City of Brighton
500 S. 4th Avenue
Brighton, CO 80601
Meeting Minutes - Draft
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
7:00 PM
Council Chambers
City Council
MAYOR - KENNETH J. KREUTZER
MAYOR PRO-TEM - JW EDWARDS
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
LYNN BACA, CLINT BLACKHURST, MARK HUMBERT,
MATT JOHNSTON, GREGORY MILLS, MARY ELLEN POLLACK,
KIRBY WALLIN
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Kreutzer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
A. Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag
Councilmember Wallin led the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
B. Roll Call
Present: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca,
Councilmember Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember Wallin
Not Present: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
2. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA
Motion by Councilmember Wallin, seconded by Councilmember Humbert, to approve the Regular Agenda as presented. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember
Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of the August 21, 2018 City Council Minutes
Motion by Councilmember Mills, seconded by Councilmember Baca, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember
Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
4. CEREMONIES
A. Recognition of Gary Stolebarger for 40 Years of Working with Walgreens
Mayor Kreutzer presented a certificate to Gary Stolebarger celebrating 40 years of service to Walgreens.
B. Recognition of Commander Christopher Schoeneck on his Retirement after 40 Years of Service to the City of Brighton
Mayor Kreutzer presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Commander Christopher Schoeneck for his retirement after 40 years of Service to the City of Brighton.
Mayor Kreutzer asked for a break at 7:10 p.m.
Mayor Kreutzer reconvened the meeting at 7:16 p.m.
5. PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA (Speakers limited to five minutes)
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON CITY COUNCIL, APPROVING THE REZONING OF AN APPROXIMATELY 0.03 ACRE AREA OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF BRIGHTON, COUNTY OF ADAMS, STATE OF COLORADO, FROM A ZONING DESIGNATION OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-1) TO A ZONING DESIGNATION OF DOWNTOWN (DT)
Mayor Kreutzer read the title of the Ordinance into the record.
Mayor Kreutzer opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. and City Clerk Natalie Hoel verified the required postings and publications (August 29, 2018 in the Brighton Standard Blade) for this public hearing were completed.
City Manager Philip Rodriguez introduced Senior Planner Mike Tylka.
Senior Planner Mike Tylka presented the application for the Rodriguez Camacho Subdivision zone change. The applicant is Emil Tanner and the property owner is Raquel Camacho. Staff has provided a certified English to Spanish translator as Raquel’s first language is Spanish. The subject property is addressed as 248 North Main Street and is adjacent to the eastern side of North Main Street and one-half block south of Longspeak Street. The request is to change the zoning of the property from Light Industrial (I-1) to Downtown (DT). The surrounding uses are commercial in nature. The subject property was included in the original City boundaries. In 1984, the property was zoned light industrial as part of a larger rezoning in the area. The property was first platted as part of the Davis and Riggs addition in 1887. The subject property has a one-story commercial structure on it. The subject property is part of a proposed minor administrative Plat that seeks to combine this parcel with the parcel located to the south; they are both under the same ownership. The request brought by the applicant seeks to zone the I-1 property to match the Downtown zoning of the lower lot so they can be legally combined into one lot. The new zoning will open up the lot to a wider range of redevelopment possibilities.
The future land use portion of the Comprehensive Plan has designated this area as appropriate for Downtown use. The designations primary purpose is to provide areas for retail, cultural, education, entertainment, civic and medium-high density residential establishments. This supports redevelopment, infill, increased foot traffic, a wide range of building intensities and a wide range of experiences. This designation discourages light industrial, storage, warehousing, assembly and manufacturing, and auto oriented uses. The Downton zoning designation is in alignment with the Downtown Comprehensive Plan designation, as it will move the lot toward the designated primary uses and away from those that are discouraged.
The Land Use and Development Code states that the Downtown zone district is intended to create an atmosphere for historic preservation and enhancement. It further states that the concepts encouraged are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that flexibility is provided within the zone district to maximize the benefits from individual and collective improvements in the area. The zoning review criteria in the Land Use and Development Code states that the proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan and other Master Plans of the City. The proposed rezoning does comply with the Comprehensive Plan, which designates this area as downtown, and the Downton zone district would make the property available for a wide mix of retail, commercial, office and public high density residential users. The proposal must comply with the requirement of the Land Use and Development Code and the zone district. The subject property complies with the Land Use and Development Code and meets the requirements of the Downtown zoning district. The proposal must provide consistency with the purpose and intent of the Land Use and Development Code. The rezoning of this property would facilitate orderly growth and expansion of the City and would allow the property owners to redevelop or occupy the property with a variety of users. A Downtown Plan would be required for any building expansion or new building. The proposal must provide compatibility with the surrounding areas is harmonious with the character of the neighborhood and is not detrimental to the immediate area, the future development of the area, or the health, safety, or welfare of the inhabitants of the City. The zoning designation of Downtown on this piece of land eliminates Light Industrial and most auto-oriented businesses from operating at the site. The properties rezoning will push it towards being compatible with the future redevelopment of the area designated by the Comprehensive Plan.
All public notice was provided in accordance with the Code. Planning staff has fielded two general inquiries, but has not received any formal comments. Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval at their August 14, 2018 meeting. Staff recommends approval of the request for zone change as the application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use and Development Code.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if the applicant would like to add anything to the presentation, she did not.
The applicant had an interpreter present, so Mayor Kreutzer asked the applicant if she understood what was presented and she stated that she did.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if anyone in the audience had questions for the applicant, there was none.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on behalf of the request, there was none.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak against the request, there was none.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if any correspondence had been received, there was none.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if there were questions from City Council, there was none.
Mayor Kreutzer closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m.
Motion by Councilmember Mills, seconded by Councilmember Wallin, to approve the Ordinance approving the rezoning of an approximately 0.03 acre area of land generally located in the southwest quarter of section 6, township 1 south, range 66 west of the 6th principal meridian, City of Brighton, County of Adams, State of Colorado, from a zoning designation of Light Industrial (I-1) to a zoning designation of Downtown. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember
Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
B. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE BROMLEY FARMS PUD TO DECEMBER 6, 2021 WITH CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN. THE APPROXIMATE 135.14 ACRE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE BROMLEY FARMS SUBDIVISION IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF BROMLEY LANE AND CHAMBERS ROAD, AND IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF BRIGHTON, COUNTY OF ADAMS, STATE OF COLORADO
Mayor Kreutzer read the title of the Resolution into the record.
Mayor Kreutzer opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. The required postings and publications (August 29, 2018 in the Brighton Standard Blade) for this public hearing were completed.
City Manager Rodriguez introduced Senior Planner Mike Tylka.
Senior Planner Mike Tylka presented the request to extend the Vested Property Rights for the Bromley Farms PUD. Jack Hoagland and Thomas Hartley are representing the applicant team and the property ownership is currently under various Thomas Hartley Family Trust. The property is located south of Bromley Lane, east of Chambers road, north of Indigo Trails subdivision and southwest of the Historical Farm and Oasis Water Park. A decision will be made tonight on a proposal for a three-year extension of the current PUD. This is an affirmation to the property owner and any potential developers that the zoning entitlements for this property will be in place for a period of time for which they are extended. This is necessary because the PUD is expiring if it is not built on. The PUD calls out six different planning areas with different densities and possible types of residential units. These are the key areas that the potential development team wishes to have the zoning certainty extended.
