicopter pads and structures serving emergency functions, and associated infrastructure (aviation control towers, air traffic control centers, and emergency equipment aircraft hangars).

Specific exemptions to this category include wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), non-potable water treatment and distribution systems, and hydroelectric power generating plants and related appurtenances.

Public utility plant facilities may be exempted if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board of Trustees that the facility is an element of a redundant system for which service will not be interrupted during a flood. At a minimum, it shall be demonstrated that redundant facilities are available (either owned by the same utility or available through an intergovernmental agreement or other contract) and connected, the alternative facilities are either located outside of the 100-year floodplain or are compliant with the provisions of this Article, and an operations plan is in effect that states how redundant systems will provide service to the affected area in the event of a flood. Evidence of ongoing redundancy shall be provided to the Board of Trustees on an as-needed basis upon request.

(2) Hazardous materials facilities include facilities that produce or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water-reactive materials. These facilities may include:

a. Chemical and pharmaceutical plants (chemical plant, pharmaceutical manufacturing); b. Laboratories containing highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water-reactive materials; c. Refineries; d. Hazardous waste storage and disposal sites; and e. Above ground gasoline or propane storage or sales centers.

Facilities shall be determined to be Critical Facilities if they produce or store materials in excess of threshold limits. If the owner of a facility is required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to keep a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on file for any chemicals stored or used in the work place, AND the chemical(s) is stored in quantities equal to or greater than the Threshold Planning

21

Quantity (TPQ) for that chemical, then that facility shall be considered to be a Critical Facility. The TPQ for these chemicals is: either 500 pounds or the TPQ listed (whichever is lower) for the 356 chemicals listed under 40 C.F.R. § 302 (2010), also known as Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS); or 10,000 pounds for any other chemical. This threshold is consistent with the requirements for reportable chemicals established by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. OSHA requirements for MSDS can be found in 29 C.F.R. § 1910 (2010). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation “Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification,” 40 C.F.R. § 302 (2010) and OSHA regulation “Occupational Safety and Health Standards,” 29 C.F.R. § 1910 (2010) are incorporated herein by reference and include the regulations in existence at the time of the promulgation this Article, but exclude later amendments to or editions of the regulations

Specific exemptions to this category include:

f. Finished consumer products within retail centers and households containing hazardous materials intended for household use, and agricultural products intended for agricultural use. g. Buildings and other structures containing hazardous materials for which it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board of Trustees by hazard assessment and certification by a qualified professional (as determined by the local jurisdiction having land use authority) that a release of the subject hazardous material does not pose a major threat to the public. h. Pharmaceutical sales, use, storage, and distribution centers that do not manufacture pharmaceutical products.

These exemptions shall not apply to buildings or other structures that also function as Critical Facilities under another category outlined in this Section.

(3) At-risk population facilities include medical care, congregate care, and schools. These facilities consist of:

a. Elder care ( nursing homes); b. Congregate care serving 12 or more individuals ( day care and assisted living); c. Public and private schools (pre-schools, K-12 schools), before-school and after-school care serving 12 or more children);

(4) Facilities vital to restoring normal services including government operations. These facilities consist of:

a. Essential government operations (public records, courts, jails, building permitting and inspection services, community administration and management, maintenance and equipment centers);

22

b. Essential structures for public colleges and universities (dormitories, offices, and classrooms only).

These facilities may be exempted if it is demonstrated to the Board of Trustees that the facility is an element of a redundant system for which service will not be interrupted during a flood. At a minimum, it shall be demonstrated that redundant facilities are available (either owned by the same entity or available through an intergovernmental agreement or other contract), the alternative facilities are either located outside of the 100-year floodplain or are compliant with this Article, and an operations plan is in effect that states how redundant facilities will provide service to the affected area in the event of a flood. Evidence of ongoing redundancy shall be provided to the Board of Trustees on an as-needed basis upon request.

(b) Protection for critical facilities. All new and substantially improved Critical Facilities and new additions to Critical Facilities located within the Special Flood Hazard Area shall be regulated to a higher standard than structures not determined to be Critical Facilities. For the purposes of this Section, protection shall include one of the following:

a. Location outside the Special Flood Hazard Area; or

b. Elevation or floodproofing of the structure to at least two feet above the Base Flood

Elevation.

(c) Ingress and egress for new critical facilities. New Critical Facilities shall, when practicable as determined by the Board of Trustees, have continuous non-inundated access (ingress and egress for evacuation and emergency services) during a100-year flood event.

