city of thornton city manager’s office council ......2016 federal legislative priorities february...
TRANSCRIPT
CITY OF THORNTON CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
COUNCIL UPDATE December 20, 2016
5:45 p.m. Training Room
I. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Discussion with Congressman Coffman (Estimated 30 minutes)
B. Update Regarding the Thornton Water Project Open Houses (Estimated 15 minutes)
II. COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEMS
A. Discussion Regarding an Intergovernmental Agreement with Westminster and Northglenn for Water Quality (Estimated 5 minutes)
III. COUNCIL INFORMATION SHARING
A. Boards and Committees Reports (Estimated 5 minutes)
1. Metro Mayors Caucus Legislative Reception (12/14) Update by Mayor Williams
2. NATA Meeting (12/15) Update by Mayor Pro Tem Montoya 3. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Meeting (12/15) Update
by Mayor Williams
B. Other (Estimated 5 minutes) 1. Recommendation from Businesses of Thornton Advisory
Commission (BTAC) to Fill a Vacant Position
A
EXHIBIT A CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO
2016 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES February 9, 2016
Water Quality – 2016
Cit
y o
f T
ho
rnto
n, C
olo
rad
o --
Wat
er Q
ual
ity
Background The City currently draws the majority of the water to serve its 138,000 drinking water customers from
the South Platte River, which is impacted by upstream discharges from wastewater treatment plants and storm discharges.
Though the City meets all Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) requirements, we have significant concerns about our ability to meet them in the future due to: continuing degradation of the South Platte River from projected increases in wastewater effluent
discharges from upstream wastewater treatment plants; reduced dilution of water in the river because of increased upstream withdrawals of clean water; increased storm sewer discharges due to expanding populations and development; and additional regulation under the SDWA.
As a result, Thornton has been, and will continue to be, forced to make substantial high-cost improvements to its treatment systems to meet the primary and secondary SDWA requirements and address public health and safety concerns associated with these upstream discharges.
These investments are currently made in isolation from other jurisdictions or wastewater treatment plants because there’s currently no active forum or structure to regionally coordinate the management and regulation of the waterways as a system. Consequently, each community in the State is faced with enormous costs of individually providing for compliance with the SDWA and/or the Clean Water Act (“CWA”).
Over the last several years, the City had been pursuing an appropriations request to provide funding to the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) for the Western Rivers Water Quality Study which is intended to be a state-wide water quality study to evaluate streams impacted by wastewater effluent, such as the South Platte River. The study would be designed to: assess the current regulatory system controlling wastewater discharges to the South Platte and other
rivers; develop recommendations for changes to the regulatory system to protect the public health and
safety of those that use its water for drinking water, recreation or other uses; and help to determine the appropriate allocation of costs to ensure that the burden of providing for public
safety is distributed between polluters and users. The EPA requested we work through local entities to develop the study outline and in January 2013, the
Colorado Water Quality Forum Nexus Work Group was established. This group took up this task and just recently completed a draft Nexus Scope of Work Concept and cost estimate ($75K). While there is interest in pursuing next steps, numerous competing interests of the Group members including other water quality forums and concerns regarding the difficulty in achieving changes to the SDWA and CWA, have created a new challenge to moving the study forward.
Thornton is continuing to work with the members to move the Scope of Work Concept forward to a funded study.
Federal Request Provide funding for the “Western Urban Rivers Water Quality Study”, based on the Scope of Work
Concept developed by the CWA/SDWA Nexus Workgroup. Request the Congressional delegation ask the General Accounting Office (“GAO”) to conduct a study of
the status of the coordination of CWA/SDWA as it pertains to effluent-dominated streams. Continue outreach to the EPA to support, as appropriate, the Water Quality Forum Work Group effort,
including requests for information or guidance from EPA with regard to CWA and SDWA regulatory regimes.
C
ity
of
Th
orn
ton
– W
ater
Qu
alit
y R
ock
y F
lats
Sit
e
Background – Rocky Flats Site The Rocky Flats Site was cleaned up and closed in 2006 and the Department of Energy took over
responsibility for its long-term care. There are currently five dams that remain on the Rocky Flats site that were previously operated to help
manage surface water runoff during the period when nuclear weapons components were being manufactured.
Pursuant to a 2010 Environmental Assessment and a 2011 Adaptive Management Plan, some of these dams have been breached and others are being operated in a flow-through condition.
Thornton owns water rights on Big Dry Creek that are used to irrigate the City’s golf course. Any contaminated water released off Rocky Flats property into Walnut Creek would flow into Big Dry
Creek and potentially carry contamination to the City’s golf course and further down Big Dry Creek as it runs through Thornton’s northern growth area.
The City doesn’t believe that sufficient time has passed since regulatory closure in 2006 to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation that has been put in place on the Rocky Flats site. Although breaching of the dams has been delayed to the 2018-2020 timeframe, they are being operated in a flow-through condition which means surface water that was previously impounded by the dams is now moving freely past them. Prior to the storm event in 2013, there was little rainfall and virtually no flows to measure at the sampling points. 2015 saw another round of significant rainfall in the summer period that would reinforce concerns about stormwater runoff from the Rocky Flats Site. In addition, hits for Uranium in the Walnut Creek Drainage and Trichloroethylene in a monitoring well in the Woman Creek Drainage well above the applicable standards would indicate that the site may need continued cleanup activities at DOE expense.
The original points of compliance at Walnut Creek and Woman Creek at Indiana Street ceased being the compliance points as of the end of 2013.
As a member of Rocky Flats Stewardship Council and Woman Creek Reservoir Authority, we support the concerns of the partner communities that are adjacent to the Rocky Flats site.
Federal Request Continued support from the Congressional delegation on monitoring and addressing water quality issues
that arise at the site. The potential harm to the public from exposure to/ingestion of plutonium and americium pollutants doesn’t go away just because the plant is closed. That is why the protections need to remain in place. The DOE has an obligation to ensure that the Rocky Flats Site doesn’t adversely impact the local communities in the future and must continue to be held responsible and accountable for the site.
Water Quality Rocky Flats Site – 2016
Stormwater Regulations – 2016
Cit
y o
f T
ho
rnto
n, C
olo
rad
o –
Sto
rmw
ater
Reg
ula
tion
s
Background EPA Proposed National Stormwater Rule: In early 2014, the EPA indicated that the agency was going to refocus resources in light of continuous
delays in proposing the national stormwater rule that would have, among other items, expanded the area subject to federal stormwater regulations focusing on integrating urbanizing areas located beyond the limits of currently regulated areas into existing Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) programs.
In lieu of the national rule, however, the EPA said it planned to improve stormwater management and encourage infiltration practices through existing Clean Water Act authorities, such as MS4 permits and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs).