The property consists of approximately 135 acres, was annexed to the City in 2001, and was zoned as part of the Hishinuma Farms PUD in 2004. In 2011, the Bromley Farms PUD was approved with a six-year initial vesting period; this was double the typical vesting as there was an uncertain economic climate at the time. A two-year extension was granted and would expire in December 2018. The two-year extension was granted with the following three conditions:
1. That all ensuing development of the property subject to the Bromley Farms PUD shall meet all applicable City standards in effect at the time of such development, including, without limitations, those related to transportation, drainage, and utilities.
2. That no further extension of the vested property rights for the Bromley Farms PUD will be accepted or considered by the City unless and until a final plat for the property is finalized on or before December 6, 2018, which conforms to the Bromley Farms PUD in its entirety.
3. That Sheets 8, 12, 13, and 14 of the PUD are no longer valid and, as such, shall not be considered applicable or satisfactory as to any development of the property subject to the Bromley Farms PUD.
The progress for development of the land did not take place during the extension because the former owner, Mr. Thomas Hartley, passed away during the two-year extension, which delayed the applicant team from submitting a formal plat. The applicant team here tonight is looking to purchase the property, plat and develop it according to the PUD. In condition three, the invalid sheets reference street sections, drainage standards and utilities that are no longer in line with the City’s Master Plans.
The Comprehensive Plan shows the property split among the designations of high-density residential, low-density residential, parks and open space. These designations align with the uses proposed in each of the planning areas of the PUD. The differing residential densities align with the prospective designations purpose and character as the higher densities are located along Bromley Lane and the lower densities are buffered from the major roadways.
The Land Use and Development Code defines Vested Property Rights as “the right to undertake and complete the development and use of property under the terms and conditions of a site specific development plan and shall be deemed established upon final approval of the application for site specific development plan.” Significant progress has been made by the applicant toward submitting a preliminary plat that conforms to the Bromley Farms PUD. By submitting a formal application for the formation of Metro Districts for this property, City staff has determined that this progress meets the intent of the second condition. The intent was to get the property moving forward according to the PUD as re-vested. The applicant team is in the process of moving forward and preparing a final plat with civil drawings, but they are choosing to complete the preliminary plat and form the Metropolitan Districts so they have certainty before completing more expensive tasks. City staff has received the formal application for Metro Districts that covers the boundaries of the PUD. These items are being done in order to move the development closer to the clean final plat submission that will be developed according to the standards set forth in the PUD. The unfortunate passing of Mr. Hartley crashed the tight timeframe that was laid out in the two-year extension. The applicant team was working with Mr. Hartley during the extension and was working toward meeting the deadline in the second condition. Staff would like to add the other two conditions again to the proposed extension.
All public notice was provided in accordance with the Land Use and Development Code. Planning staff has not received any formal comments regarding this matter. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this item at the August 14, 2018 meeting. Staff recommends that the extension be granted for three years due to expire on December 6, 2021 with the following three conditions:
1. That all ensuing development of the property subject to the Bromley Farms PUD shall meet all applicable City standards in effect at the time of such development, including, without limitations, those related to transportation, drainage, and utilities.
2. That no further extension of the vested property rights for the Bromley Farms PUD will be accepted or considered by the City unless and until a final plat for the property is finalized on or before December 6, 2021, which conforms to the Bromley Farms PUD in its entirety.
3. That Sheets 8, 12, 13, and 14 of the PUD are no longer valid and, as such, shall not be considered applicable or satisfactory as to any development of the property subject to the Bromley Farms PUD.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if the applicant would like to add anything to the presentation.
Jack Hoagland, Lakewood, Colorado, representing the applicant. Mr. Hoagland explained that they began working with Mr. Hartley in late 2015, early 2016. Mr. Hartley ultimately picked another developer and was under contract with that developer for some time. That developer was no longer in the picture in 2017. Mr. Hoagland began working with Mr. Hartley again in mid-2017 and presented a letter of intent to contract for the property in November 2017. Mr. Hartley passed away three days after the letter of intent was presented. Mr. Hoagland indented to meet the deadlines in place at the time but were unable to due to the timeframe in dealing with Mr. Hartley’s estate. The applicant did not get the contract for the property until July 1, 2018. The applicant has worked diligently with staff in the past few months to put together a District Service Plan that will be presented as the next item. The applicant has also been meeting with potential builders and people interested in moving to this community. A design team was put together to comb through the PUD. The team put together a draft plan consisting of 540 units to determine what kind of development could be put together within the context of the PUD. The plan meets the spirit of the PUD, encourages open space, an opening will be created to the north for the Water Park as well as to the Bromley Farm and there will be trails in the area. The applicant did not intend to see a delay at this point in the process but they are moving forward rapidly. The applicant would like to submit the plat no later than the beginning of next year. They are working quickly to bring this project to the community.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if anyone in the audience had questions for the applicant, there was none.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on behalf of the request, there was none.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak against the request, there was none.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if any correspondence had been received, there was none.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if there were questions from City Council.
Councilmember Baca asked what is at risk for the developer or the City if the extension is not approved by Council. Planner Tylka explained that the trail along the ditch, the neighborhood park, trails along Chambers Road and Bromley Lane and the residential types of densities including townhomes, paired homes, cottages and single-family homes are all laid out in the PUD. The PUD provides for flexibility that is not in a regular zoning district. This PUD will create a unique community. Councilmember Baca asked what would happen to the zoning on the property if the extension were not approved. Planner Tylka explained that the property would revert to straight zoning and the process would have to start over. Councilmember Baca understand that things happen, but condition two in the vested property rights state, “That no further extension of the vested property rights for the Bromley Farms PUD will be accepted or considered by the City unless and until a final plat for the property is finalized on or before December 6, 2018…”, Councilmember Baca feels that a lot of staff time has been taken for this development and it is not the responsibility of the City or staff to carry the developer. Councilmember Baca feels that Council should be told that the vested property rights are going to expire prior to it being presented at Planning Commission and requiring additional staff time. At this time, the developer is not even close to having a final plat completed. City Council was adamant at the time that they wanted to see this project move along so the wording of “no consideration given” was added to the conditions. What is the purpose of City Council if this developer can start over?
Mayor Kreutzer closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, seconded by Councilmember Mills, to approve Resolution 2018-102 approving the application for vested property rights for the Bromley Farms PUD to December 6, 2021 with conditions as set forth herein. The approximate 135.14 acre property known as the Bromley Farms Subdivision is generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bromley Lane and Chambers Road, and is further described as a parcel of land located within the northwest quarter of section 17, township 1 south, range 66 west of the 6th principal meridian, City of Brighton, County of Adams, State of Colorado. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 6 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Humbert,
Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember Wallin
No: 1 - Councilmember Baca
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
C. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO APPROVING THE SERVICE PLAN FOR PARKLAND METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-2
Mayor Kreutzer read the title of the Resolution into the record.
Mayor Kreutzer opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. and City Clerk Natalie Hoel verified the required postings and publications (August 22, 2018 in the Brighton Standard Blade) for this public hearing were completed.
City Manager Rodriguez introduced Senior Planner Mike Tylka.
