City Council - Special Meeting

May 2025. Uh we're going to call the meeting to order and we're going to be discussing the charter amendments presented by our city attorney Patrick Coleman. Take it away, Patrick.

Okay. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim and council and and mayor on remote participation. Back on December 9th, we presented some options for amendments to the charter and discussed how they might be presented as a ballot question. We required additional time to go into those proposed changes and we wanted to incorporate some changes that the council had discussed at that work session. What you have before you is the new version of the charter with all of those changes uh that that uh both that staff had presented and that council had requested. the I guess to start with staff has had the opportunity to kind of review this uh in more depth in the last few days. And one of the issues that has come up is whether or not it makes sense to uh have so many changes for one ballot. And a possible uh compromise for that concept would be if if you'll recall, one of the main changes that we were recommending was to delete the references to many of the departments and move those into an ordinance so that council could add or delete or

change departments from time to time by ordinance rather than by a vote of the people through a ballot question. Um, when we started reviewing that, there were a lot of aspects of each department that the council felt should continue to be in the charter. And so what you have before you shows the references to the departments being eliminated, but those aspects that are more related to uh uh general operations of the departments were kept in the charter amendments. Uh what we are thinking may be a better solution is to only delete two of the sections that deal with specific departments. Those being the uh municipal utility department, which we're not aware was ever created, at least in the last 40 years, and the reference to a public health department, which as we as far as we could tell has never existed and and is by statute operated by Monizuma county. So our thought was perhaps delete those two references and keep the others as they are. We've been able to operate without too much trouble uh with those charter provisions in

their existing form for the existing departments. And it's thought that by not making those substantial changes to the department references, it will simplify the ballot question and perhaps make it more palatable to the general public. Uh that and Mr. Sanders may also have some some comments on that issue, but that that's one area that we thought perhaps uh we could condense our changes back to a more manageable amount. And the the other changes that we would be looking at would be a kind of a omnibus set of changes regarding spelling, grammar, typos, genderneutral references, and best practices. That would be one of the ballot questions. Another ballot question might involve the compensation for the city council and uh uh removing specific numbers and moving that provision into an ordinance that the council could change from time to time. The other uh possible uh uh ballot question would be the issue of remote participation. If you'll recall, council passed an ordinance governing remote participation earlier this year. And the thought was

if if we wanted to keep that ordinance in place, we probably should amend the charter just to ensure there is no confusion and no conflict between the charter and the ordinance. So, we thought that might more appropriately be a standalone ballot question. And let's see, Mr. Sanders, am I missing anything? Did you already talk about ballot or uh council compensation? I thought you did. Yes. Uh-huh. Okay. Yeah. Then I think that was it.

Okay. So, we'll we'll kind of throw that out for discussion. And I I think a lot of the changes that were made between last Tuesday and tonight deal with uh keeping a lot of the department references in place, but moving them all into one uh section or one article. If if the council decides that that may be uh too much for one ballot, uh we could reort revert back to the original charter language and make the only changes deleting the two departments that we don't have. So, I guess that would be a place I would recommend that the discussion be opened to and and see what other comments there are. Patrick, um, this this is Bill Lewis. I when I first saw the uh the changes at at last council meeting, my first concern was there's so so much change regarding this charter that it's going to be overwhelming for the voters. And when that happens, what they typically do is they shut down and and they they won't approve it. And so I think any way we can um start to eliminate some of those changes that's that's a good idea and and I would agree with you those departments is probably a a pretty good area to start on.

Okay,

this is this is Robert Dobri. I would agree. I think the scope um limiting the scope so it isn't overwhelming is probably a good idea. I think breaking breaking the um the ballot questions up into into the three that you that you described makes makes sense. There is one thing in the compensation piece that I do think we need to add into the charter. If we are if we are delegating that to an ordinance, I do think we need to make it clear in addition to the charter that no council can pass an a a pay increase for themselves. It it needs to be only for for a future council. Um I I think that could be that could clearly be a hangup and I also I just think we that's a clear guard rail protection to have in there to keep just to avoid malfeasants of any sort. I I agree with that. That's

that's definitely needed.

