NOTE: The City Council has a responsibility to advise its citizens of its meetings and the topics it proposes to discuss. The following agenda shows
the proposed format for tonight's set of meetings. The first meeting is held for the sole purpose of determining whether Council will adjourn into executive session, a non-public meeting, at which only permissible topics can be discussed. After this decision is made, Council will adjourn its regular Council meeting until 7:30 p.m. Council will consider the business listed on the agendas below at the times indicated. In the event that a City Council meeting is cancelled, items from this agenda may be postponed to the next City Council meeting or a future City Council meeting. You may contact the City Clerk s Office for further details or visit our web site at www.auroragov.org.
Full agendas available in the City Clerk's Office or at www.auroragov.org.
CITY OF AURORA ACCESSIBILITY STATEMENT: The Aurora Municipal Center is wheelchair accessible with entry ramps and handicapped parking located on the
west and east side of the building and on all levels of the parking garage. Ramp access from the parking garage is located on the Ground Floor and the 4th level of the garage. If you are a person with a disability requiring other assistance, you must make your request for such assistance known by NOON, on the FRIDAY PRECEDING the Monday meeting by contacting the City Clerk s Office at 303- 739-7094. If you are in need of an interpreter, please contact the Office of International and Immigrant Affairs at 303-739-7521 by the FRIDAY PRECEDING the Monday meeting. (Si necesita un int rprete, comun quese con la oficina de asuntos internacionales e inmigrantes en 303-739-7521 por el viernes anterior a la reuni n del lunes.)
Regular Meeting of the Aurora City Council City Council Chambers Monday, June 24, 2019
NOTE: Interested citizens wishing to address City Council should complete a SPEAKER SLIP and present it to the City Clerk stationed near the Council
dais. Speaker Slips are located on the table by the Council Chambers entrance. Speakers on items not related to the agenda are allowed three minutes to speak. Council does not engage in discussion during this time.
1. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 24, 2019 AND CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL Stephen Ruger, City Clerk
3. INVOCATION Pastor Phil Eubank, Eastern Hills Community Church
h. 2019-27 Consideration of AN ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, rezoning 20.41 acres more or less in the
vicinity North of Colfax Avenue and East of Tollgate Creek from Mobile Home District (MH) and Residential- Agriculture District (RA) to Transit-Oriented Development District (TOD) and amending the zoning map accordingly. (POTOMAC VILLAGE REZONE) STAFF SOURCE: Stephen E. Rodriguez, Planning Supervisor, Planning Development Services
i. 2019-28 Consideration of AN ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, to amend the Waterford Place General
Development Plan to permit additional duplex units and remove assisted living from the use list (Waterford Place GDP Amendment) (2225 S IOLA ST). STAFF SOURCE: Dan Osoba, Planner, Planning Development Services
a. Public Hearing and Consideration to APPROVE A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, authorizing the execution of the Oil
and Gas Operator Agreement between the City of Aurora, Colorado, and Elevation Midstream, LLC. (Staff Requests a Waiver of Reconsideration) STAFF SOURCE: Christine McKenney, Client Group Manager, City Attorney (Postponed until July 15th)
b. Public Hearing and Consideration to APPROVE A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, Authorizing the Execution of the Oil
and Gas Operator Agreement between the City of Aurora, Colorado, and Axis Exploration, LLC. A wholly owned subsidiary of Extraction Oil and Gas Inc. ( Extraction ) (Staff Requests a Waiver of Reconsideration) STAFF SOURCE: Christine McKenney, Client Group Manager, City Attorney (Postponed until July 15th)
Colorado, approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Aurora and the State of Colorado acting by and through the Department of labor
and employment providing for the sharing of Department of Labor and Unemployment information to the Aurora Municipal Court for verification of financial information submitted to the Municipal Court. STAFF SOURCE: Dr. Zelda DeBoyes, Court Administrator/Detention, Court Administration
Colorado, approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Aurora, Colorado, acting by and through its Utility Enterprise, and the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District, regarding final design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of drainage and flood control improvements for Sand Creek Baranmor Ditch at Zion Street and Billings Street. STAFF SOURCE: Sarah Young, Deputy Director Planning and Engineering, Aurora Water
Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, rezoning .8554 acres more or less in the vicinity of Iliff Avenue and Oswego Street from Low Density
Single-Family Residential District (R1) to Retail Business District (B1) and amending the zoning map accordingly (ILIFF AND OSWEGO REZONE) STAFF SOURCE: Brandon Cammarata, Senior Planner, Planning Development Services
of Aurora, Colorado, acting ex-officio as the Board of Directors of the Aurora Conference Center General Improvement District, ratifying, confirming
and authorizing the execution of an amendment to the GID Pledge Agreement between such general improvement district and Colorado International Center Metropolitan District No. 4. STAFF SOURCE: Terri Velasquez, Director, Finance
Aurora, Colorado, to Amend and Rename The Park Chambers Combined General and Preliminary Development Plan to The Aurora Ready Mix Crushing Facility
general development plan in order to permit rock crushing operations on the site and update site conditions within the plan (READY MIX GDP AMENDMENT) STAFF SOURCE: Stephen E Rodriguez, Planning Supervisor, Planning Development Services
Colorado, authorizing the execution of the oil and gas operator agreement between the city of aurora, Colorado, and ConocoPhillips company, a
Delaware corporation and its subsidiaries and Burlington resources oil gas company LP, a Delaware limited partnership, (COLLECTIVELY OPERATOR ), a Colorado Limited Liability Company. (Staff Requests a Waiver of Reconsideration) STAFF SOURCE: Christine McKenney, Client Group Manager, City Attorney
Council Member Gruber asked if in addition to City staff, another attorney, Jeff Robbins, was a co-architect of the development agreements. Ms.
Paranhos agreed Mr. Robbins represented the City prior to the operator agreement negotiations with ConocoPhillips. Council Member Gruber stated that was important to note because he and Council Member Johnston worked closely with Mr. Robbins during development of the item and presently, Mr. Robbins was named the Chairman of the COGCC. He pointed out his understanding that Mr. Robbins planned to take many of the things that have been discussed in that regard and make them state requirements, noting that meant Aurora was actually leading the COGCC in creating these requirements.
Ms. Paranhos concurred, noting ConocoPhillips would abide by any and all state and federal best practices.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth asked Ms. Paranhos if she was actively involved in putting together the Best Management Practices (BMP) for the City and County of
Broomfield operator agreement. Ms. Paranhos answered affirmatively. Mayor Pro Tem Roth asked Ms. Paranhos if she was familiar with the structure and final product of the agreement. Ms. Paranhos answered affirmatively. Mayor Pro Tem Roth asked if the City s agreement was more robust in terms of air quality and groundwater monitoring than the City of Broomfield agreement. Ms. Paranhos answered affirmatively, noting ConocoPhillips agreed to install continuous air quality monitors at all phases of development and to pay for those monitors. Mayor Pro Tem Roth asked if that was so in any other agreement Ms. Paranhos was aware of. Ms. Paranhos answered no.
Council Member Hiltz asked if a penalty would be assessed to the City should a permit come in that required further review which thereby delayed
approval. Ms. Paranhos noted a clear, relatively set schedule was made for permit review and confirmed there was some language in the agreement that allowed for that timeframe to be extended. Council Member Hiltz referenced the 1,000 per day penalty for a delay and asked if that was something the City was currently reimbursing to the operator or was that a new provision. Ms. Paranhos stated it was a new provision, noting it would be triggered if there were a delay in terms of denial of a permit application after everyone did what they were supposed to do
Council Member Gruber stated the reason operator agreements were reviewed in the first place was because there were a number of well sites being
designed and the City had limited authority. He recalled City Council decided the City should work with the oil companies in terms of the City s preferred Best Management Practices and their request for accelerated support. He asked Ms. Paranhos to speak to that. Ms. Paranhos did so. Council Member Gruber pointed out the City received all of the benefits of the operator agreements with very stringent environmental protections and the understanding that any new changes developed by the state would be included.