Senior Planner Mike Tylka presented the request for a Service Plan and Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for two Metropolitan Districts to be known as the Parkland Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1-2. The proposed District organizer is Privateer Bromley, LLC. The City’s Special District and Bond Counsel from Butler Snow, LLP is Monica Rosenbluth and the City’s District Financial Advisors from Ehlers & Associates, Inc. is James Mann. The property is located south of Bromley Lane, east of Chambers Road, north of Indigo Trails, and to the southwest of the Historic Farm and Oasis Water Park. The District’s inclusion areas are the same as the Bromley Farms PUD.
Pursuant to Article 1, Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the City of Brighton has the authority to approve service plans for Special Districts, also known as Metro Districts that are organized within the city boundaries. The service plan submitted was drafted according to the City’s adopted Model Service Plan for Metro Districts and was in a multiple district format. The Districts, if allowed to organize, are planning elections on November 6, 2018. The City’s Model Service Plan outlined policy choices made by City Council at the time such as mill levies, caps, auditing, reporting, meeting location, and notification requirements.
The applicant desires to create two new Districts that are planned to have distinct boundaries. These Districts are envisioned to one day, together; align with the area of the Bromley Farms PUD boundaries. The plan is for one District to cover the first phase of the development and for the second District to cover the second phase of the development. To start, both Districts would only cover one small parcel. Once the development moves forward, the Districts can amend their boundaries to cover any land within the inclusionary area. Before residents move in, the Districts will alter their boundaries to correspond to those newly platted lots.
The review criteria per the Special District Act in the Colorado Revised Statutes state that service plans must include the following terms:
• Description of services
• Financial information
• Preliminary engineering or architectural survey
• Map of boundaries
• Estimated population at build-out
• General description of facilities to be constructed
• Estimated costs of land acquisition, engineering, legal and administrative costs, and costs related to the organization and initial operation of the district
• Description and form of any proposed IGAs
• Other information set by State Statutes or required by the approving jurisdiction
The applicant has done all of these and submitted them with the Service Plan. Public notice was provided and staff has not received any formal comments.
The submitted plan calls for a lot of planned residential development and will have an estimated build-out population of 1,150 people. The submitted financial plan calls for over 31 million dollars of infrastructure. The infrastructure includes finishing Bromley Lane to final build-out in front of the subdivision and the Historic Farm and Water Park, the adjacent sections of Chambers Road, the future Indian Paintbrush running through the subdivision, South 15th Avenue into the subdivision from Bromley Lane, the adjacent portion of South 19th Avenue, onsite drainage facilities, offsite drainage infrastructure, parks and open space, and sections of the City’s trail network. Other costs included in the plan are internal roadways and water and sewer systems. The Model Service Plan states that the IGA can spell out the City’s approval process for the Districts to use eminent domain; this service plan is doing that. In order for this development to move forward, major offsite infrastructure will be required. Most of the previously approved service plans were in areas that did not require major offsite infrastructure construction, or it was in land owned by the master developer, or in areas of right-of-ways where the acquisition or condemnation of offsite property was not required. The drafted IGA grants the Districts the authority to utilize the power of eminent domain without prior consent from City Council after this meeting for certain offsite infrastructure purposes according to City approvals.
Staff finds that in the area of the proposed Districts there is sufficient existing and projected need for organized services, the existing service is inadequate for presented and projected needs, the proposed Districts are capable of providing economical and sufficient service, and they have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. Staff is recommending the approval of the Resolution that grants approval of the Service Plan and associated IGA.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if the applicant would like to add anything to the presentation.
Casey Lekahal, White Bear Ankele Tanaka & Waldron, Centennial, Colorado. Mr. Lekahal explained that the proposed Service Plan is based on the Model Service Plan as approved by the City. The Districts are authorized to finance the construction of the public improvements, to operate and maintain certain improvements such as parks and open space, as authorized by the City, and to provide covenant enforcement and architectural control on behalf of the property owners and residents. The Districts revenues would consist of property taxes, specific ownership taxes, fees and charges. The total debt issuance limitation is 26 million dollars with a maximum debt mill levy of 50 mills, both in accordance with the City’s Model Service Plan. The maximum term for any debt is 40 years. The pro forma financial plan included with the service plan shows two separate debt issuances, the first debt issuance in 2018 of an approximate par amount of 14 million dollars raising approximately 10 million dollars in proceeds to pay for public improvements. The financial plan shows a second issuance in 2028 with a par amount of approximately 21 million dollars, raising approximately 8.2 million dollars in additional proceeds while refunding approximately 13.8 million dollars of the 2018 bonds. The Districts will have the ability to operate and maintain certain public improvements in accordance with City approvals and provide covenant enforcement and design review services. This could eliminate the need for a master homeowners association, which would provide a single point of contact, avoid duplicative costs, and the Districts would be run by an elected board of property owners and residents as development progresses. There is a maximum combined mill levy of 60 mills, which includes both the debt mill levy and the operation and maintenance mill levy in accordance with the City’s Model Service Plan. The financial plan contemplates 10 mills for operation and maintenance. There are a number of public improvements set forth in the IGA between the Districts and the City. if City Council approves the District Plan, a petition would be presented to the Adams County District Court to request an organizational election to be held in November. The election questions would include organization of the District, election of initial board members and TABOR authorization. The applicant would then go back to Adams County District Court for an order and decree to organize the Districts.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if anyone in the audience had questions for the applicant, there was none.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on behalf of the request, there was none.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak against the request, there was none.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if any correspondence had been received, there was none.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if there were questions from City Council.
Councilmember Johnston asked if the City is the “approving jurisdiction” as mentioned in Article 1, Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Planner Tylka stated that is correct. Councilmember Johnston asked what the City can or cannot change in the proposed plan. Monica Rosenbluth with Butler Snow explained that she worked with staff and Council a few years ago putting together the Model Service Plan and is familiar with some of the issues with previous Metro Districts. Staff and Counsel worked hard to put some controls in place in the Model Service Plan. There are certain basic requirements in Title 32 that the districts are required to comply with, the statute gives the City the power to impose additional requirements. The jurisdiction can require limited mill levies, so the revenue to the district from the debt mill levy remains constant. The Service Plan limits the length of debt that the district issues to 40 years. The debt mill levy cannot be imposed for longer than 40 years and any debt that has been issued, if not paid off in that period is deemed discharged. Counsel worked very closely to meet the City’s concerns regarding the operation of Metro Districts. The Service Plan that has been submitted complies with the City’s requirements. Councilmember Johnston asked how many years the Metro District would be in place. Ms. Rosenbluth explained that the first District plans on issuing debt soon, so that would start the 40-year clock on the first District. Once phase 2 of the development comes online, the second District would issue debt and that 40-year clock would start. There is a provision in the Service Plan requiring that once the debt is paid off, as long as the District does not own or is not providing any operation and maintenance services for infrastructure, there is an affirmative requirement in the Model Service Plan that the District dissolve. Councilmember Johnston asked how long the Metro District wants to stay alive. Ms. Rosenbluth explained that it would be no longer than it takes to pay off its debt. There has not been a development plan presented to the City because the Metro Districts can only be created at certain times of the year, presenting this plan at this time will meet the deadlines for the election in November. City Council will be involved in all of the development approvals for this project. The City may want the District to maintain some of the internal roads, so when the debt is paid off, there will be a lower mill levy for operation and maintenance. At that time, the board will be in the hands of the homeowners and they will be making decisions to tax themselves if the City allows it. Councilmember Johnston explained that it was 20 years before homeowners were on the board in east Brighton. The developer and Metro District did not inform the residents there were elections taking place. Councilmember Johnston wants assurances that this will not become a 40-year plan on November 7, 2018. People will be placed on the board because there are not any residents living in the area at this time. Councilmember Johnston asked if it is possible to keep the District from doing this until a final plat is submitted. Ms. Rosenbluth asked for clarification that the City could prevent the district from issuing debt until final plat. Councilmember Johnston asked if City Council could continue this item until a final plat is submitted. Ms. Rosenbluth explained that typically the development financing is a critical piece of the overall package. Developers want to see this along with their conventional bank loans and other sources of equity into the project; they want to be sure that there is a Metro District available to pay for some of the public infrastructure. This is why the district is being considered at this time. Councilmember Johnston explained that when it is stated that the Metro District will pay for the improvements, it means that the citizens that do not live in this area right now will end up paying for the improvements. Councilmember Johnston asked what the developer pays for to make the profit margin they do. The citizens are paying for homes, paying the developer and would repay for the infrastructure. This is something Council has to look at closer before possibly hurting the City with any Metro Districts.