So, if you look on page 11 under section section three starts on page 10 and then goes to page 11. We've we've rewarded it to accomplish what Council Member Dori just mentioned. Uh, it says, "No elected or appointed council member may receive an increase in pay during their then current term in office. No council member may be appointed or hired to a position within the city for which compensation is paid from municipal funds until the expiration of one year after the council member resigned, was recalled, or was termlimited from serving on council. So, the the first sentence in that new language, and and I apologize, it's not in uh in all caps, but that would be an addition that starts with no elected or appointed council member may receive. Uh so, it clearly states they they can't receive an increase in pay during their then current term in office. And by saying during their then current term in office, if they if they run again and are reelected, they would be entitled to receive whatever pay council may have approved during the previous council.

Pat, can we make reference to this in the compensation section then? Because it was kind of confusing to have it split. Um, and I mean I can see there maybe a reason for that, but I think um, and sorry, this is Rachel or Mayor Medina. Um, what Council Member Dober said about making sure it's it's clear in there. I think having a reference to it in that section where it talks about our compensation would be good. So we can add that exact language into the first paragraph under section two on page 13 as well. So I have a question regarding that just to to sort of look at the whole concept of that and that would be if let's say we have a council member that votes on a raise for the ne you know for the next council or whatever and they're in the middle of their four-year term but the next council people that come on let's say at the next election are coming into their two-year term so they're going to be paid at a higher rate than the one that's on for two years. I I just find a a bit of a discrepancy about that and and I understand the concept because we want to be straightforward and the like, but this isn't going to happen that often, number one, but I can't see sit next to someone else and someone being paid less for it because it was for them doing the same amount of work, if not more. So, that's my only comment I would have on that. And and I don't know that there's any way around that.

Yeah, that's tough. I Yeah, I don't know that there's any way around it. it that is that is the regular procedure for elected bodies in in the state of Colorado is if if you're elected I mean current for instance currently the pay between commissioners is is different because one was elected under one cycle and and the others were elected under another and it it just I think it is it is what it is with that I I think that I'm less concerned about that than I would be about giving a future council the authority to to immediately increase their pay. So the only the only other thing I would say would be you would have to push it out further. But

yeah, that's what I was going to say. Like something along the lines of effective in [clears throat] a future date, for example. Like if that language is in there, it'd be awkward and it's going to be in there probably in perpetuity as often as we um change this, but I don't know if it would work. I mean sitting here thinking that you know effective in 20 28 or something along those lines and so then everybody would be on that same schedule at that point but anything but the before that could could be a you know two different

I think one of the things we're trying to do is to make this a little bit more to make the charter a little bit more evergreen so we aren't just looking we we're making it so that that can be reset by ordinance for future councils. 30 years from now. So, I don't I don't think we would want a future date in in the charter. We I I think just need to find a way around that to make sure we we push it far enough out to dis not disincentivize but not incentivize councils to do that. And and because your terms are staggered, there will always be situations where a council votes on an ordinance to increase pay and not all of the council members will have exhausted their term when the pay goes into effect. So it will be staggered necessarily even if it was all voted on at the same time. Uh I I'm not sure you can get around that. Uh I think the I don't know that we can get around that, but I think the language that I would suggest would be something along the lines of um any any council pay increases cannot take cannot take effect before the next elect before the next municipal election. something like that

that pushes you out to it's a new council at that point. I mean, you will have at least had to rerun. I think that's a great idea. And so, even if you have a person in the middle of their two-year term, at the next election, they're um they're they won't be up. If you have a person in the middle of their four-year term, excuse me, and they're at their two years, they vote for it, but the next election takes place and they're not on the ballot. So, that would allow them to accept that or No,

no. I don't I I don't think you should allow I don't think we should allow that. I I don't think you should be able to vote for a pay raise during during your existing term. I think it would have to be after your for a new term. Um my my only suggestion uh for like a different idea if we wanted to explore it would be the next budget cycle or the next election, whichever comes second. um or maybe like two budgets from now. I don't know. Yeah, I think if if you allow it during their term, the increase so it would impact

there will always be a possible perception that they were uh uh you know voting themselves a raise. Um whereas if it's limited to

after their term, if they run for reelection and are fortunate enough to get reelected, then you know that there was no guarantee they would get reelected. So the raise would go into effect on their next term. Uh, but I think mayor, under your suggested language, that that still leaves open the possibility that a a council member would be voting to increase their pay even during their existing term, which I think is what council member Dobbury mentioned that there it's pretty uniform statewide that that's not allowed. out.

So it comes down to term basically. So the ter the the term term has to be in there. I think it does. Yeah, I'm in agreement.