One of the concerns that has been expressed is that there are discrepancies that exist between the EPA’s focus on numeric, measurable targets for stormwater and the Clean Water Act’s call for reducing pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.
At the beginning of 2014, the EPA announced a new program vision for Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that focuses on improving how states establish and prioritize impaired waters and is supposed to provide states with more flexibility and allow them to tailor their program to meet specific needs and goals.
Waters of the United States (WOTUS) proposed EPA rule: In November 2014, the comment period closed on the EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers’ (US
Corp) proposed WOTUS rule which sought to clarify whether various waters and wetlands are subject to their jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
Prior to closing of the comment period, the City submitted comments on the proposed rule expressing concern that the proposed rule could be interpreted to classify the City’s reservoirs located along the South Platte River as “jurisdictional” and thus under the purview of the EPA and US Corp.
The revised rule was published in June of 2015 but it does not specifically exclude these types of reservoirs which are part of a pre-treatment process and used in a municipal water supply system.
Colorado joined twelve other Western states in a District Court lawsuit to vacate the EPA WOTUS rules in 2015 to which the District Court concurred.
In October 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, issued a nationwide stay against the enforcement of the regulation pending resolution of the challenges in various district courts.
Federal Request Support exemption of municipal water reservoirs from WOTUS regulations. Work with the EPA and CDPHE to ensure EPA’s new program vision for TMDLs provides flexibility and is
tailored to Colorado specific needs.
Transit and Transportation – 2016 C
ity
of
Th
orn
ton
, Co
lora
do
--
Tra
nsi
t an
d T
ran
spor
tati
on
Background Transit: In December 2013, RTD signed the contract with Regional Rail Partners to construct the first phase
of the North Metro Rail Line from Denver Union Station to the 124th Station. Coordination and design began in 2014 and construction commenced in 2015 with completion slated for January 2018.
RTD indicated that the contract includes a provision that allows RTD to exercise an option to construct the remainder of the line, Phase 2, to the end-of-line station at 162nd Avenue in Thornton that was extended from 2015 to 2016. That option must be exercised by December 21, 2016. To date, RTD has not indicated whether this provision will be exercised.
The Record of Decision for the proposed North Metro Corridor project was rescinded by the Federal Transit Administration effective the notification in the Federal Register dated October 31, 2014.
Interstate 25: I-25 is the major north/south corridor in Colorado and is the only designated freight corridor in
Colorado. Studies have been completed for the I-25 Corridor from Denver Union Station to Fort Collins
including the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement and the I-25 Planning, Environmental, and Linkage (PEL) Study that identify significant improvements that are needed now and in the future.
The North I-25 Coalition, which includes the City, has requested the North I-25 Corridor Project (Denver to Fort Collins) be included in the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill.
Interim improvements to add managed lanes from Denver Union Station to 120th Avenue are almost complete and the next section from 120th Avenue to E-470 is being bid; however the next phase to extend the lanes to State Highway 7 and improving the interchange at State Highway 7 requires additional funding.
Transportation: FAST, the transportation funding legislation became law on December 4, 2015 (Public Law No: 114-
94) providing $305 billion in authority over five years instead of six, which has been the norm. USDOT is starting to write the regulations to implement the FAST Act. FAST is funded primarily out of the Highway Trust Fund which receives its revenues primarily from
federal fuel – which rates haven’t changed since 1993 -- and other taxes on transportation-related items. FAST is also funded by transfers out of the General Fund ($70 billion) which is significantly higher than previous funding programs.
While the appropriations funding coming from the Highway Trust Fund are fairly predictable, appropriations from the general fund are less certain and thus funding problems could occur in the future.
The overall increase in funding for Colorado totals about $250 million over the five-year life of the Act and there are other features that could benefit the state such as for highway freight improvement projects (I-25).
Federal Request Support fully funded FAST appropriations, and find a long-term funding mechanism that puts funding
for transit and transportation on sound footing and allows Colorado to compete with fund requests from the east and west coasts.
Support funding and financing to build the North I-25 Corridor Project which would include a new multi-modal interchange at I-25 and SH 7 and general purpose lanes between US 36 and Thornton Parkway, and managed lanes from E-470 to Highway 7 and improvements north to Fort Collins.
Support regulations that enable Colorado to compete for funds and financing for transportation projects and do not create a burden on state and local governments.
C
ity
of
Th
orn
ton
, C
olor
ado
– C
om
mu
nit
y D
evel
opm
ent
and
Hou
sin
g
Background Redevelopment and Revitalization: City Council is committed to redevelopment and revitalization in original Thornton, specifically the
residential and commercial neighborhoods along Washington Street and Huron generally south of 104th Avenue.
The South Thornton Revitalization Subarea Plan (“STaR Plan”) was developed in 2011 and establishes the long-term goals and strategies to revitalize both residential and commercial neighborhoods in original south Thornton, east and west of I-25.
Thornton created a new South Thornton Urban Renewal Project Area in late 2012 as one of the steps toward developing a funding mechanism to implement the goals identified in the StaR Plan.
In collaboration with HealthOne-North Suburban Medical Center, a “Thornton Health Care District” is in the process of being established within the South Thornton Renewal Project Area with the intention of attracting considerable private investment through the development of additional medical and professional office facilities and supporting residential development.
Affordable and Senior Housing: Like many communities, Thornton is lacking in housing units for those earning $35,000 a year or less. As the population ages, the City is also aware of the desire of residents to see more affordable senior
housing options provided. Thornton is currently working to partner with the Adams County Housing Authority and local
nonprofits to address affordable and senior housing issues throughout the City. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): Thornton became an entitlement city on March 1, 2010. The City received $320,788 in CDBG funds
in 2015 and anticipates it will receive a similar amount in 2016. The City has received eligible requests for the 2016 CDBG funds of over $1 million; the proposed projects include the development of affordable housing, rehabilitation to existing multi-family and single family housing, infrastructure improvements and emergency assistance for victims of domestic violence.
Federal Request Assist the City in identifying federal funding opportunities to provide resources for blight remediation,
environmental clean-up, and to redevelop and revitalize developmentally challenged areas such as original Thornton to create jobs, new businesses and housing.
Support funding for the CDBG program and encourage funding for 2017 Fiscal Year stay the same or increase. Urge funding for other programs such as the Choice Neighborhood programs not be taken from the CDBG program.
Support funding programs such as the Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) program and the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) program that have been used successfully in Thornton’s current affordable housing projects. HOME funds can be used to build, buy, and/or rehabilitate affordable housing for rent or homeownership or provide direct rental assistance to low-income people. SHOP funds provide funds for non-profit organizations to purchase home sites for low-income persons and families. Local nonprofits have received these funds to provide low-income families with homes in Thornton.