Councilmember Mills asked for clarification of the language regarding eminent domain. Planner Tylka explained that the Model Service Plan is drafted so that any time the District would want to use their condemnation or eminent domain powers; they would have to come before Council for each instance, unless specified in the IGA. This District has major offsite improvements on land that is not owned by the developer or located in the City. The proponent of the Districts has chosen to specify this request in the IGA. Planner Tylka read Section 3 of the IGA into the record “Eminent Domain. The Districts shall be authorized to utilize the power of eminent domain without prior consent from the City for purposes of compliance with City approvals regarding real property interest necessary for drainage purposes. The Districts shall not be authorized to utilize the power of eminent domain without prior consent from the City except in accordance with this Paragraph 3”. Planner Tylka explained that any other use of eminent domain or condemnation outside of what was specified in the first sentence would come back to Council. Councilmember Mills asked if there is any property proposed for eminent domain at this time. Planner Tylka explained that this site would require off-site drainage facilities. Councilmember Mills asked if there is a possibility of eminent domain for the purpose of drainage. Planner Tylka explained that there would be for off-site property owners, not owned by this developer. Councilmember Mills asked what the alternate plans are if this Metro District is not created tonight. Mr. Lekahal explained that if the item is not approved tonight, it is unlikely to move forward through the election this November; this would delay the development for a calendar year. Councilmember Mills asked if there is an alternate financing structure other than a Metro District. Councilmember Mills is not against the development, but is concerned with the Metro District model. Mr. Lekahal could not speak to the entirety of the proponents proposed financing structure but the language of the Service Plan specifically does not allow the Districts to issue any debt, impose a mill levy for the payment of debt, impose and collect any fees for the purpose of payment of debt, or any special improvements prior to City approvals. If City Council does approve the Service Plan as presented, it would still have the ability through the approval process to control this prior to the issuance of any debt. The District is not able to move forward and issue debt immediately upon organization; it would have to be in accordance with City approvals like a plat. Councilmember Mills asked who would have the opportunity to vote for the Metro Districts. Mr. Lekahal agreed that there are not currently any taxpaying electors in the District other than those that have qualified through contracts to purchase taxable property. Councilmember Mills stated that there is going to be an election to represent future citizens that do not have a say at this time. Mr. Lekahal explained that it is an election by the current taxpayer elector base, but there are not currently any residents. This is a common structure because the District has to be set up by the developers to develop currently undeveloped property.
Councilmember Baca asked which property is being considered for eminent domain. Kristen Bear, White Bear Ankele Tanaka & Waldron. Ms. Bear explained that for the purpose of eminent domain, this is a unique situation. There are some offsite improvements for the development. Eminent domain is not something that is currently being contemplated by the applicant. However, the applicant does want the authorization set forth in the Service Plan in the event that negotiations for access of the property for those public improvements are not successful. The eminent domain is not set in stone; the applicant will be negotiating for access to the property. Councilmember Baca asked if the property owner has been contacted. Ms. Bear explained that the property owner has not been contacted, they cannot engage in any negotiations on behalf of the entity until the District is formally organized. Councilmember Baca stands for personal property rights and having the applicant hide behind the City to get the required storm drainage by eminent domain through an IGA is not appropriate. Councilmember Baca feels Council is on a slippery slope since the vested property rights for this property were extended on the previous item when the extension was not supposed to be considered. Now with the Metro District, the future residents would be at a disadvantage financially to pay for the infrastructure and on top of that, a private landowner will be at a disadvantage to allow eminent domain to support this project. Councilmember Baca does not feel Council should relinquish its eminent domain to any party and she will not vote for this.
Ms. Rosenbluth asked to add some history and context regarding the eminent domain discussion. When the Model Service Plan was designed, Counsel was very cognizant of the sensitivities around eminent domain, developer control of the board, and the issuance and length of debt. Staff was careful when creating the Model to ensure that these Districts would not be able to do anything without City approvals. These approvals include plat approvals, subdivision approval agreements, and development agreements. All of these have to be in place before the District can issue debt. When talking about the scope of the District’s ability to condemn property, it has to be done in accordance with City approvals. At the time to approve the plat, City Council would control the scope of the District’s eminent domain.
Councilmember Baca asked if the City is relinquishing the right to the developer to use eminent domain for the development. Ms. Rosenbluth explained that under Title 32, the District has the independent power to condemn property. Councilmember Baca asked why it is stated in the IGA that the District has independent authority to use eminent domain and why is the City being put on the hook for this. Ms. Rosenbluth explained that the City is not relinquishing the ability to condemn property; the City understands that the District might find the need independently to exercise their right of eminent domain to be sure that the drainage infrastructure is sufficient for the development. The role of the City in this process is only to dictate what the District has to do to provide adequate storm drainage for the development. Councilmember Baca asked if City Council is supporting eminent domain by this language being in the IGA. Ms. Rosenbluth explained that City Council understands that the District has the power under the Statute to condemn, that power is curtailed in the body of the Service Plan, but City Council acknowledges that there might be come cases where the District has to exercise that power, so this language is set out in the IGA. The IGA then allows the District to exercise their eminent domain power, but only that it complies with the development plans approved by the City. Jack Hoagland, Privateer Bromley LLC. Mr. Hoagland stated that everyone that are partners on this project are property rights advocates. Mr. Hoagland is not asking Council for the opportunity to take someone’s land. Mr. Hoagland is asking to work with Council, with staff and with the people of Brighton to solve a problem that is not relegated just to this property. If the site drainage problem is not solved, nothing will happen on the property. This will also affect surrounding properties. In all of the developments he has done, Mr. Hoagland has never used eminent domain. Mr. Hoagland is asking to work with the City towards a solution that will solve a regional problem. The issues are not just relegated to offsite drainage; there are a number of issues that might come up as the development moves ahead, that are held by offsite property owners. This could require possible negotiations with those property owners. The developer can work with those property owners and build relationships, but none of that can be done until this step is completed. Mr. Hoagland explained that there is no other choice if the Service Plan is not approved. Nobody would develop a property of this nature without the ability to have Title 32 District to help with development. The developer will be using tens of millions of their own dollars to get this project going. Eminent domain and condemnation do not portray what the developer is trying to do; the developer is trying to work with the City in the framework of the City’s Model Service Plan. This project will be back to Council a number of times as it moves through the process. Mr. Hoagland is asking for the opportunity to begin the process. Nobody involved wants to come down on people and their property rights. When money is at risk, it is important to have a tool that would possibly be used if all other negotiations to purchase land has failed. This will be used as a last resort to acquire any necessary land. Any developer that comes before Council is going to want this ability. If negotiations do fail, the developer will present to Council a roadmap of everything that has been done to try to work with the landowners. City council will still have the ability to say no at that time; Mr. Hoagland just wants the opportunity to start the process.