Okay. So if I if I take the language that is in on page 11 uh section three at the top top of the paragraph on page 11 where it says no elected or appointed council member may receive because that that section is talking about um council qualifications and council We we could remove it from that section alto together and move it down to the section dealing with compensation if if that makes more sense. I'm not sure we want to have it in there twice. What section is that you're reading in? Because I'm I'm not sure. I'm looking I'm looking at the emailed version and I'm not sure if the page numbers match.

If you go on page 10 there's at the bottom there's section three qualifications for city council members. Do you see that? Okay. That's I that's listed as page six on on this. Okay. Um it's your version. Well, what what I see on your screen is it's page 10 of 64 in the email the email version is different. That's why I we're I think we're all looking there as well. So if you could go by sections instead of by page numbers. Okay. So if you go to article two, section three.

Yep. Yep. Last last paragraph. Last paragraph. So we deleted that language and added on the next page a paragraph that includes the first sentence that deals with this issue we're discussing now.

Yeah, I think that looks written quite well actually. But but what I'm suggesting perhaps at Mayor Medina's suggestion is that we remove that first sentence from this section three and move it down to article Roman numeral 3 section two which deals with compensation of mayor and council members. I would agree with that. I think that that solves that. that it puts it all together and and I think that that sentence does what we were describing.

Okay. Well, we we'll just put it that first paragraph that's that's uh the amended version says the mayor and each council member under section two. Uh and then it ends with such amounts as may be determined by council by ordinance from time to time. we can add that language that currently is up in section three uh in article two and just stick it on the end of there instead. So, yes. Okay. Thank you. I think that makes the most sense. Does.

All right. Councelor, can can we back up a little bit here because I think we're kind of getting in the weeds on this one and we did for sure and I'm good with what we did. It seems like a reasonable thing to do, but can we get back to the original uh idea of kind of pulling back on our on our doing redoing the quote whole charter and just the things that we want to do? And the things that I think I'm hearing is number one is that to remove the municipal utilities and the department of public health from it. And then number two is sort of go to the best practices change, you know, rewrite the wording that includes the best practices and the gender references and the grammar and the spelling and clean that up. So that'd be in my mind that'd be number two. Um, and then and then we sort of get into a little bit of council things that are specific to council and that's and that's the one that we've just been speaking about which has to do with the compensation and you know pulling that out of the charter and um putting it into a codified document. Um and uh the second one under council specifically is the virtual attendance uh which is the one thing um and I think we are all in agreement with that one in in in theory um because we've already voted for that and um the other two things that I thought needed to be mentioned. one was directly under counsel and that was the term limits because if we're going to I I kind of look at this as we're bringing this forth to the to the voters to say we're cleaning up our portion of the house first, right? The council portion of the house and part of that is a term limits issue. So that might be a reasonable thing to put in here or because I it's not in the charter per se as of now. Am I correct in that assuming? No,

it it's in here. It's in there. Okay. Um and I'm under elections, that's article Roman numeral 4, section one. Okay. Okay. And it says uh can you give me the page on that that you have in front of you, Patrick? Oh, yes. 19. No. Yeah, it's it starts on um Yeah, it's it's it's it's all on page 18. I got it. I see it. Okay. I And that was added in. Is that added in or is that because it's in blue in mine?

Yeah. The the all caps at the bottom of the page where it says no council member shall I am with you. But are we adding that in? So, it has to be voted on.

Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to be sure that state statute that limits the terms, but it allows for local governments and especially home rule governments to have their own term limits. So, some of the home rule communities have chosen to do three four-year terms. Um this one and and ours is somewhat unique in that we have uh the three highest vote getters receive a four-year term and then the next higher one only gets two years. And so the language that I drafted uh allows so if if you get a two-year term and a four-year term, you still have the ability to do another two-year term. Um because it says no council member shall serve more than eight consecutive years regardless of whether their terms consisted of four years or two years. And then a four-year gap between terms shall be required to constitute non-consecutive service.

So that has to be voted on, right? To change that part of the charter. So that's so that's one thing that should probably be coming in there if we're cleaning up our our council portion of this if that's our goal. And if that is our goal, I'm kind of assuming it is, but I don't want to make that imposition on anyone. So, I I thought that one could be under best practices perhaps because

it's it's kind of how we've been operating even though, uh, it wasn't specifically spelled out in the charter, uh, as you rightly pointed out last time. Um, so I'm I'm not sure it's a controversial issue, but if if you think maybe it it needs a standalone ballot question, we can certainly do that. I don't know.