Council Member Johnston stated she was a part of some of the earlier discussions and clarified she has often been supportive of operator agreements
of Best Management Practices, she noted she has also been consistent in her concerns when highly industrial operations were going into residential zones. She stated this operator agreement did not relate to new construction only.
Council Member Hiltz stated concerns related to risk and liability were raised at the previous meeting related to an operator agreement. She asked
how the situation developed from an agreement being sent back to staff to a new agreement being generated that included a new provision related to delay reimbursement where the City would absorb the risk.
Dan Brotzman, Interim City Attorney, stated the other extraction operator agreement did not move forward because it did not have acceptable remedy
language which was not the case with the ConocoPhillips agreement. He noted the ConocoPhillips agreement did include a penalty that was significantly different from what was being proposed by the other operator.
Council Member Hiltz asked the specific remedy language in the prior ConocoPhillips agreement that caused the penalty language to be added. Mr.
Brotzman stated they wanted to look at consequential damages for the infrastructure which related to hundreds of millions of dollars. He noted additionally, they indicated they would sue the City for all of the infrastructure costs for delaying the permit. Council Member Hiltz asked Mr. Brotzman if it was his legal opinion that this was the best way to minimize the risk. Mr. Brotzman answered affirmatively.
Council Member Gruber asked Ms. Thompson to speak to the moratorium agreement entered into by ConocoPhillips and the City. Ms. Thompson did so,
noting there were 10 well sites with submittals dating back to October 2018 with ConocoPhillips. Council Member Gruber asked if there has been a moratorium on ConocoPhillips since October. Ms. Thompson agreed it was fair to state there was a pause.
Valerie Rowe; Kevin Hougen; Terry Peltes; Chris McGowan; James Hopper; Rob Carroll; Ryan Seastrom; Michael Mead; Jessica Crespin; Jerry Cunningham;
Dustin Dudley; Colton Loehr; Seth Lovelady; Amanda Martin; Scott Farkas; Brad Pierce; Polly Page; Jennifer Churchfield; Blaise Sims; John Wolfkill; Cameron Ming; Rita Connerly; Mark Archuleta; Doug Tisdale; Zach Neal; Daisie Young; Valerie Wells; and Ryan Foltz, spoke in favor of the item.
Ms. Thompson stated it was not a ConocoPhillips-operated well but the operator had lengthy conversations with City staff prior to it being included
in the BMP as an exception.
Council Member Johnston asked how many of the wells would be using the injection well. Mr. Blair stated that information was not available at this
time as that well was proposed and not approved or in service yet and any comment in that regard would be speculation. Council Member Johnston asked Mr. Blair if he was aware that the proposed site for the injection well was within five miles of the Lowry Superfund site. Mr. Blair answered affirmatively. Council Member Johnston asked if ConocoPhillips was aware that there was 138 million gallons of toxic chemicals within the Superfund site.
Council Member Johnston stated it may not be a ConocoPhillips well but it was included in the operator agreement. She pointed out the 140 million
gallons of toxic chemicals was a major concern of the Superfund site and ConocoPhillips has insisted the injection well be included in the agreement. She asked if ConocoPhillips was willing to remove it. Mr. Ming stated it was not up to ConocoPhillips to do so. He stated that was up to the county and the
Council Member Johnston asked if ConocoPhillips would remove the injection well provision of BMP 34 from the operator agreement. Ms. Thompson
clarified the ConocoPhillips team present at the meeting were not authorized to make those types of changes to the agreement, noting the agreement has been worked through carefully between the City and ConocoPhillips.
Mr. Ming suggested City staff might speak to the issue.
Ms. Paranhos did so, noting Aurora Water met with the company who planned to operate the injection well in Arapahoe County and Aurora Water was
satisfied that the well would be operated in a safe manner and that any concerns related to earthquakes and aquifer contamination risks would be mitigated by the well construction. She stated that was why the provision that ConocoPhillips would use that particular injection well and not any other injection wells within a four-mile buffer of the City limits.