Support funding programs that provide more funding for low-income housing, such as the Housing Trust Fund, and programs that encourage homeowners, builders and developers to provide energy efficient improvements to housing.
Oppose federal legislation that would limit the City’s ability to utilize important redevelopment and revitalization tools such as eminent domain.
Community Development and Housing –2016
Local Sales Tax on Internet Sales – 2016
Cit
y o
f T
ho
rnto
n, C
olo
rad
o --
In
tern
et S
ales
Tax
Background – State and Local sales and use taxes on internet purchases The primary revenue sources for municipalities are local sales and use taxes. In Colorado, home rule
municipalities such as the City of Thornton (and all but a handful of cities) set local tax rates and collect their own taxes as well as determine their own tax bases.
Sales and use taxes are the primary revenue source that funds public services and improvements and keep municipal property taxes relatively low.
Currently, for most purchases that are made on the internet, the local sales and use tax is not collected; yet if that same purchase were made locally, the local sales and use tax would be collected. This is an issue of fairness. Comparable businesses that sell the same things are not being treated the same.
The Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 prohibited new taxes on Internet access fees but did NOT prohibit states from imposing taxes on transactions conducted over the Internet. If the out-of-state retailer doesn’t have a physical location or physical representative in the state, the state cannot require the retailer to collect their sales tax. If the retailer does not collect the sales tax, the purchaser has the obligation to pay.
The State of Colorado recently signed an agreement with Amazon who will begin collecting state sales taxes on purchases starting February 1, 2016. The City of Thornton recently did the same thing and Amazon will begin collecting City sales tax for deliveries into the City beginning April 1, 2016.
National Proposals: Several national proposals to address the issue of sales and use taxes on internet purchases would
require a state administered uniform base in order to receive internet sales and use taxes. In 2013, Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) introduced the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 (S.743/H.R. 684)
which passed the Senate but not the House in 2013. In March 2015, Senator Enzi introduced the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2015 (S.698) which was
similar to his 2013 bill. In July of 2015, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced the Remote Transactions Parity Act
“RTPA” (H.R. 2775) which would establish an interstate system for the collection of internet sales taxes similar to the Marketplace Fairness Act, but this bill has not yet received a hearing or mark-up in the House or Senate. The Marketplace Fairness Act/RTPA would have authorized a state to collect local sales tax on internet sales with the adoption of certain simplification requirements.
State Proposal: The Colorado Legislature passed HB 13-1295 entitled “Concerning the implementation of the
minimum simplification requirements of the proposed Federal ‘Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013’ in order for the State to be authorized by the Federal Government to require remote sellers to collect sales tax on taxable sales made within the State”. The State legislation goes into effect either upon the effective date of the law, July 1, 2014, or the effective date of the “Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013”, whichever is later.
Federal Request Support passage of a Marketplace Fairness Act or Remote Transactions Parity Act. The Marketplace
Fairness Act of 2015 (S.698) and the Remote Transactions Parity Act of 2015 (H.R. 2775) would allow states to collect local sales tax on internet sales within local jurisdictions. This would level the playing field for our local retailers that are maintaining a brick-and-mortar store and trying to compete effectively with nationwide internet retailers.
Local Sales Tax on Internet Access – 2016
Cit
y o
f T
ho
rnto
n, C
olo
rad
o --
In
tern
et A
cces
s T
ax
Background – State and Local sales and use taxes on internet access The Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 (extended eight times since enactment) bars federal, state and
local governments from taxing Internet access and from imposing discriminatory internet-only taxes. This “moratorium” included a related grandfathering provision, with a separate sunset date, that
stated the moratorium does not apply to a tax on internet access that was generally imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1, 1998 if certain requirements were met.
Thornton is one of the entities included in the grandfathering provision and is allowed to tax internet access charges because it was charging sales tax on internet access prior to October 1, 1998.
This internet access tax provides approximately $3 million in annual sales tax revenues to the General Fund which funds general governmental services.
Both the moratorium on taxing internet access and the grandfathering provision are set to expire October 1, 2016.
If the grandfathering provision was removed, it would be important to have the ability to collect tax on internet sales (see Marketplace Fairness Act) as this may be able to offset the loss of this important revenue stream.
In January 2015, Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (H.R.235) which would make permanent the current provision that keeps in place the moratorium on internet access tax and would also sunset the grandfathering provision. The result of this bill would be that Thornton could no longer collect tax on internet access. H.R.235 passed the House in June 2015, but did not receive Committee action (neither did the
Senate companion bill S.431). However, the language of the bills did resurface in a conference report to the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (H.R. 644) that would have made the prohibition on internet access taxation permanent but would delayed the phase out of the grandfathering provisions from October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2020. This bill passed the House and the Senate and went to Conference committee in December 2015 and is awaiting Senate action. Supporters of the Marketplace Fairness Act are opposed to the extension of the phase out.
The ability to tax internet access has been a hot topic with the argument being that it makes the internet more expensive. It is also tied up in the discussion regarding “net neutrality” and the concern that if the Federal Communications Commission reclassifies broadband service as a regulated public utility, this could lead to a range of new taxes.
Federal Request Support continuation of the grandfather provision to allow Thornton to continue to tax internet
access. The current legislation is scheduled to terminate on October 1, 2016. Oppose legislation, such as the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act 2015 (H.R. 235), that would
permanently exempt internet access from taxation, unless it clearly includes the grandfather provision. If all Congress does is strike the current moratorium end date of October 1, 2016 and does not address the grandfathering sunset date as well, the result would be a permanent ban on tax on internet access with no grandfathering provision to allow Thornton to continue to tax internet access.
Municipal Bond Interest – 2016
Cit
y o
f T
ho
rnto
n –
Mu
nic
ipal
B
ond
In
tere
st
Background – Municipal Bond Interest Exemption The City utilizes municipal bonds to finance large capital investments in streets, water and sanitation
systems, public facilities, parks, open space, and other amenities that are provided to citizens. The interest on municipal bonds is exempt from federal tax and allows the interest rate to be lower than
if it were taxable, thus making the entire cost of issuing bonds to pay for capital investments much lower. There are proposals in Congress to make all or a portion of municipal bond interest subject to taxation. Over the next decade, the City expects to access the municipal bond market on several occasions to
finance major capital investments. If the City is required to issue bonds on a taxable basis, this could raise the interest cost by 50% and the
total repayment cost by 25%. The choices to address this impact are few: a) reduce the cost and scope of the projects; b) find
additional resources to pay the higher costs – which would come from reducing service levels or additional fees; or c) some combination of both.