I have a You probably just covered it, but I missed it somehow. So, we got a council member that um has served, let's say, six years. He's up for reelection. He gets the most votes for. So now he has the ability by vote to do four years, but he can't because they'll be term limited after two. So does he automatically get the two years and the person that received the fewest votes now has four years? Do you understand what I'm saying? That is that's a quirk that you know we could handle it the way you just described or

in his campaign we could make it clear that uh he will be only running for a two-year term because of the charter provision and the three highest vote getters besides him assume He's got to be one of the four, but uh the other three, whoever gets the three highest votes, even if one of them gets less than he does or she does, uh that would uh uh they would still get a four-year term even if they only had the fourth highest vote total. So,

I understand all of that, but if you try to put that on a ballot, there's no way that everybody's going to understand what you just said. Yeah. And then so it may take a little more thought to uh to add that in there. Uh you know the now the the uh so

I I suppose a lot of communities don't have that two-year provision. They just say the the the four highest vote getters receive four-year terms. So, councelor, am I assuming correctly if I were to say that this because you mentioned it earlier, you mentioned that this may come under best practices because that's what we're actually doing. Would it be a better approach for us to do this in an ordinance instead of putting it into the ballot or does it have what is what's the thought on that? um you know I I think term limits is more appropriate for you know at the state level it would it would be a constitutional issue perhaps and and uh you know the it's just kind of my personal opinion that it it seems like more of a foundational rule that the city operates under. Uh because if you if you put it in an ordinance, I could see the opportunity for some shenanigans. If if a particular council decides they want to uh stay in power, they could modify this issue and allow for three terms instead of two and that sort of thing. So, I I guess I would recommend that it however we come up with the language, it it should probably stay in the charter. I would agree with that.

Does it have to be voted on at this I mean since we're trying to I mean yeah it I I mean I think it should be I think we should include the language in um the suggestion I was going to make is we could just align our language with the with the state the state law language which is the two four-year terms or three two or three two-year terms. Then you avoid that. Then you avoid that uh that issue that Dennis was describing. That's a good idea.

Hey Pat, this is Matt Keith Farber. I have a a real life. For instance, um five years ago, I was appointed by the council at that time for a one-year term and then I ran for council and uh received a second four-year term. If I were to run again um this next spring, which I'm not, how would that work? Is it I mean, it has to be through an election, I'm assuming, but could someone in that instance serve nine years in a row?

Yeah. And that that's why I put instead of terms, I put eight consecutive years. Now, if if you want to make it uh six consecutive, because if you if you ran if you if you had to run for one more and that brought you to nine, that that obviously would be a problem. Um, we we could address appointed uh council members and and treat their terms uniquely, either don't count the appointed the remainder of the appointed term. And so they either get six two-year terms or four or two four-year terms after their appointment. Um it it's uh yeah I think it we we kind of have flexibility in that and and you know you can always come up with scenarios where it it complicates it but uh I agree that your your situation would have been a little unique but not completely unusual and um [clears throat] So, I guess I'll uh open it up if I I I kind of like council member Dober's suggestion that we do just two four-year terms or three two-year terms. Of course, what do you you know, one problem with that is what if your you first term is a two-year and your next one is a fouryear. I suppose that account that that amounts to three two-year terms. So you you would still be prohibited from running again

be because you don't get the opportunity to run for two four-year terms. I I think we need to li limit it to eight consecutive years, no matter what you do and how you do the two-year term. I think when a guy reaches his eight consecutive years, he's done or she um the problem the problem there is then you're creating special elections. if someone was appointed and you're now adding additional expense to the city. Um the only other I mean the only other idea I had on well already if you're appointed you have to run in the next election. That's how we do it.

Yeah.

Um I mean the only other thing I can think is that if it's less than a year it doesn't count. And if it's more than a year, the major thus the majority of the previous the term that you're appointed to it counts as a term. That's the I I I don't know. But yeah, I I don't think we I think you would create problems if you put that specific eight-year if if you put that specific eight consecutive years because of exactly what councelor Keifa is is explaining. Could we put no elected council members shall serve more than eight consecutive years? And if you're appointed for a year, that wouldn't that wouldn't be included.

No council member shall be elected to serve more than eight more than eight years. That solves it. Yeah.