Council Member Johnston stated her understanding that the City took a position on the proximity which was four miles from the City s water
infrastructure and that there was no Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversight for Class II underground injection wells and that that was under the Colorado Department of Public Health Environment s (CDPHE) oversight. She asked if Expedition Water had any other injection wells near other Superfund sites. Ms. Paranhos stated she did not have that information.
Council Member Hiltz asked why hold a public hearing if changes could not made and if not at the meeting, when could those changes could be made.
Mayor LeGare stated the public hearing was held to gain input on an Oil and Gas operator agreement that has been extensively worked on by City staff and the applicant. He pointed out that it was now up to City Council to determine whether or not the agreement was acceptable and then to vote accordingly. He asked the applicant representatives to restate their names for the record.
Council Member Johnston expressed concerns that concerns related to permitting might be raised at the neighborhood meetings that would be held after
the operator agreement was approved and asked how that would be addressed since the agreement stated the City shall not oppose or object in any form to any permits, applications or similarly related approvals related to the operator, oil, gas operations or any development of any new wells or well sites . Ms. Thompson stated any comments from both the neighborhood meeting as well as the call for public comment as a result of the permit process would be administered back to ConocoPhillips and they would have a response requirement in order to further the permit process.
Council Member Lawson asked how a homeowner purchasing a home in the area would be notified of the pipeline location. Ms. Thompson stated the
pipelines were located in a protected easement that were separate and apart from any home deeds. Council Member Lawson asked if the onus was on the homebuyer to find out if the pipeline was nearby. Ms. Thompson answered affirmatively.
Council Member Bergan expressed appreciation to all those who attended the meeting. She stated she and her fellow council members wanted to protect
the environment and the health of the community and therefore they took the issue very seriously, noting this has not been a brief process. She pointed out there were almost 50 BMPs for the agreement and any new regulations imposed by the state would be met by the operator. She suggested as such, other jurisdictions might view the City of Aurora as the model for how to do an operator agreement. She stated she would support the item.
Council Member Hiltz expressed appreciation to ConocoPhillips for taking the time and effort to learn the community needs and for going above and
beyond since the May 20th meeting in their public outreach efforts. She stated she would not support the item because there was a lot that still needed to be considered and she felt there needed to be a longer public input process. She agreed there was a path forward but noted unfortunately this was not it.
Council Member Murillo stated it gave her great pause to know the operator agreement would be a legally binding contract where six times as many oil
wells as there were currently. She pointed out the City had one opportunity to get it right and she did not feel the City has done its due diligence in terms of health and safety and public input in this instance. She stated she supported operator agreements in general because it was a way to create stability for the industry and to codify health and safety concerns. She noted she empathized with those who have a vested interest in ConocoPhillips however she did not think the City Council should be making decisions based on the perceived goodness of a company because this was policy. She stated she would not support the item for those reasons.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth noted in light of the transparency questions by the City, he spoke to the Colorado Municipal League s (CML) position on the item
and the passing of SB 181.
Council Member Johnston addressed concerns related to SB 181. She stated CML s position on the bill was irrelevant to her because this was Aurora.
She noted it was suggested the City might be held as a model for operator agreements and she expressed her hope that was not so because she did not think it was how public policy should be handled. She pointed out she represented the neighbors where the item was located and she could not support the item primarily because of the fast track and the location of the injection well site near the Superfund site. She expressed her disappointment and embarrassment that the City has not insisted on more robust feedback in this regard.