Section 2. Should any one or more sections or provisions of this Ordinance or of the Code provisions enacted hereby be judicially determined invalid or unenforceable, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remaining provisions of this Ordinance or of such Code provision, the intention being that the various sections and provisions are severable. Section 3. Any and all Ordinances or Codes or parts thereof in conflict or inconsistent herewith are, to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency, hereby repealed; provided, however, that the repeal of any such Ordinance or Code or part thereof shall not revive any other section or part of any Ordinance or Code provision heretofore repealed or superseded. INTRODUCED, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED THIS __ DAY OF __________________________, 2012.


_________________________________ Joe Gierlach, Mayor

ATTEST:

23

_________________________________ Teresa Myers, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Carmen Beery, Town Attorney

1

AGENDA INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NEDERLAND TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Date: Nov. 13, 2012 Initiated By: /s/ Alisha Reis Dept: Administration Information___X___ Discussion ______ Action _____

______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Ordinance 713, concerning annexation of the Public Works Yard property on Ridge Road SUMMARY: An ordinance is before the Board for annexation of the 6.67-acre Public Works Yard at Ridge Road (also known as the “Dream Yard”) into the Town limits. The property is comprised of two parcels – 1) the 5.18-acre parcel at 294 Ridge Road (Parcel #158312000015/Deed #2321462) acquired by the Town in August 2002 and 2) the 1.49-acre parcel at 288 Ridge Road (Parcel #158312000030/Deed #3138365) acquired by the Town in March 2011. The property was acquired by the Town to serve as the Public Works operations facility, to replace the current yard at 750 W. Fifth St. The current facility is in a state of declining repair. As noted at the Board’s meeting of Oct. 16, 2012, a recent structural engineering analysis of the shop building has indicated a declining ability to maintain the roof structure under heavy snow loads. Town staff is currently taking steps to relocate Public Works operations to other Town facilities over the next few months, particularly as the new wastewater treatment plant comes online this winter. Office operations will be relocated there, while materials and vehicle storage will be relocated to outbuildings at the Community Center and to the new Public Works yard at Ridge Road. Among the new development at Ridge Road will be a salt/sand enclosure to contain material for deicing roadways. The material had previously been stored at the wastewater treatment yard on East Street. However, with the development of the new treatment plant, the Board indicated a desire to clean up and reduce that site, including relocating the annual large mound of salt/sand material. The salt/sand structure is planned for 40 feet by 48 feet (1,920 s.f.) and to be located at the north end of the new yard, as depicting on plans created in 2007 (attached). The current zoning of the property is Forestry (F) under Boulder County zoning. The Town could keep the property zoned Forestry (F) under Town zoning or move to change the

2

zoning to Mountain Residential (MR), which is the Town zoning for the surrounding incorporated properties. The Forestry zoning would require a consolidation of the lots to meet the minimum 5-acre lot size for both lots. Both zoning districts allow for municipal shops as a use by right. Town-operated facilities require a public hearing be held prior to issuance of a building permit for any new facilities, such as the new salt/sand enclosure (NMC Section 16-32). HISTORY AND PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION:

• In the 1994 and 2003 Comprehensive Plans, the Town identified the Ridge Road site as ideal for the new Public Works operations facilities and expressed the desire to consolidate operations (including salt/sand storage) away from the western shores of Barker Reservoir.

• The Town purchased the first of the two parcels in question. • In 2002, the Town signed on to the Nederland Area Boulder County Comprehensive

Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement, limiting annexation except under certain circumstances.

• In 2007, the Town submitted plans for the new Public Works facilities to Boulder County for consideration of the use by Special Review. The Boulder County Commissioners approved the plans and Special Review Use in May 2007.

• In 2008, the Board adopted Ordinance 661, eliminating the requirement for voter approval for annexation of Town-owned properties.

• In 2010, the Board and the Boulder County Commissioners approved an amendment to the Nederland Area Boulder County Comprehensive Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement to allow for the annexation of the Public Works facility land.

• In 2011, the Town finalized the deal to purchase the second of the two parcels in question.

• Between 2008 and 2012, during the design of the new wastewater treatment plant, the Board re-expressed the desire to move the salt/sand storage away from this WWTP site.

• In October 2012, a report was issued detailing the structural condition of the current Public Works shop, indicating the building is in declining condition and will not maintain the required snow load without significant repair.