Mayor Pro Tem Edwards explained that the eastern part of Brighton would not exist today if a Service Plan were not approved by a previous City Council. It may not have been the perfect plan, but there was a lot of concern regarding growth. Through this process, the residents in eastern Brighton have suffered with access to adequate roadways and trails. City Council has made numerous corrections in order to address these issues and create a viable community. The City created the Model Service Plan and is decades ahead of where it was in the past. If City Council does not approve this Metro District, the City is telling other developers not to build in Brighton. When someone is purchasing a home, the buyer must be aware of the Metro District and his or her taxes and fees. All of the amenities in eastern Brighton have to be maintained and paid for before the City takes over maintenance in 40 years. Mayor Pro Tem Edwards is not in favor of eminent domain, but if there comes a time when a property owner will not negotiate, and the property owner is stopping the development that is in the best interests of the citizens, the District needs to have the power of eminent domain. Landowners are typically compensated justly through third party appraisers for their property. City Council has to be careful what message they are sending to the development community by modifying the Model Service Plan that Council approved.
Councilmember Humbert asked what is being told to new homebuyers regarding the cost of their homes when they are built in Districts with additional mill levies. Mr. Lekahal explained that the Service Plan does set forth a number of public disclosure requirements along with several statutory requirements, one that would be recorded against the property and would be shown in a title search. There are additional disclosures that the District is required to provide. There is also language in the Model Service Plan stating that the District leads reasonable efforts to ensure that the information pertaining to the District is provided to potential purchasers of real property as part of property disclosures.
Councilmember Johnston asked if the Metro District disclosures are presented at closing. Mr. Lekahal explained that some of the disclosures are at closing but there are also disclosures recorded against the property and provided through other means. Councilmember Johnston asked if a realtor does not tell a potential buyer about the Metro District when they see a home, the potential buyer would have to ask the question, or would be unaware of the costs. Mr. Lekahal explained that the 104.8 Notice is recorded against the property so it would come up in a title search. Mr. Hoagland explained that the acknowledgement is made at closing. This information is provided with a form that the realtor explains to the buyer three or four days in advance of the closing. These are required disclosures by law, and when the buyer looks at the closing settlement sheet, the information is shown there. The disclosures are shown before closing and at closing. Councilmember Johnston asked if the realtor is required to go over the closing settlement sheet with the buyer. Mr. Hoagland stated that if the buyer wants to, they could seek a legal opinion. Councilmember Johnston stated that the buyer is not forced to hear about these disclosures until closing. Ms. Bear explained that when someone purchases a home, the buyer enters into a purchase sale agreement. In that agreement, there are disclosures required by law, indicating that the property may be within the boundaries of a Special District, the buyer needs to be diligent relative to getting that information. Through the closing process, the buyer will get title work associated with the property prior to closing. In the title work are a number of different exceptions, one of those exceptions is an order that is recorded on the property relative to the District’s organization and that as part of the District, the buyer is subject to fees and taxes imposed by that District. This is given to the buyer prior to closing as part of the buyers due diligence in order to close on the property. At the time of closing, the buyer will receive property tax statements and all other documentation that has been discussed. Councilmember Johnston explained that most people that buy a home do not hear about this until closing. A realtor does not have to disclose this unless City Council were to require it as part of the Metro District Plan. This information is not shown to the buyer in its entirety until closing. Councilmember Johnston asked if Council does approve this tonight, how Council is not approving the idea of eminent domain for offsite drainage outfall. Councilmember Johnston asked if there were any offsite drainage, that eminent domain would not be used. Ms. Bear explained that this development is in the preliminary steps. This is a financing vehicle for the developer to move forward to purchase the property. Council is not giving up any future authorization or approval rights relative to the development itself in approval of the plat with respect to any requisite improvements as Council moves forward with any kind of agreements for required public improvements. At this time, there is not a District organized, so one of the first steps is to move forward with the development approvals assuming that there are offsite improvements, they will move forward through the District with negotiation of necessary access rights. Whether that includes purchasing a property, easements or license agreements in order to complete the offsite improvements. As Council, there are a number of steps to go through prior to any of the occurring development. Councilmember Johnston asked if it was stated that the one piece of eminent domain that the City would lose control over would be the offsite drainage outfall if the Plan were approved. Planner Tylka explained that eminent domain is a right of Districts; in the Model Service Plan, the City curtailed that right. The City wanted to know when, and if, a District would be using eminent domain. This IGA is the Council relinquishing this control for one specific purpose under the City approvals. The Plat and the Development Agreement will come back to City Council for approval. At that time, Council will know what the offsite improvements would be and to what properties. Councilmember Johnston stated that the offsite drainage improvements listed in Exhibit E are being approved for an estimated cost at this time. The Council will relinquish their right on this one aspect before it comes before Council again. Mr. Lekahal explained that specifying the outfall drainage on Exhibit E would not constitute a City approval. Council would not be approving the use just because it is listed as a cost estimate. The use of any eminent domain in the future would have to be in accordance with the future City approvals, such as a Plat. Councilmember Johnston asked why Article 1, Title 32 would require that Council be told about the estimate if it not part of the plan. Mr. Lekahal explained that it is part of the planned cost estimates. Councilmember Johnston asked if eminent domain is in the financial plan. Mr. Lekahal explained that it is, in a limited sense, and only in accordance with the future City approval. This does not grant the District the ability to move forward with eminent domain. Eminent domain would have to be in accordance with a future Plat or Development Agreement. Councilmember Johnston wants developers to be aware that the City will not be taken advantage of and the residents will be protected. Metro Districts need to occur, but not at the risk of failure for residents and the School District. When a board is being created that nobody can vote for the board and nobody can be elected inside the neighborhood, a fake governmental entity is being created. When this is done, it has to be clear the power that is being given. Councilmember Johnston would like to see this kind of information at a Study Session prior to considering the item at a Council meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Edwards addressed Councilmember Johnston’s comments regarding realtors not telling buyers about what they are entering into. Mayor Pro Tem Edwards recommends checking the reputation of the realtor a person is dealing with and make sure that one asks all pertinent questions at that time. The title company mails out documents to prospective buyers two to three weeks prior to closing; this is called a title commitment. By law, the buyer is not forced to read the information, but these documents are provided so the buyer is aware of the information prior to closing. Council has been trying to protect the citizens of Brighton with the new Model Service Agreement.
Councilmember Baca feels that the City has some responsibility. Councilmember Baca feels this item will come back to Council and it will go to eminent domain. The developer has backed the City up on the previous item that Council said they would not consider, and did approve it. This item is now before Council and there is no incentive for the developer not to use eminent domain. Council is aware of who the property owner is and Councilmember Baca is not sure there is a dollar amount that would change the mind of the property owner. The property has been in the family for generations and the owner wants to retire quietly on their property. The future property owners in this development will be paying for the offsite drainage.