Federal Request Do not support legislation that eliminates or limits the federal income tax exemption for state and
municipal bonds.
Promote Economic Growth – 2016
Cit
y o
f T
ho
rnto
n –
Pro
mot
e E
con
omic
G
row
th
Background – Promote Economic Growth Promoting economic growth in the City is a high priority and important to the City’s long-term
sustainability and quality of life. The United States has entered into trade agreements for the past 25 years that have sometimes had
negative consequences in manufacturing employment and other areas that impact local communities. The Trans-Pacific Partnership includes provisions that the City believes could be harmful to our city and
constituents. The Congress has approved the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act law which provides “fast track”
authority for the consideration of trade agreements by Congress. The law provides that once the President sends notice of his intention to sign an agreement and sends up implementation legislation to Congress, the Congress has 90 days to act on the measure to either approve or disapprove, but no amendments can be made.
The President has sent notice of his intention to sign an agreement but has not yet sent implementation language to the Congress.
The City Council has sent a letter to the Colorado delegation calling upon them to support new trade agreements such as the TPP only if the agreements include certain provisions.
Federal Request Do not support trade agreements that weaken the protections for workplaces, job creation and
economic growth in the U.S.
Public Safety – 2016 C
ity
of
Th
orn
ton
– P
ub
lic
Safe
ty Background – Public Safety
Department of Justice Grant programs: City has applied for and received Bureau of Justice Assistance Grants annually since 2005. City has applied for Department of Justice COPS grants numerous times over the past 10 years but
has received only one three-year award in 2011 for one officer. City has applied for and received a Paul Coverdale Forensic Science Improvement Grant in 2010 but
was unsuccessful in 2012. The Link is a 501C3 nonprofit entity that provides key child evaluation services for Thornton, Adams
County and other communities. Because it is a nonprofit, it is not eligible to receive a JAG grant. Similarly, the Child Advocacy Center, operated by Ralston House, is a nonprofit that provides safe environments to conduct interviews and evaluations of crimes against children.
Federal Request Continue to fund DOJ grant programs and consider expansion of the COPS grants to assist mid-sized
communities such as Thornton. Encourage the DOJ to consider establishing a grant program to assist entities such as The Link and the
Child Advocacy Center which are key services to local law enforcement agencies.
Airport Noise related to Implementation of “NextGen” – 2016
Cit
y o
f T
ho
rnto
n, C
olo
rad
o --
Air
por
t N
ois
e (D
IA)
Background – Next Generation (“NextGen”) procedures and technology Several years ago, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) initiated a nation-wide program to usher
in the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or “NextGen”, to modernize the National Airspace System (“NAS”) through 2025. The current system, which was developed six decades ago, relied on planes flying indirect routes over radar towers. NextGen will use satellite-based navigation to allow aircraft to fly more direct routes and navigate around inclement weather with the intent to increase airspace capacity and reduce delays.
To achieve these goals in the Denver Complex Airspace (DIA, Centennial Airport, Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport/Jefferson County), the FAA proposed to implement a new Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP)-based air traffic routes and instrument procedures that enable the use of Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) in the National Airspace System, including Optimized Profile Descents (OPD).
In 2011, the FAA initiated an environmental review of the impacts of the “no action” alternative as well as four alternatives that proposed implementation of the new systems. The four alternatives assumed a common strategy for DIA but differed based on strategies at Centennial Airport and/or Rocky Mountain Airport. The Preferred Alternative that was selected resulted in fewer persons exposed to noise levels between 50 and 60 DNL (day-night average sound) and the fewest number of persons added to the number of persons exposed to noise levels above 60 DNL. The Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) was signed on August 29, 2012, allowing the implementation of the project to proceed.
The technology has been installed and operational for several years. Since implementation of the NextGen navigation strategies at DIA, certain areas of Thornton have seen
an increase in airplane noise related to departure tracks that now are concentrated more over the areas from 120th-136th/Holly to 120th-136th/Colorado Boulevard.