• During the 2013 Budget Sessions, Town staff has discussed a proposal to move Public Works operations to other existing facilities, including the Ridge Road yard.

RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board considers approval of Ordinance 713 on an emergency basis, to allow for construction of the salt/sand enclosure prior to hard freeze conditions. Also, that the Board holds a public hearing regarding the construction of the new facility, as required by NMC Section 16-32, as well as a later public hearing on the initial zoning of the property, as required by C.R.S. §§ 31-12-115 and 31-23-304.

3

ALTERNATIVES: 1) That the Board directs the item for further study and return to its agenda in

December. 2) That the Board declines to adopt the ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS:

1) Draft Ordinance 713, concerning annexation of the Public Works yard properties at Ridge Road

2) Annexation map 3) Context map of area to be annexed 4) Ordinance 661, adopted Oct. 7, 2008, eliminating the requirement for voter

approval for annexation of publicly owned lands 5) Memo from former Boulder County Attorney H. Lawrence Hoyt, dated Jan. 27,

2009, indicating the Town was required to pursue the review process outlined in the Nederland Area Boulder County Comprehensive Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)

6) Town Maintenance Shop Annexation Amendment to the Nederland Boulder County Comprehensive Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement, recorded Jan. 15, 2010 (Recording #03053647)

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Town is not subject to Town annexation application fees of $16,900. Additionally, an annexation impact study does not apply, as the land to be annexed is less than 10 acres (Colorado Revised Statute 31-12-108.5 (1), NMC 15-4). The Town will need to pay building permit fees to Safebuilt in the amount of $479.15, which includes the 50% discount Safebuilt allows the Town. If the Town were subject to the Boulder County building permit process, the fee would be approximately $1,220. The salt/sand enclosure is estimated to cost $50,000, including a concrete pad, canvas cover, engineering, soil sampling, labor and machinery. This amount is accounted for in the 2012 Public Works budget headcount savings and funds from a pending auction of public works equipment. The canvas cover has a 20-year warranty and the building will be designed to meet Nederland’s design standards.


ORDINANCE NUMBER 713

AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TO THE TOWN OF NEDERLAND CERTAIN TOWN-OWNED LANDS LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED BOULDER COUNTY, KNOWN AS THE TOWN PUBLIC WORKS YARD, OR 288 RIDGE ROAD AND 294 RIDGE ROAD, TO BE KNOWN AS THE “PUBLIC WORKS YARD ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF NEDERLAND”AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

WHEREAS, the Town of Nederland, Colorado (“Town”) is a statutory town, duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Colorado; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act, C.R.S. § 31-12-101,

et seq., the Town possesses the authority to annex real property, thereby adding such property to its municipal territory; and

WHEREAS, C.R.S. § 31-12-106(3) authorizes the Town to annex Town-owned property

by ordinance, without the notice and hearing process that typically applies to the annexation of real property owned by other parties, when the Town-owned property is eligible for annexation in accordance with Section 30(1)(c) of Article II of the State Constitution and C.R.S. §§ 31-12-104(1)(a) and 31-12-105; and

WHEREAS, the Town owns 6.67 acres of real property adjacent to its current municipal

boundaries known as the Public Works Yard at Ridge Road, or 288 Ridge Road and 294 Ridge Road, further described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”); and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of Trustees (“Board”) finds that it is necessary and

desirable to annex the Property into the Town to permit the Town to develop the site as a Town Public Works facility in accordance with the Town’s land use and building regulations; and

WHEREAS, the Board therefore desires to annex the Property by ordinance, in

accordance with C.R.S. § 31-23-106(3), as further provided herein. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of

Nederland, Colorado, as follows: Section 1. The above and foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by reference and

adopted as findings and determinations of the Board. Section 2. The Board further finds and determines that the Property is eligible for

annexation in accordance with Section 30(1)(c) of Article II of the State Constitution and C.R.S. §§ 31-12-104(1)(a), 31-12-105 and 31-12-106(3), in that the proposed annexation:

(a) Would not divide any lands held in identical ownership;

(b) Is less than twenty acres and, as such, does not implicate C.R.S. § 31-12-105(1)(b); (c) Is for territory for which no annexation proceedings have been commenced for annexation to another municipality; (d) Would not result in the detachment of area from any school district and the attachment of the same to another school district; (e) Would not result in the extension of the Town boundary more than three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary in any one year; (f) Is of property for which not less than one-sixth of the perimeter is contiguous with the current Town boundary; and (g) Is of property solely owned by the Town.