Mayor Kreutzer stated that there has been some interesting and tough dialogue regarding this item. Although nobody wants to stop a good thing, there are some caution flags. Regarding Councilmember Johnston’s comments about the situation he is in with the Metro District, that Metro District was not negotiated with the City. Because that Metro District was not done well, City Council has tried to address it by putting together a Model Service Plan to do what is best for the City. The Model Service Plan ensures that a cap was placed on taxation, and there is a requirement to make sure the streets are built out. The City does not want to stop moving forward; Metro Districts are the way that development happens. If there were no Metro Districts, new homes would not be affordable to purchase. This tool has been used because of the taxation issues in the State of Colorado. Mayor Kreutzer feels that Council has done more than what is needed to rectify the situation. The notification to the buyer regarding the Metro District is an issue that needs to be dealt with in the real estate industry. This information should be given when the realtor shows the property. Mayor Kreutzer is concerned with the eminent domain situation. The developer needs to address how the drainage in the area will be handled. Council has been outspoken about the topic of eminent domain and if it is left up to the developer, this could come back on City Council. Mayor Kreutzer asked Planner Tylka to state the options that Council has regarding a decision on this item. Planner Tylka explained that City Council has the option to approve the Resolution as drafted, approve the Resolution with any changes deemed necessary by Council, deny the Resolution as drafted, or to continue the item to a later date. By changing the Resolution, the language in the IGA could be changed as well. Mayor Kreutzer asked Council to consider approving the Resolution with changes. Mayor Kreutzer cautions continuing the item to a later date. Although there are questions regarding the creation of the Metro Districts without there being anyone from the area to vote on it, if the process does not start, there will not be any development. In order for the process to move forward, the item must be ready for the ballot in November. This is not a City decision; this is the process set up in the State of Colorado. Mayor Kreutzer asked Council to consider what changes they would like to see so the process can move forward. Mayor Kreutzer recommends dropping the language regarding eminent domain and encourages the developer to look at other ways to make this work. Ms. Bear proposed that the language regarding the eminent domain be taken out of the IGA. As the applicant moves forward with the negotiations for the Development Agreement, the applicant would appreciate the ability to work with staff and come to a negotiated solution on drainage for that region.
Councilmember Johnston asked if the City could require that a realtor show potential buyers a disclosure sheet for homes inside of a Metro District. Mayor Kreutzer stated that it could be done but it may not be followed because of state guidelines. Councilmember Johnston wants a disclosure statement that would list the taxes that are going to be paid over the life of the mortgage for homes in a Special District. Councilmember Johnston wants to add this into the statutory requirement of the Metro District. Ms. Rosenbluth explained that the requirement could be put in the Model Service Plan to require the District to post a disclosure statement; there is a question of how much power the District would have over the realtor. City Attorney Jack Bajorek explained that this issue has come up in other jurisdictions and they have concluded that there is not an enforcement mechanism, especially for a second purchaser. The Model Service Plan controls the Metro District; it does not control the realtors. The City is preempted from stepping into that, it is a state regulated occupation. Additional education has been encouraged for realtors in other jurisdictions so they know how a Metro District works. Loveland has placed an additional requirement for disclosures within the service plan, but are finding that this is one more document that people do not read. The City could talk about adding something to the Model Service Plan that includes a similar breakdown so a potential purchaser has an idea of what they will be paying for the home. There is no enforcement mechanism for this requirement. Ms. Rosenbluth explained that the District is required to provide a document to explain the mill levy. There could be a requirement to post this document at the sales office. City Attorney Bajorek explained that this would not work for the sale of the home a second time. When someone is buying a home, they must go through a qualification process, taxes are included when determining if one qualifies for the mortgage. This number is based on the maximum that the District can tax.
Planner Tylka reported that the applicant team has expressed their wishes to continue the item. Ms. Bear explained that they would like to continue to a later date to give City Council and staff time to consider matters that are important to Council. The applicant team would like to speak to staff about the public improvements required for this site to find some alternatives.
Motion by Councilmember Johnston, seconded by Councilmember Mills, to continue the public hearing to October 2, 2018. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember
Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
Mayor Kreutzer asked for a break at 9:14 p.m.
Mayor Kreutzer reconvened the meeting at 9:26 p.m.
7. CONSOLIDATED ITEMS FOR SEQUENTIAL REVIEW
A. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST TO REZONE THE EXISTING NEFF PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) AND ADJACENT PARCEL ZONED ADAMS COUNTY A-3 TO THE RIDGELINE VISTA PUD, FOR THE APPROXIMATELY 69.276 ACRE PROPERTY, KNOWN AS THE RIDGELINE VISTA PUD, LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF BRIGHTON, COUNTY OF ADAMS, STATE OF COLORADO (FINAL READING)
Mayor Kreutzer read the title of the Ordinance into the record.
City Manager Rodriguez introduced Senior Planner Lauren Simmons.
Senior Planner Lauren Simmons presented the Neff II Annexation final reading, the Neff II Annexation Agreement and the Ridgeline Vista PUD final reading. The property owner is Galaxy Land Company, LLC and the applicant is Eric Eckberg with Coronado West, LLC. The property is approximately 70 acres and is located at the future intersection of North 60th Avenue and Baseline Road. The southern portion of the property is the Neff II Annexation with the remaining 60 acres being part of the existing Neff PUD. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as a mixture of high density and medium density residential.
The Annexation Agreement addresses the following items:
• The Neff II property will dedicate right-of-way along North 60th Avenue of at least 25 ft. for a collector on the west portion of the property.
• The Neff II annexor is responsible for construction of one-half of the North 60th Avenue right-of-way to a collector standard.
• Connections will be constructed to sewer and stormwater facilities.
• Raw water will be dedicated to the City to satisfy the obligation of water.
The Ridgeline Vista PUD consists of three planning areas including a medium-high residential area, a residential medium area with a majority of paired or duplex homes, and a medium-low residential area with single-family detached units. The PUD includes 8’ wide internal trails along North 60th Avenue, 10’ wide trail along Baseline Road, 6’ wide detached sidewalks throughout the project, a variety of passive and active recreation activities, a neighborhood park and several pocket parks and a variety of housing types.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if there were any comments from the audience on the second reading of the Ordinance, there were none.
Motion by Councilmember Humbert, seconded by Councilmember Johnston, to approve Ordinance 2289 approving the zone change request to rezone the existing Neff PUD and adjacent parcel zoned Adams County A-3 to the Ridgeline Vista PUD, for the approximately 69.276 acre property, known as the Ridgeline Vista PUD, located within the northwest quarter of section 1, township 1 south, range 66 west of the 6th principal meridian, City of Brighton, County of Adams, State of Colorado. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember
Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
B. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF BRIGHTON APPROXIMATELY 9.040 ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS LAND, IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 66 WEST, OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADAMS, STATE OF COLORADO; TO BE KNOWN AS THE NEFF II ANNEXATION (FINAL READING)
Mayor Kreutzer read the title of the Ordinance into the record.
Mayor Kreutzer asked if there were any comments from the audience on the second reading of the Ordinance, there were none.