Federal Request Conduct a new noise study to determine the impact on residents of the new concentrated flight patterns
and provide funding to remediate the noise impacts. Adjust flight patterns/procedures to minimize the noise impacts on neighborhoods that previously did
not have this level of aircraft noise.
§̈¦67
£¤58
£¤58
§̈¦67
¬ «2
¬ «2
§̈¦072
¥§¦52
¥§¦52
¥§¦52
£¤63
¬«074E
¬«7
¬«7
87th AVE
MONA
CO S
T 650
0
HUMB
OLDT
ST 1
500E
WABA
SH S
T 850
0E
128th AVE
LINCO
LN S
T 100
E
140th AVE
TREN
TON
ST 79
00E
118th AVEON
EIDA
ST 6
900E
LOGA
N ST
400E
99th AVE
167th AVE
VERB
ENA
ST 84
00E
YORK
ST 2
300E
121st AVE
PENN
SYLV
ANIA
ST 50
0E
NEW
PORT
ST 6
800E
PEAR
L ST 6
00E
132nd AVE
INCA
ST 9
00W
ALCO
TT S
T 250
0W
161st AVE
90th AVE
ACOM
A ST
100W
75th AVE
142nd AVE
137th AVE
FORE
ST S
T 520
0E
CLAY
ST 2
700W
KEAR
NEY
ST 61
00E
HARR
ISON
ST 3
900E
GALA
PAGO
ST 7
00W
TEJO
N ST
2000
W
79th AVE
GRAP
E ST
5400
E
149th AVE
DAHL
IA ST
4800
E
136th AVE
124th AVE
PECO
S ST
1600
W
165th AVE
ADAM
S ST
3300
E
88th AVE
157th AVE
ELIZA
BETH
ST 2
600E
GARF
IELD
ST 3
700E
OSAG
E ST
1500
W
COLO
RADO
BLV
D 40
00E
UMAT
ILLA
ST 21
00W
125th AVE
DOW
NING
ST 1
200E
HURO
N ST
800
W
86th AVE
GILP
IN S
T 170
0E
154th AVE
LEYD
EN / L
INDE
N ST
6300
E
146th AVE
163rd AVE
103rd AVE104th AVE
CLER
MONT
ST 4
500E
153rd AVE
158th AVE
UINT
A ST
8200
E
CLAU
DE C
T 220
0E
127th AVE
STEE
LE S
T 320
0E
SPRU
CE S
T 780
0E
MONR
OE S
T 360
0E
85th AVE
FRAN
KLIN
ST 1
600E
92nd AVE
OGDE
N ST
1000
E
BIRCH
ST 44
00
131st AVE
QUIV
AS S
T 170
0W
101st AVE
SHOS
HONE
ST 1
900W
74th AVE
148th AVE
CLAR
KSON
ST 8
00E
OLIVE
ST 7
000E
123rd AVEIVY
ST 5
800E
NAVA
JO ST
1400
W
106th AVE
QUEB
EC S
T 73
00E
COLU
MBIN
E ST
2500
E
GRAN
T ST 3
00E
BRYA
NT S
T 260
0W
89th AVE
151st AVE
135th AVE
110th AVE
KRAM
ERIA
ST 6
200E
166th AVE
MILW
AUKE
E ST 3
000E
JERS
EY S
T 590
0E
GAYL
ORD
ST 22
00E
SANT
A FE
DR 10
00W
82nd AVE
ROSE
MARY
ST 7
600E
I-25
91st AVE
80th AVE
VINE
ST 21
00E
94th AVE
ASH
ST 42
00E
155th AVE
EUDO
RA S
T 490
0E
EMER
SON
ST 90
0E
JASM
INE
ST 60
00E
SYRA
CUSE
ST 7
700E
150th AVE
HOLL
Y ST
5600
E
83rd AVE
159th AVE
112th AVE
152nd AVE
97th AVE
FAIR
FAX S
T 510
0E
111th AVE
164th AVE
CHER
OKEE
ST 3
00W
102nd AVE
95th AVE
107th AVE
129th AVE
MARI
POSA
ST 1
300W
96th AVE
ST P
AUL S
T 310
0E
113th AVE
76th AVE
MADI
SON
ST 35
00E
COOK
ST 3
400E
ULST
ER S
T 810
0E
YOSE
MITE
ST 89
00E
ROSL
YN S
T 750
0E
WILL
OW S
T 860
0E
ELAT
I ST 5
00W
BELL
AIRE
ST 4
300E
FEDE
RAL B
LVD
3000
W
CORO
NA S
T 110
0E
114th AVE
138th AVE
156th AVE
LOCU
ST / L
ILAC
ST 64
00E
CLAY
TON
ST 27
00E
NIAG
ARA
ST 67
00E
LIPAN
ST 1
200W
130th AVE
HIGH
ST 1
900E
ELM
ST 29
00W
116th AVE
119th AVE
GLEN
COE
ST 53
00E
133rd AVE
FOX
ST 60
0W
81st AVE
122nd AVE
143rd AVE
WILL
IAMS
ST 1
800E
DETR
OIT S
T 280
0E
98th AVE
ELIO
T ST 2
900W
78th AVE
DELA
WAR
E ST
400W
FILLM
ORE
ST 29
00E
115th AVE
144th AVE
134th AVE
117th AVE
BEAC
H CT
2600
W
VALL
EJO
ST 22
00W
93rd AVE
HUDS
ON S
T 550
0E
147th AVE
168th AVE
108th AVE
MARI
ON ST
1300
E
139th AVE
100th AVE
ZUNI
ST 2
400W
SHER
MAN
ST 20
0E
ALBI
ON S
T 410
0E
105th AVE
VALE
NTIA
ST 8
300E
BANN
OCK
ST 20
0W
ELM
ST 50
00E
KALA
MATH
ST 1
100W
160th AVE
DEXT
ER S
T 470
0E126th AVE
PONT
IAC
ST 71
00E
IVANH
OE S
T 570
0E
RACE
ST 2
000E
BROA
DWAY
ST
0000
DECA
TUR
ST 28
00W
XANT
HIA
ST 87
00E
162nd AVE
JOSE
PHIN
E ST
2400
E
WASH
INGT
ON S
T 70
0E
JACK
SON
ST 38
00E
MAGN
OLIA
ST 6
600E
RARI
TAN
ST 18
00W
POPL
AR S
T 720
0EQU
INCE
ST 7
400E
120th AVE
WYAN
DOT S
T 230
0W
141st AVE
77th AVE
145th AVE
CHER
RY S
T 460
0E
TAMA
RAC
ST 80
00E
84th AVE
LAFA
YETT
E ST
1400
E
109th AVE
XENI
A ST
8800
E
COLO
RADO
BLVD
COLO
RADO
BLVD
COLO
RADO
BLVD
COLO
RADO
BLVD
168TH AVE168TH AVE168TH AVE168TH AVE
160TH AVE160TH AVE 160TH AVE160TH AVE
136TH AVE136TH AVE 136TH AVE136TH AVE
144TH AVE144TH AVE144TH AVE144TH AVE144TH AVE144TH AVE
160TH AVE160TH AVE
168TH AVE168TH AVE
136TH AVE136TH AVE
128TH AVE128TH AVE
120TH AVE120TH AVE 120TH AVE120TH AVE120TH AVE120TH AVE
128TH AVE128TH AVE128TH AVE128TH AVE
112TH AVE112TH AVE112TH AVE112TH AVE
104TH AVE104TH AVE 104TH AVE104TH AVE 104TH AVE104TH AVE
100TH AVE100TH AVE100TH AVE100TH AVE
88TH AVE88TH AVE 88TH AVE88TH AVE
84TH AVE84TH AVE
THORNTON PKWYTHORNTON PKWYBLVDBLVD
EEPPPPIINNGGEERR
HURO
N ST
HURO
N STPECO
S ST
PECO
S ST
ZUNI
STZU
NI ST
WASH
INGTO
N ST
WASH
INGTO
N ST
WASH
INGTO
N ST
WASH
INGTO
N ST
WASH
INGTO
N ST
WASH
INGTO
N ST
RIVERDALE RD
RIVERDALE RD
YOSE
MITE S
TYO
SEMIT
E ST
YOSE
MITE S
TYO
SEMIT
E ST
QUEB
EC ST
QUEB
EC ST
QUEB
EC ST
QUEB
EC ST
HOLLY
STHO
LLY ST
HOLLY
STHO
LLY ST
YORK
STYO
RK ST
YORK
STYO
RK ST
E-470E-470
I-25
I-25
HURO
N ST
HURO
N ST
ZUNI
STZU
NI ST
PECO
S ST
PECO
S ST
PECO
S ST
PECO
S ST
ZUNI
STZU
NI ST
I-25
I-25
US-36US-36
S:\Ar
cGIS
\Proje
cts\C
OMMO
N PR
OJEC
TS\C
MO\C
ongre
ssion
alDist
ricts\
2015
\Dist
ricts2
015_
Cong
ressio
nal_8
x10.m
xd
[1/21/2015
The C
ity of
Thorn
ton G
IS ha
s mad
e eve
ry rea
sona
bleeff
ort to
repre
sent
geog
raphic
data
as ac
curat
ely as
poss
ible,
and a
ssum
es no
liabil
ity as
socia
ted w
ith th
eus
e or m
isuse
of its
prod
ucts.