Colorado, approving an Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Aurora, Colorado, acting by and through its Utility
Enterprise, and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, regarding Final Design, Right-of-Way Acquisition and Construction of Drainage and Flood Control Improvements for Easterly Creek Stormwater Pond. STAFF SOURCE: Sarah Young, Deputy Director of Planning and Engineering, Aurora Water
Colorado, approving an amendment to the Intergovernmental agreement between the City of Aurora, Acting by and through its Utility Enterprise, and the
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District regarding final design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of drainage and flood control improvements for First Creek Detention Upstream of I-70 in the City of Aurora. STAFF SOURCE: Sarah Young, Deputy Director of Planning and Engineering, Aurora Water
Colorado, approving an Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Aurora, Colorado, acting by and through its Utility
Enterprise, and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, regarding final design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of drainage and flood control improvements for 22nd Avenue outfall to Westerly Creek. STAFF SOURCE: Sarah Young, Deputy Director of Planning and Engineering, Aurora Water
Jamie Logan, Aurora Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, discussed her disappointment in the Mayor s decision to not approve the gun violence
awareness proclamation, the need to recognize victims of gun violence, and the increase in gun violence in Colorado. She named all of the Colorado cities in support of the proclamation. She expressed her hope that Council Member Johnston s resolution would be supported and addressed Mayor LeGare directly regarding children experiencing active shooter and lockdown drills at school.
Council Member Gruber expressed concerns that the reference to 100 Americans included suicides and police officers and since the proclamation did not
address mental health and the goal was not to take guns away from police officers, he stated he would support the proclamation if the 100 Americans was changed to Americans. He offered a friendly amendment in that regard.
Mayor LeGare expressed appreciation to his colleagues for their support. He stated his understanding of proclamations was that they were Mayoral
proclamations which meant it was the Mayor s decision whether or not to sign it. He clarified he did not regret not signing the proclamation and commended Council Member Johnston for turning it into a resolution because that was the way to get it done. He noted he did not have a problem signing a resolution even ones he did not agree with or vote on. He pointed out he was not offended by those who said he was terrible for not signing the proclamation because it was his choice to not do so.
City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, rezoning 20.41 acres more or less in the vicinity North of Colfax Avenue and East of Tollgate Creek
from Mobile Home District (MH) and Residential-Agriculture District (RA) to Transit-Oriented Development District (TOD) and amending the zoning map accordingly. (POTOMAC VILLAGE REZONE) STAFF SOURCE: Stephen E. Rodriguez, Planning Supervisor, Planning Development Services
Council Member Murillo stated her recollection that the City made the unprecedented move to step in to prevent a group of people from being displaced
from Denver Meadows and then the owner stepped in after extensive conversations with the Mayor and City Attorney. She noted she wanted to disrupt the notion that that was a kind gesture on behalf of the owner. She stated it was a difficult decision on behalf of the City Council to provide those funds but the fact was no one else was stepping up to provide relief.
Council Member Murillo called out a few points relevant to the discussion related to smart growth and social sustainability, noting the discussion
about affordable housing and rezoning was relevant to those points. She discussed the strong correlations between low income communities and communities of color sand pointed out when income was not considered in these instances then peoples racial and ethnic connections were being ignored. She stated not incorporating affordability went against the 2009 comprehensive plan criteria. She asked if the Denver Meadows land was located in an opportunity zone. Mr. Batchelor answered affirmatively. Council Member Murillo asked if the property was the only land that was zoned for mobile homes located in an opportunity zone in the City. Mr. Batchelor answered affirmatively. Council Member Murillo asked if it was relevant to consider whether or not the property for the item was located in an opportunity zone.
Mr. Ruschmeyer stated his opinion that anyone that came in to develop the property understood the rezone was for mixed-use which had a much broader
definition than it did in 2009. He pointed out affordable or workforce housing was addressed across the country and he suggested City Council and the public would have a lot to say about the site being developed with affordable housing when the item came back for site plan review.
Council Member Murillo asked Mr. Ruschmeyer if he was familiar with what was happening in Charlottesville, Virginia in terms of opportunity zones and
mobile home parks. Mr. Ruschmeyer answered no. Council Member Murillo summarized the situation where for profit and nonprofit developers were creating the vision called out in the City s comprehensive plan.