Section 3. The Property is hereby annexed to and shall be included within the corporate

boundaries of the Town of Nederland, and shall be known as the "Public Works Yard Annexation to the Town of Nederland.” Said annexation shall be complete and effective from the effective date of this Ordinance for all purposes.

Section 4. Promptly following the effective date of this Ordinance, the Town Clerk shall

complete all filings required of the Town to be made by the provisions of Section 31-12-113, C.R.S.

Section 5. Emergency Clause. The Board of Trustees of the Town of Nederland hereby

finds, determines and declares that an emergency exists and that this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of public property, health, welfare, peace or safety. The adoption of this Ordinance on an emergency basis is necessary to permit the Town to commence and complete the building of Public Works facilities on the Property in accordance with the Town’s land use and building regulations prior to winter weather rendering such construction difficult, expensive or impossible. Specifically, the Town has an immediate need for a facility in which it may store the salt and sand necessary for winter Public Works projects, as such material is currently stored at the Town wastewater treatment plant where it can no longer be accommodated due to the construction of that facility. The acquisition of a building permit through the County’s process could delay the construction of facilities on the Property for weeks or months. Accordingly, the Board determines that the adoption of this Ordinance as an emergency ordinance is in the best interests of the citizens of the Town of Nederland.

INTRODUCED, ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012.


_________________________________ Joe Gierlach, Mayor

ATTEST: _________________________________ Teresa Myers, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Carmen Beery, Town Attorney

EXHIBIT A

[ANNEXATION MAP, WHICH CONTAINS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ANNEXED TERRITORY]

Property Map Town Limits

0 250 500 Feet

Subject Property

1

AGENDA INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NEDERLAND TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Date: Nov. 13, 2012 Initiated By: /s/ Alisha Reis Dept: Administration Information___X___ Discussion ______ Action _____

______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Construction of Salt/Sand Shed at Public Works Yard at Ridge Road SUMMARY: Before the Board is consideration of a new salt and sand enclosure for location at the new Public Works yard (“Dream Yard”) on Ridge Road (294 Ridge Road). The shed will contain materials for deicing roadways. The salt/sand structure is planned for 40 feet by 48 feet (1,920 s.f.) and to be located at the north end of the new yard, as depicting on plans created in 2007 (attached). The plan includes a concrete foundation and canvas cover, similar to that shown below. The salt/sand materials have previously been stored at the wastewater treatment yard on East Street. However, with the development of the new treatment plant, the Board indicated a desire to clean up and reduce that site, including relocating the annual large mound of salt/sand material.

Municipal facilities and uses operated by the Town, including water/sewer services and public works shops, are allowed within any zoning district in town, per N.M.C. Section 16-32, provided that there is a public hearing prior to issuing a building permit for any new such facilities.

Example of a salt and sand enclosure from Accu-Steel

2

The Ridge Road yard site is identified in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan as the preferred location for the Public Works operations buildings, which include cold storage for road materials and equipment. The Ridge Road land was acquired between 2002 and 2011 for this purpose. Public Works has cleared the site for building, and staff geotechnical engineer Mark Weritz has conducted soils study at the site in preparation for engineered drawings. His report is attached, including recommendations for foundation, compaction, etc. to support the new building. Weritz will oversee the earthwork to monitor compliance with his recommendations. HISTORY AND PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION:

• In the 1994 and 2003 Comprehensive Plans, the Town identified the Ridge Road site as ideal for the new Public Works operations facilities and expressed the desire to consolidate operations (including salt/sand storage) away from the western shores of Barker Reservoir.

• In 2002, the Town purchased the first of the two parcels in question. • In 2002, the Town signed on to the Nederland Area Boulder County Comprehensive

Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement, limiting annexation except under certain circumstances.

• In 2007, the Town submitted plans for the new Public Works facilities to Boulder County for consideration of the use by Special Review. The Boulder County Commissioners approved the plans and Special Review Use in May 2007.

• In 2008, the Board adopted Ordinance 661, eliminating the requirement for voter approval for annexation of Town-owned properties.

• In 2010, the Board and the Boulder County Commissioners approved an amendment to the Nederland Area Boulder County Comprehensive Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement to allow for the annexation of the Public Works facility land.

• In 2011, the Town finalized the deal to purchase the second of the two parcels in question.

• Between 2008 and 2012, during the design of the new wastewater treatment plant, the Board re-expressed the desire to move the salt/sand storage away from this WWTP site.