Infor
matio
n con
taine
dhe
rein i
s for
repres
entat
ional
purpo
ses o
nly an
d is n
otint
ende
d to b
e sub
stitut
ed fo
r acc
urate
boun
dary
locati
ons,
legal
or pro
fessio
nal o
pinion
s.
GIS D
ATA D
ISCLA
IMER
U.S
. C
ongr
essi
onal
Dis
tric
tsU
.S.
Con
gres
sion
al D
istr
icts
Bou
ndar
ies
App
rove
d by
the
Col
orad
o S
upre
me
Cou
rt 1
2/5/
2011
Bou
ndar
ies
App
rove
d by
the
Col
orad
o S
upre
me
Cou
rt 1
2/5/
2011
9500
Civic
Cen
ter D
rive.
Thor
nton
, Colo
rado
8022
9. (3
03) 5
38-7
295
City
of
Thor
nton
City
of
Thor
nton
1 in = 1.3 mi
District 2 / Jared PolisDistrict 4 / Ken BuckDistrict 6 / Mike CoffmanDistrict 7 / Ed PerlmutterThornton City LimitsInterstatesExpresswaysUS HighwaysInterchangesState Highways
District 7
District 6
District 2District 4
B
COUNCIL UPDATE COMMUNICATION PAGE 2
• Access to their property during construction. • Impacts to the water levels in Water Supply and Storage Company reservoirs. • Whether trees would need to be removed. • Whether there would be limits on what could be placed in the pipeline easement.
Open House participants also provided valuable information regarding possible pipeline locations, including:
• Locations of newly constructed oil and gas wells and facilities. • Plans for roadway realignments or widening. • Locations of water lines, gas lines, and other utilities. • Local impacts from previous construction projects. • Information on properties whose owners weren’t able to attend an Open House.
History:
Thornton Water Project staff provided a Project status update at an October 4, 2016 Planning Session. Thornton Water Project staff presented the preferred Project corridor at a May 17, 2016 Planning Session. The City Council approved funding for the Thornton Water Project as part of the 2016 Water Fund appropriations. The City Council established a Thornton Water Project leadership team in July 2015. The City Council adopted the Vision, Mission, Values and Guiding Principles for the Thornton Water Project in November 2014. The city acquired water in the Cache la Poudre River in the mid-1980s as part of the city’s long-term water supply plan. The acquisitions included approximately 47% ownership in the Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC), a company that operates an extensive ditch and reservoir system and holds valuable water rights. The Water Court granted a decree in 1998 to use the WSSC water for municipal purposes in Thornton. The city has, since 2005, explored water delivery concepts that could be used to deliver the Poudre River water to Thornton. In August 2013 the city contracted with CH2MHill for Owner’s Advisor services to assist the city in developing the water conveyance facilities needed to move the Poudre water to Thornton, including an evaluation of delivery concepts. In June 2014, after a thorough study of alternatives, the city selected a project configuration that involves delivering water from the WSSC system in Larimer County to Thornton via a pipeline.
Thornton Water ProjectOpen Houses
City Council UpdateDecember 20, 2016
Open House Locations
• #1 - Weld County Southwest Services Center
• #2 - Poudre Valley REA
• #3 - Larimer County Courthouse
• #4 - Johnstown Senior Center
Open House Participants
• 1,200 Invitations• 35 RSVPs• 165 Attendees• 60 Signed up for
Updates via the Website
General Responses/Feedback• Concerns
– Impact to their property– Use of roadways for
pipeline construction– Pump station size, look
and noise– Operational conflicts
and access to property– Lake levels– Impacts to trees– Use of pipeline
easement
• Information– New oil well locations– Roadway plans– Locations of other
utilities– Impacts from past
construction– Property owner info
Many participants expressed appreciation for Thornton being
open and collaborative about the Project
Next Steps• Weld and Larimer County Referral Agency
Outreach• Specific Outreach
– Weld County Energy Workgroup – Oil/Gas Pipelines– WSSC #4 area HOAs
• Property Owner Contacts– Rights of Entry for survey and other investigations;
easement discussions• Title and value research• Start narrowing down potential properties
Questions?
A
COUNCIL UPDATE COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 BACKGROUND (ANALYSIS/NEXT STEPS/HISTORY): As in the past, this IGA allows Thornton to save costs while reaping the benefit of combining resources with the Cities of Northglenn and Westminster, when working on Standley Lake and Clear Creek water quality efforts and activities. The updated mission statement associated with the IGA states, “To optimize the quality and health of Standley Lake and its watershed as a drinking water supply for current and future generations through the application of scientifically based and fiscally responsible management techniques.” The new IGA took over a year to renegotiate due to a significant shift in Thornton’s water quality sampling and monitoring priorities that no longer matched up with the other cities expectations per their interpretation of the previous IGA. These changes had to be quantified and presented in a manner that helped the other cities understand the scale of water quality challenges faced by Thornton. Thornton has three major water sources to sample and analyze (Standley Lake, South Platte River, and Poudre River) and one of those sources, the South Platte supply, requires aggressive monitoring due to urban influences. Westminster and Northglenn focus all their sampling and water quality protection activities on Standley Lake, and they do so with much vigor. The new structure allows Thornton to participate in the Core Program which includes activities seen as vital for monitoring and protecting Standley Lake such as maintenance of USGS sampling stations, Code Red emergency call down, watershed report, etc. It also includes a Supporting Program which creates greater flexibility in Thornton’s participation in lower priority activities. The Supporting Program includes watershed modeling, special studies, increased sampling, etc. Overall, Thornton believes the intense scrutiny of water quality by Westminster and Northglenn will more than adequately protect the lake. Through much collaboration and diligence, the final IGA results in better alignment of funds and resources per the individual needs of each city while providing great protection and monitoring of the lake. Each year the Core and Supporting Program activities will be evaluated and modified as necessary to ensure the scopes remain appropriate for Standley Lake water quality protection. The currently planned Core and Supporting Program tasks are referenced in the new IGA as Exhibits A and B, respectively. Westminster City Council approved the IGA on Monday, November 14, 2016. Northglenn City Council reviewed the IGA in a November Study Session and will act on the IGA at their January 9, 2017 City Council meeting. Thornton City Council adopted previous IGAs between Thornton and Westminster for cost sharing of water quality protection efforts in June 1989 and August 1995 (extended in December 2000). The City of Northglenn joined the efforts in an IGA approved by Thornton Council in December 2005, and again in 2010. The three cities are applying the provisions of the 2010 IGA through December 31, 2016.