Council Member Murillo stated she was clear on the item being discussed, noting it was difficult to separate the idea that the rezone was removed
from the FTP process. She argued that the City had what was needed to fulfill the mission of the comprehensive plan at this time. She stated the City was missing the opportunity to explore what an opportunity zone could actually look like or if the Charlottesville model could work in this instance.
Council Member Murillo stated she outlined the policy points and where it directly applied to the criteria considered in the discussions, noting she
has not heard the counter perspective at this time. She reiterated the City had what was needed to create equitable growth and social sustainability, noting doing so required public, private, nonprofit and community partnership to make it happen. She stated she did not want to see the opportunity zone lost for a low income community of color that deserved opportunity the same as anyone else.
City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, to amend the Waterford Place General Development Plan (GDP) to permit additional duplex units and
remove assisted living from the use list. Planning Commission recommended approval at the May 22, 2019 meeting. (Case Number 1990-2012-03) (2225 S IOLA ST). STAFF SOURCE: Dan Osoba, Planner, Planning Development Services
Council Member Murillo announced the Ward I Town Hall meeting was scheduled for Thursday, August 22, 2019, noting the Ward I residents voted to hold
an At-Large and Mayoral candidate forum. She wished everyone a happy Pride Month and noted Colorado s first gay governor signed a conversion therapy ban for minors in the state of Colorado which was a huge way to celebrate the LGBTQA+ community.
ACTIONS(S) PROPOSED (Check all appropriate actions)
Approve Item as proposed at Study Session Approve Item with Waiver of Reconsideration Approve Item and Move Forward to Regular Meeting
Approve Item as proposed at Regular Meeting Information Only
HISTORY (Dates reviewed by City council, Policy Committees, Boards and Commissions, or Staff. Summarize pertinent comments. ATTACH MINUTES OF COUNCIL
MEETINGS, POLICY COMMITTEES AND BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.) On December 8, 2003, City Council approved a resolution ratifying, affirming, and declaring the City of Aurora's Intent to appropriate and to put to beneficial use, water rights and water storage rights in the South Platte River basin
ITEM SUMMARY (Brief description of item, discussion, key points, recommendations, etc.) The City through the Water Department currently owns 64 of
800 shares in the Western Mutual Ditch. The purchase of 19 additional Western Mutual Ditch shares is consistent with the Water Department s acquisition strategy. The Western Mutual Ditch Company is within the geographic area of the South Platte River conducive to Prairie Waters operations. The service area of the Ditch is generally located east of the South Platte River near the town of LaSalle in Weld County, Colorado.
The purchase price is 2,375,000.00. The typical Western Mutual Ditch Company share is valued at 125,000.00 per share based on market trends. The
purchase price also includes the associated dry- up covenant for the historically irrigated lands, and 44 acres of that historically irrigated land. This parcel holds strategic value to the city as it can be used to meet the obligations of a future change case on multiple Ditch systems.
A preliminary historic consumptive use study was conducted to evaluate the yield of the 19 shares and results indicate that the average annual
historic consumptive use is approximately 94.1 acre-feet total. The water can be used through Prairie Waters, for augmentation, or for trade. The water constitutes a portion of the additional water supply identified as necessary to meet the City s future water needs and will also benefit the City by providing additional yields during periods of drought. Staff
negotiated the proposed contract for the purchase of these shares and land with Eckhardt Farms Inc. The transaction will close, subject to Council
approval, no later than July 10, 2019. Before the water represented by the subject shares can be used by the Water Department for municipal purposes, the Water Department will need to complete a water rights change case in Colorado water court. Until that time, the ditch shares and land will be leased back to the selling party for the cost of the annual share assessment so the water rights can continue to be used for agricultural crop production.
LEGAL COMMENTS Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. R2016-52, the City Manager and the Director of Water are authorized to implement and carryout
the 2016 Water Policies that includes water acquisition of surface water supplies as the primary source of existing and future water supplies for the City. Pursuant to Administrative Policy Memorandum No. 4-14, water purchase contracts for transactions of 1 million and above are to be signed by the Mayor after Council approval. (Neitzel) Christine McKenney