Motion by Councilmember Mills, seconded by Councilmember Humbert, to approve Ordinance 2290 annexing to the City of Brighton approximately 9.040 acres of contiguous land, in the northwest ¼ of section 1, township 1 south, range 66 west, of the 6th principal meridian, County of Adams, State of Colorado; to be known as the Neff II Annexation. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember
Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
C. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT FOR THE APPROXIMATELY 9.040 ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS LAND, IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 66 WEST, OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADAMS, STATE OF COLORADO; TO BE KNOWN AS THE NEFF II ANNEXATION
Mayor Kreutzer read the title of the Resolution into the record.
Motion by Councilmember Humbert, seconded by Councilmember Johnston, to approve Resolution 2018-103 approving the Annexation Agreement for the approximately 9.040 acres of contiguous land, in the northwest ¼ of section 1, township 1 south, range 66 west, of the 6th principal meridian, County of Adams, State of Colorado; to be known as the Neff II Annexation. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember
Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
8. ORDINANCES FOR INITIAL CONSIDERATION
9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION
A. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO APPROVING THE DESIGNATION OF THE ADCO CO-OP STORE AS A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK; SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF SAID DESIGNATION; AUTHORIZING THE INCLUSION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE BRIGHTON REGISTER OF LOCALLY AND DESIGNATED HISTORIC LANDMARKS AND DISTRICTS; INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO NOTIFY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OF ITS OBLIGATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DESIGNATION; AND SETTING FORTH OTHER DETAILS RELATED THERETO
Mayor Kreutzer read the title of the Ordinance into the record.
City Manager Rodriguez explained that this is the final reading of the Ordinance and there have not been any changes since first reading.
Motion by Councilmember Wallin, seconded by Councilmember Humbert, to approve Ordinance 2291 approving the designation of the ADCO Co-Op store as a Local Historic Landmark; setting forth certain findings in support of said designation; authorizing the inclusion of the property in the Brighton Register of Locally and Designated Historic Landmarks and Districts; instructing the City Manager or his designee to notify the owner of the property of its obligations and restrictions associated with the designation; and setting forth other details related thereto. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember
Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
10. RESOLUTIONS
A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($12,000.00) TO ASSIST IN THE BASE PURCHASE, INSTALLATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A SOFTWARE PROGRAM KNOWN AS SMARTFORCE, UPDATING THE CURRENT PAPER REPORTING SYSTEM USED BY THE BRIGHTON POLICE DEPARTMENT TO A WEB-BASED PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE GRANT AGREEMENT AND TO EXECUTE SUCH OTHER DOCUMENTS AND UNDERTAKE SUCH OTHER ACTIONS AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE GRANT; AND SETTING FORTH OTHER DETAILS RELATED THERETO
Mayor Kreutzer read the title of the Resolution into the record.
City Manager Rodriguez introduced Chief of Police Paul Southard.
Chief of Police Paul Southard presented the Resolution to accept a grant from the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Program to make upgrades to the Police Department software for the responses to resistance reporting processes. The 2017 award was $12,000.00 for the purchase of software capable of tracking Response to Resistance incidents where officers have to use force to make an arrest. If an officer has to point a gun at someone, has to use a restraint chair, or has to wrestle with someone, the officer is required to report the incident as a use of force. Currently this information is placed on a paper form and filed. This system relies heavily on memory and makes it difficult to have an early warning system for pattern use of force by an officer. The new system will show red flags if there are several issues for an officer. Staff recommends accepting the grant funds to purchase suitable reporting software. Chief Southard answered questions from Council regarding:
• This software being able to help warn of issues in the past.
• The cost to the City.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, seconded by Mayor Kreutzer, to approve Resolution 2018-104 approving acceptance of a Department of Justice Federal Grant in the amount of $12,000.00 to assist in the base purchase, installation, and implementation of a software program known as Smartforce, updating the current paper reporting system used by the Brighton Police Department to a web-based program; authorizing the City Manager to execute the Grant Agreement and to execute such other documents and undertake such other actions as may be required to implement the Grant; and setting forth other details related thereto. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember
Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
B. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, APPROVING A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (“PSA”) BETWEEN THE CITY AND SW RINGSBY EAST LLC AND SW PEORIA LLC (“SELLER”), FOR THE PURCHASE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN BRIGHTON, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PSA, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEES TO CARRY OUT AND CLOSE THE TRANSACTION FOR THE CITY
Mayor Kreutzer read the title of the Resolution into the record.
City Manager Rodriguez explained that the City has been looking at this property for a number of years. The property is 15.54 acres and is located near the intersection of North Main Street and Denver Street, north and east of the Tractor Supply store. The property was zoned through a PUD process in 2013 to provide for many uses. In 1964, the City entered into an agreement with The Great Western Sugar Company that when the time came, Great Western or the property owner at the time would ask the City to move a significant sewer line that runs diagonally through the property. The City has been trying to negotiate and provide clarity to this agreement for some time. The owner of the property sought a court opinion of the 1964 agreement. The court did confirm that the City is required to uphold the 1964 agreement. The current owner presented the City with a demand that the sewer line be moved at the City’s cost. Staff did an assessment of the cost to move the sewer line through different scenarios and found a cost of approximately 2.5 million dollars to 3.8 million dollars. One way to resolve this issue is for the City to purchase the land for 1.6 million dollars. The Purchase and Sale Agreement is being presented to determine if this is the desire of City Council. Staff feels this is a matter of economics to purchase the land since it is the least expensive option. If City Council approves the agreement, this puts the City into a contract situation with the owners and an official appraisal would be done on the property. The appraisal would have to support the 1.6 million dollar purchase price for the property. There is a contingency in the agreement that the cost of 1.6 million dollars would have to be supportable. A supplemental budget appropriation would have to be done to complete the purchase of the property. Because the issue on the property is the sewer line, the funds would come from the Wastewater Fund. City Manager Rodriguez answered questions from Council regarding:
• The ability to sell the land without the need to move the sewer line and return the funds to the Wastewater Fund.
• The need for a price for purchase on the Resolution.
Motion by Councilmember Johnston, seconded by Councilmember Humbert, to approve Resolution 2018-105 approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and SW Ringsby East LLC and SW Peoria LLC (“seller”), for the purchase of certain real property located in Brighton, authorizing the City Manager to execute the PSA, and authorizing and directing the City Manager or his designees to carry out and close the transaction for the City. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember
Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
11. UTILITIES BUSINESS ITEMS
Ordinances
A. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, GRANTING A PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT TO THE METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT ON 0.239 ACRES OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF KUNER ROAD AND NORTH OF THE CITY’S WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT THEREOF (FINAL READING)
Mayor Kreutzer read the title of the Ordinance into the record.
City Manager Rodriguez explained that the SPI Interconnect Easement transfer goes back to a 2009 IGA with Metro Wastewater stating that the City would provide for an easement interceptor line. The project will connect the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant to Metro’s Northern Treatment Plant. The project was originally bid and approved by City Council in 2016 but the project was knocked off the list. It is important to transfer the easement now to Metro so they become the owners and take responsibility for the maintenance. Staff recommends approval of the Easement to allow the City to provide flows from the Wastewater Treatment Plant to Metro’s Northern Treatment Plant. City Manager Rodriguez answered questions from Council regarding:
• The future of the Wastewater Treatment Plant if the flows are going to the Metro Plant.
• The need to keep the City’s Wastewater Plant for existing taps.
• The City expanding its infrastructure for wastewater.