R E S O L U T I O N A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITIES OF THORNTON, NORTHGLENN, AND WESTMINSTER CONCERNING SHARING OF COSTS RELATED TO STANDLEY LAKE AND CLEAR CREEK WATER QUALITY SAMPLING AND TESTING. WHEREAS, Standley Lake serves as a water supply for the Cities of Northglenn, Thornton, and Westminster (Cities); and WHEREAS, it is prudent and necessary for Thornton to protect the water quality of Standley Lake; and WHEREAS, the Cities have, in the past, effectively shared costs associated with the water quality efforts involving Clear Creek and Standley Lake and its tributaries based on the respective allocation of the benefit of water diverted from Standley Lake; and WHEREAS, it is beneficial for Thornton to continue to mutually hire consultants and legal counsel and to equitably share associated costs related to protecting water quality in Standley Lake and the Clear Creek Basin, as outlined in the attached IGA among the Cities of Northglenn, Thornton, and Westminster. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The IGA is hereby approved, and the City Manager is authorized and
directed to execute, and the City Clerk to attest, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. This IGA shall be effective upon execution by all parties.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Thornton, Colorado, on , 2016.
2
CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO Heidi K. Williams, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy A. Vincent, City Clerk
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITIES OF NORTHGLENN, THORNTON, AND
WESTMINSTER CONCERNING SHARING OF COSTS RELATED TO STANDLEY LAKE AND CLEAR CREEK WATER QUALITY ISSUES
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2016, among the CITY OF NORTHGLENN, hereinafter referred to as “Northglenn,” the CITY OF THORNTON, hereinafter referred to as “Thornton”, and the CITY OF WESTMINSTER, hereinafter referred to as “Westminster”. Northglenn, Thornton, and Westminster together are hereinafter referred to as “Cities”.
I. RECITALS A. The Cities each own rights to store water in Standley Lake and other important water rights
that are essential to providing a domestic water supply to the residents of the Cities. B. Protection of these water rights and the water quality of these sources of domestic drinking
water are of paramount importance to the Cities. C. Article XIV, Section 18, of the Colorado Constitution, Part 2 of Article 1 of Title 29, C.R.S.,
and 29-20-105, C.R.S., permit and encourage local governments to make the most efficient and effective use of their powers and responsibilities by cooperating and contracting with other local governments in order to provide any lawfully authorized functions, services, or facilities.
D. Pursuant to a series of Intergovernmental Agreements dated June 28, 1989, August 24, 1995,
December 18, 2000, January 13, 2006, and March 23, 2011, the Cities have created a Standley Lake Watershed Monitoring Program “Monitoring Program”, which is used to protect and monitor the quality of water in Clear Creek, the Tributary Basin, and Standley Lake. The Cities formed the Standley Lake Water Quality Committee “Committee”, pursuant to Section II. B. 1, to manage that Monitoring Program, and have previously shared costs associated with the Monitoring Program and water quality protection efforts involving Standley Lake and its watershed.
E. This Agreement represents the intent of the Cities for the continuation of, continued participation in, and administration of the Monitoring Program.
F. It is beneficial for the Cities to pursue watershed protection for Standley Lake to protect and
improve water quality and control drinking water treatment costs.
G. It is beneficial and cost-effective for the Cities to mutually hire consultants, technical experts and legal counsel, conduct water quality monitoring, and implement water quality improvement projects by sharing costs related to water quality in the Clear Creek Basin, Tributary Basin, and Standley Lake in accordance with the goals and objectives adopted by the Committee, as the same may be amended from time to time (the “Goals and Objectives”).
H. The Cities have developed the following Mission Statement: To optimize the quality and
health of Standley Lake and its watershed as a drinking water supply for current and future
2
generations through the application of scientifically based and fiscally responsible management techniques.
II. AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants in this Agreement, the Cities agree as follows: A. Cooperative Efforts
1. For purposes of this Agreement, water quality efforts are divided into Core and Supporting Programs. This structure is intended to preserve key water quality elements while allowing for expanded efforts on an opt-in basis. The Core Program contains the essential elements of the Monitoring Program with which the Cities unanimously agree. The Supporting Program enhances and expands on the Core Program water quality efforts. The Supporting Program adds flexibility for funding special projects and efforts outside of the Core Program, and is subject to modification.
2. Core Program: The Cities mutually agree to participate in and equally fund core tasks associated with the protection of Standley Lake water quality. The scope of these integral tasks is termed the “Core Program” and is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. Costs associated with the Core Program shall be shared equally among each of the Cities with annual payments made as provided in Section II. D.1, below. Exhibit A will be reviewed by the Committee as needed to ensure the scope remains appropriate for Standley Lake water quality protection.
a. The Core Program’s annual operating budget must be adopted with unanimous
commitment and consent of the Committee. Any budgeted activity may commence once appropriated funds are available.
3. Supporting Program: Participation in Supporting Program tasks are voluntary in nature. The scope of these supporting tasks is termed the “Supporting Program” and is set forth in the attached Exhibit B, and expressly includes the Monitoring Plan. City contributions for Supporting Program tasks shall be made as provided in Section II. D.2, below. The Supporting Program tasks shall be reviewed annually by the Committee with the goal of determining the tasks for the following year in a timely fashion to allow for appropriate budgeting.
a. Any budgeted activity may commence once appropriated funds are available. b. The Cities agree that best efforts must be used to ensure that all sample
collection, analytical testing, and reporting of monitoring data associated with the Monitoring Plan comply with accepted quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) protocols.
4. All water quality data shall be shared in a timely fashion with each city.
3
5. Although the intent of this IGA is to encourage cooperative efforts among the Standley Lake Cities on water quality efforts, nothing herein prevents any city from undertaking its own independent water quality effort at its own expense outside of the IGA.
6. Exhibits may be revised at any time without amendment to this IGA with unanimous agreement of the Committee.
B. Representation
1. Each City Manager, or their designee, will designate one representative to serve on the Standley Lake Water Quality Committee. Each representative is charged with administering the terms of the Agreement on behalf of their city, developing the Goals and Objectives, managing the budget, and establishing budget needs for the next year. The Committee will meet quarterly, at a minimum.
2. At least one member of the Committee, or their appointed representative, will attend Standley Lake Operating Committee meetings as needed to enhance communications concerning the operational and water quality aspects of Standley Lake.
C. Consultants, Technical Experts, and Legal Representation
1. The Cities hereby authorize their City Managers, or their designees, to enter into contracts for legal, contractor and/or consulting services recommended by the Committee pursuant to this Agreement and in accordance with Charter and ordinance provisions of the Cities.
2. The Committee may mutually agree to hire consultants, technical experts, and/or legal counsel to provide additional expertise as needed. Conflicts of interest will be given consideration as part of the selection process and may be the basis for not selecting any contractor/consultant/attorney. Any confidential information obtained by any firm in the course of the joint representation shall remain confidential and not be used to the detriment of any city in any subsequent representation.