• In October 2012, a report was issued detailing the structural condition of the current Public Works shop, indicating the building is in declining condition and will not maintain the required snow load without significant repair.

• During the 2013 Budget Sessions, Town staff has discussed a proposal to move Public Works operations to other existing facilities, including the Ridge Road yard.

3

RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board holds a public hearing during the regular meeting of Nov. 13, regarding the construction of the new salt/sand enclosure, as required by NMC Section 16-32. Also, that the Board considers approval of the identified expenditures for the new facility. ALTERNATIVES:

1) That the Board directs the item for further study and return to its agenda in December.

2) That the Board declines to approve the project. ATTACHMENTS:

1) Context map 2) Site Plan for development of the Ridge Road yard, dated Jan. 10, 2007, approved by

Boulder County Commissioners on May 21, 2007 3) Geotechnical Evaluation Report by Mark Weritz, dated Nov. 2, 2012 4) Structural canvas cover bids

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Town will need to pay building permit fees to Safebuilt in the amount of $479.15, which includes the 50% discount Safebuilt allows the Town. The salt/sand enclosure is estimated to cost $50,000, including a concrete pad, canvas cover, engineering, soil sampling, labor and machinery. This amount is accounted for in the 2012 Public Works budget headcount savings and funds from a pending auction of public works equipment. The canvas cover has a 20-year warranty and the building will be designed to meet Nederland’s design standards.

Property Map Town Limits

0 250 500 Feet

Subject Property

Building WidthRafter Centers ‐Windload (MPH) VSnow load (GSL) + H ‐Windload IFSnow load IF +*Reactions are in Kips**Windload can act in opposite direction

H V H V1) DL+SL (BALANCED)2) DL+SL (UNBALANCED)3) DL+0.75WL (POS)+SL (BALANCED)4) DL+0.75WL (NEG)+SL (BALANCED)5) DL+0.75WL (POS)+SL (UNBALANCED)6) DL+0.75WL (NEG)+SL (UNBALANCED)7) DL+WL (POS)8) DL+WL (NEG)9) 0.6DL+WL (POS)10) 0.6DL+WL (NEG)11) DL12) SL (BALANCED)13) SL (UNBALANCED)14) WL (POS)15) WL (NEG)

A B

1

MEMORANDUM

To: Alisha Reis, Town Administrator Cc: Carmen Beery, Town Attorney From: Michele Martin, Deputy Clerk Date: November 8, 2012 Re: NED ORD Repeal and Reenact Floodplain Regulations Article VII

Chapter 18

This draft ordinance was sent to Rick Dirr, Fire Chief, Eric Pendley, Chief Building Official, and Mark Weritz, P.E. for their review. The following are their comments:

Fire – No issues

Building – No issues Engineering – The potential for flooding should be taken seriously, as intense storms of the past two years have flooded local drainage systems. Alterations within floodways (North Beaver Creek and Middle Boulder Creek) should be completed in strict observance of floodplain regulations. The vertical datum of the old June 2, 1995 FIRM map (NGVD29) and the new December 18, 2012 FIRM map (NAVD88) are different; therefore, flood elevation levels of the new FIRM map are 4.5 feet higher than the old map. Boundaries of flood zones between the two maps are similar. It is important that all elevations of plans and maps reviewed for floodway regulations reference the new datum (NAVD88) and the new FIRM map. The outer delineated area of North Beaver Creek immediately upgradient of Highway 72 is labeled Zone O (500 year flood area) on the old map, but not labeled as such on the new map. It appears that it remains Zone O on the

2

new map, although not labeled but gray-colored as such. Section 18-166, regarding standards for areas of shallow flooding (AO/AH zones), is irrelevant as such zones are not delineated in the FIRM map within the Town of Nederland limits. (Carmen Beery's first comment). This particular section (18-166) can be deleted from the reenactment. Sections 18-168 to 18-171, which are new sections (Carmen Beery's second comment), appear to be applicable for the Town's use and should be included in the reenactment. The Town may consider initiation of a "Floodplain Management" folder on the shared drive to allow Town Staff access to relevant electronically formatted information.

nederlandco.org · 2012/11/13 · Town of Nederland . T. OWN OF . N. EDERLAND. B. OARD OF . T....

Documents

Transcript of nederlandco.org · 2012/11/13 · Town of Nederland . T. OWN OF . N. EDERLAND. B. OARD OF . T....