Motion by Councilmember Wallin, seconded by Councilmember Baca, to approve the Ordinance granting a Permanent Utility Easement to the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District on 0.239 acres of City owned property located west of Kuner Road and north of the City’s Waste Water Treatment Plant, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Easement Agreement thereof. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca,
Councilmember Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
Resolutions
B. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS WATER ACTIVITY ENTERPRISE, ACCEPTING THE BID OF SITE WORK SOLUTIONS AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE 50 NORTH MAIN FLOODING MITIGATION AND CHASE DRAIN REPLACEMENT TO SITE WORK SOLUTIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED ONE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT DOLLARS AND EIGHTY-ONE CENTS ($145,138.81) AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THERETO
Mayor Kreutzer read the title of the Resolution into the record.
City Manager Rodriguez explained that the 50 North Main Flooding Mitigation and Chase Drain Repair project came from concerns regarding safety and flooding issues in the downtown area. As the oldest part of the City, it was not designed for all of the roadways and rooftops that were built in the downtown Brighton area. There are drains downtown that need to be removed and new elements installed. Without these drains, there are not any other off-site drains for the buildings in the area. It is difficult to maintain the drains downtown and they are a collector for trash and debris. The low bid came from Site Work Solutions for $145,138.81 for the work. The bid was designed so the trench drains and the chase drains could be done separately if necessary. Staff does recommend approval to complete the work on both the chase drains and the trench drains at this time. Executive Director of BURA and Utility Engineer Roy Gallea answered questions from Council regarding:
• A drain in need of repair near the new parklet.
• The timeline for completion of the project.
Motion by Councilmember Mills, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, to approve Resolution 2018-106 acting by and through its Water Activity Enterprise, accepting the bid of Site Work Solutions and awarding the Contract for the 50 North Main Flooding Mitigation and Chase Drain Replacement to Site Work Solutions in an amount not to exceed $145,138.81 and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Contract on behalf of the City and the City Clerk to attest thereto. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca,
Councilmember Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
C. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS WATER ACTIVITY ENTERPRISE, AUTHORIZING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A VEHICLE STORAGE GARAGE WITH BLUESCOPE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE TOTAL OF FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE THOUSAND, DOLLARS ($473,000.00); APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FROM THE WATER ENTERPRISE FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($373,000.00); AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THERETO
Mayor Kreutzer read the title of the Resolution into the record.
City Manager Rodriguez presented the purchase of a truck storage facility for the Wastewater Department. This project will put a garage in place to house the vacuum trucks. These vehicles clean out the sewer system when necessary. The trucks are very expensive and they are currently not being stored in a facility out of the elements to ensure their safety. The trucks are similar in cost and complexity to fire trucks. The trucks should be stored at the Wastewater Facility because they have odor issues and should be kept separate from the other City vehicles. The vehicles are currently being stored at the Water Facility where there is not enough storage space. The prefabricated building will be installed onsite at the Wastewater Facility along with the necessary plumbing, electrical, HVAC and lighting. Adding this building will free space at the Water Facility and ensure that the vacuum trucks are stored in a heated building so they remain operable in extreme weather. The bid includes the design, build, architecture, engineering, construction and construction oversight. The National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) was used to find an acceptable solution that has already been vetted. Staff recommends awarding the contract to BlueScope Construction, Inc. for $429,727.00 with a 10% contingency for a total proposed contract amount of $473,000.00. Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager Kim Schoen answered questions from Council regarding:
• The building construction of metal or concrete.
• The building having a concrete floor.
• The building having a specific ventilation system for these types of vehicles.
• The ventilation and odor being an issue when being stored with other vehicles.
Motion by Councilmember Humbert, seconded by Councilmember Baca, to approve Resolution 2018-107 acting by and through its Water Activity Enterprise, authorizing the design and construction of a Vehicle Storage Garage with Bluescope Construction for the total of $473,000.00; approving a supplemental appropriation from the Water Enterprise Fund in the amount of $373,000.00; and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Contract on behalf of the City and the City Clerk to attest thereto. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca,
Councilmember Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
D. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS WATER ACTIVITY ENTERPRISE, AUTHORIZING THE REHABILITATION AND PROTECTIVE LINING OF A PORTION OF THE CITY’S SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES BY CONCRETE CONSERVATION INC. FOR THE TOTAL OF TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000.00); AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THERETO
Mayor Kreutzer read the title of the Resolution into the record.
City Manager Rodriguez explained that the Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation Project would complete needed maintenance for the system. The sanitary sewer manholes are one of the most critical pieces of the collection system. This is where change in direction happens and where maintenance in the lines can be performed. These are typically built of concrete today but there are older manholes in the system that were built from brick and mortar or clay tile. Over time, these do deteriorate and corrode. This project will rehabilitate 91 manholes in the City’s system. All of the infrastructure pieces in the City are graded or rated, so these 91 manholes are most in need of restoration. The process will bring the manholes back to an almost new condition. This is a difficult process and requires a lot of time and energy to ensure the safety of the workers completing the rehabilitation. This process will extend the life of the existing infrastructure, prevent corrosion, and restore wall surfaces. An added benefit is that there is a 10-year warranty for the work. The City tagged onto a City of Broomfield bid by using an IGA process to ensure this was a vetted public process. The cost for the project is $200,000.00 and the funds were approved in the 2018 budget. Staff recommends approval of the contract with Concrete Conservation, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager Kim Schoen answered questions from Council regarding:
• The number of manholes remaining after the 91 manholes are completed.
Motion by Councilmember Wallin, seconded by Councilmember Baca, to approve Resolution 2018-108 acting by and through its Water Activity Enterprise, authorizing the Rehabilitation and Protective Lining of a portion of the City’s sanitary sewer manholes by Concrete Conservation Inc. for the total of $200,000.00; and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Contract on behalf of the City and the City Clerk to attest thereto. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca,
Councilmember Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
12. GENERAL BUSINESS
13. REPORTS
A. By the Mayor
Mayor Kreutzer attended the Trash Bash event, Homecoming Week in Brighton, the German Culture Day at the Adams County Museum, the CML Mayors Summit, and the ribbon cutting at the Brighton High School Health Center. Mayor Kreutzer thanked staff for their hard work with the Trash Bash and Homecoming events.
B. By Department Heads
C. By the City Attorney
D. By the City Manager
14. REPORTS BY COUNCIL ON BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Mayor Pro Tem Edwards attended the EVAC Car Show and announced that EVAC is hosting Medicare information meetings.
Councilmember Wallin announced that the Eye for Art Reception and pARTy Bus is this Friday and the Youth Commission will hold their retreat this weekend.
Councilmember Mills attended the Brighton High School ribbon cutting of the Health Center and the Chamber First Friday event.
Councilmember Baca attended the ADCOG Forum and the Fire Department Citizens for Safer Brighton meeting.
Councilmember Humbert attended the Housing Authority meeting and announced that the Historic Preservation Commission needs members.
Councilmember Johnston will attend the Lochbuie Sewer Board meeting this week.
15. EXECUTIVE SESSION
16. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Councilmember Baca, seconded by Councilmember Johnston, to adjourn at 10:43 p.m. Motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Mayor Kreutzer, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, Councilmember Baca, Councilmember
Humbert, Councilmember Johnston, Councilmember Mills, and Councilmember
Wallin
Absent: 2 - Councilmember Blackhurst, and Councilmember Pollack
CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO
_____________________________
Kenneth J. Kreutzer, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Natalie Hoel, City Clerk
______________________________
Approval Date