3. Prior to entering into any contract for consulting, technical, or legal services, the participating committee members shall approve the scope and amount of such contracts. Any changes in scope and/or contract amounts also require approval from the participating Committee members.
D. Payment Terms
1. Core Program: Expenses associated with the Core Program shall be shared on an equal basis, with each city contributing 33.33% of the costs associated with the Core Program. To the extent possible and subject to each city’s budget approval process, Thornton and Northglenn will pay an annual dues for Core Program costs to Westminster in January of each year to cover expenses for the coming year. Westminster shall be responsible for paying bills associated with Core Program expenses in a timely manner and will provide a quarterly statement of said expenses
4
to Thornton and Northglenn. Obligated monies shall be spent to the fullest extent possible, or a potential decrease in funding could occur.
2. Supporting Program: Contributions to the Supporting Program are voluntary in nature. Expenses associated with the Supporting Program, including the Monitoring Plan, may be covered through financial contributions and/or in-kind services, apportioned by mutual agreements between participating Cities and are subject to budgeting approval and the limitations contained in Section II. E.12, below. Once a city has agreed to contribute to a Supporting Program task or project for a given year, it shall use best efforts to honor that commitment. Budgeted expenses for the Supporting Program shall be paid by Northglenn and Thornton to Westminster in January of each year. Westminster shall be responsible for paying bills associated with the Supporting Program expenses in a timely manner and will provide a quarterly statement of said expenses to Thornton and Northglenn.
3. At the beginning of each calendar year, Westminster will submit an invoice to Thornton and Northglenn for their portions of the budgeted Core and Supporting Programs. Westminster will set up clearing accounts to track receipt and expenditure of Northglenn and Thorntons’ funds. Westminster will pay all expenses and provide Northglenn and Thornton with quarterly reports. Any funds remaining at the end of the year will be appropriated as specified in Section II. D.6.
4. As per Section 6 of the November 28, 1994, Standley Lake Park Intergovernmental
Agreement, Westminster agrees to contribute $10,000 annually to be used for water quality improvements which may include water quality testing and monitoring. The $10,000 shall not be included in those costs to support the Core Program.
5. Legal counsel and technical experts or consultants hired by the Committee pursuant to
this Agreement shall submit invoices to Westminster for payment, which Westminster will pay for out of the appropriate Program budget. Thornton and/or Northglenn will reimburse Westminster for their portion of any budget exceedances approved per Section II.C.3. Legal counsel, technical experts, or consultants shall follow Westminster’s purchasing procedures. Westminster will provide copies of itemized invoices from attorneys, technical experts, consultants, and vendors to Northglenn and Thornton.
6. Reserve Funds: The Core Program and Supporting Program can each accumulate up to $10,000 in reserve funds for future use on Committee identified needs. The reserve funds are generated from any unappropriated funds left over at the end of the year within the specific program budget. Any funds in excess of $10,000 will be refunded to the Cities proportional to their prior contributions for the specific program. Westminster will provide an accounting of the reserve fund for each program in the quarterly report, denoting the percent held by each of the Cities. If one of the Cities opts out of the agreement, their portion of the reserve fund will be refunded up to the amount not already committed per Section II. E.1.
5
E. General Provisions
1. This Agreement shall be effective upon the date last executed by the Cities and shall terminate on December 31, 2026. Additionally, this Agreement may be terminated, at any time, for any reason, by any city, upon serving the other Cities a thirty (30) day written notice of intent to terminate. The Agreement may also be terminated in the event that any city violates any of the terms of the Agreement and fails to cure the default within ten (10) days of receipt of written notice from the non-defaulting Cities which specifies the nature of the default and its cure. Termination by any city shall not relieve that party of its share of costs already incurred or committed to by mutual agreement with the other Cities pursuant to this Agreement.
2. Delays in enforcement or the waiver of any one or more defaults or breaches of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any prior, concurrent, subsequent breach of the same or any other of the terms or obligations of this Agreement. No waiver shall be effective unless made in writing.
3. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the Cities
and supersedes prior Water Quality Agreements. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument executed by the Cities hereto.
4. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Agreement or the application thereof
to any city or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement or its application.
5. No documentation and/or correspondence prepared by a consultant, technical expert, or legal counsel retained pursuant to this Agreement or prepared as a joint position by the Committee under this Agreement shall be distributed to third parties without prior unanimous approval by the Committee. Each city can distribute independent documentation and/or correspondence stating their individual position, provided the documentation and/or correspondence do not imply joint concurrence or commitment by any of the other Cities hereto.
6. It is expressly understood and agreed that enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the Cities, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be interpreted to give or allow any such claim or right of action to any third person. It is the expressed intention of the Cities that any person other than the Cities receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed to be an incidental beneficiary only.
7. This Agreement is being executed and delivered and is intended to be performed in
the State of Colorado, and the laws of Colorado shall govern the validity, construction, enforcement, and interpretation of this Agreement. Further, venue for any and all legal action at law or in equity regarding this Agreement shall be in the Adams County District Court, State of Colorado.
6
8. This Agreement does not authorize the Committee’s initiation of any lawsuit.
9. Any notice which may be given under the terms of this Agreement, including a change to the designees or addresses below, shall be made in writing, and shall be deemed made upon notification to the following:
CITY OF THORNTON Jack Ethredge City Manager/Utilities Director 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO 80229
CITY OF WESTMINSTER Donald M. Tripp City Manager 4800 West 92nd Avenue Westminster, CO 80031
CITY OF NORTHGLENN James Hayes City Manager 11701 Community Center Drive Northglenn, CO 80233
10. This Agreement may not be assigned by any party without the written consent of the
other Cities.
11. Three originals of this Agreement shall be signed by the Cities.
12. This Agreement shall in no way obligate the Cities to budget funds to be spent pursuant to this Agreement. If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the Agreement violates the multi-year contract restriction in Section 20, Article X of the Colorado Constitution, then the Cities agree that the Agreement shall immediately be converted to a one-year contract, with automatic annual renewal through December 2026, unless previously terminated.
7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Cities have hereto set their hand and seal on the dates indicated below. ATTEST: CITY OF THORNTON Nancy A. Vincent, City Clerk Jack Ethredge, City Manager/Utilities
Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: Luis A. Corchado, City Attorney Date
ATTEST: CITY OF NORTHGLENN Johanna Small, City Clerk Joyce Downing, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Corey Hoffmann, City Attorney Date
ATTEST: CITY OF WESTMINSTER Michelle Parker, City Clerk Herb Atchison, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Frankel, City Attorney Date