Yeah. I think and then the question is should we add a sentence that specifically exempts appointed members the appointed term uh from th this this provision of eight consecutive years. So it could go eight and a half or eight or nine years even. Mayor Prom, Drew Sanders here. Um, council, I I'm I'm a little worried that we're kind of grasping around on the dark in this a little bit and I also worry about some u language that ends up in our charter that could throw administration and elections into disarray in the future if we're not real careful. I don't know how important this is and if this is something we really want to tackle on this one or is this something we want to workshop try to get information from the state and maybe other municipalities and tackle this another time. Is it is this is this a hill we want to die on I guess is what I'm asking. Is it that important? Well, I'm not sure if it's a hill we want to die on, but I'm not sure that we can determine if that's that hill today sitting I mean, as we move forward into this. And um I think the one thing that I hear a lot about um from constituents and in the political field in general right now is term limits. And so I I really I I I don't have a strong opinion that this has to be on this this time, but it seems like a reasonable time to put it on because we're dealing with council. What I I think it's important that we clean our own house and we present ourselves as straightforward and as transparent as possible as council members and in order to prevent any possible perception that we're hiding or sliding things through, particularly as

we move forward with the charter in general in the future. Then may I sorry, Mayor Prom, I'll let you go. No, you go right ahead. I I was just going to have Mayor Medina chime in because she's got a lot lot of experience in this area or she's been around a day or two and uh

yeah, I would thank you. I would lean towards um yeah, just adding the word elected and we just maybe don't count um appointed years unless we want to do Yeah. If it's after one a less one year or less of an appointment. Um, and then I also, and I apologize. I want to kind of back up, but Patrick, I just want to clarify what you're asking of us. Are you asking which sections should make it to this ballot next April and which sections should wait, or are you asking us how it should be split up in the ballot to be more digestible? Um, and if you're I guess I'm Yeah, I want to figure out what else we're potentially leaving off if it's the first scenario. I I think both um the the the items that that I'm suggesting and I think Mr. Sanders supports this concept is leave the deletion of the other department uh off of this ballot and only delete the two departments that don't currently exist. So that would be the primary method of condensing the ballot. This other stuff we're we're assuming the council wants to include it. Uh

okay,

we're trying to figure out if it should be a standalone ballot question. if you think it'll be I think controversial or it's it's really important and we don't want to cloud the issue with other questions then we we make a ballot question specific to the issue. Uh and then the others can go into the kind of omnibus best practices uh ballot question. Uh so that that I I think the and right now the the two that I I think we are suggesting that could be two separate ballot questions are the compensation of council members that issue uh moving it to the to an ordinance and then the uh making the uh uh remote participation language consistent with the ordinance that you've already passed. So those two would be separate. The kind of omnibus question that would include all of the spelling and typos and best practices would be one ballot question. So the question then comes up if if you think this term limits is something that you want to include on this April ballot then we should probably try to figure out what language we want and whether or not you think that's a standalone issue or whether it could go into best practices as well. And I I I don't I don't think you're going to have a lot of push back, but

you all know the the electorate better than I do, but we we've kind of sort of superficially operated under the idea that council members only get two terms consecutive. uh we haven't gotten into the weeds on what that what does that mean with respect to the two-year term and and the appointed term but the we're not increasing it anyway

right well then I guess yeah I'll I'll wait to hear from the rest of council if this should be a separate question as well but I say the easiest thing or the most clear thing is no more than eight elected consecutive years or or six two-year terms, whether it's actually a four year and a two-year, whatever. If they've done six and they need to rerun again, they can't. They have to take a four-year break then. That way, it's not on staff to track. Yeah, I think Sorry, mayor. I I think our question is, do we want this on the ballot? Is that Oh, at all. Okay.

Is that our question? So that would make four instead of three. Well, I I I think this would be fine. I would be fine with I just I have a question. So I if it's been our kind of standard practice right now that we're only doing two consecutive terms and then if you take a break you can come back and do more another two consecutive terms. Is this written anywhere Patrick? There's state there's state law but not yeah

it's in the statute but not not even exactly that language. So I think we've kind of you know just operated as sort of a hybrid rule. Um, but I wasn't able to find where it's it's certainly not in the charter and uh, you know, it is in the statute, but it's it's a little different. And I think, you know, I guess the the two four-year terms or uh, three two-year terms seems to make sense.

I don't have a problem with including it. I think it would clarify things. I wouldn't include much more just for sake of uh the voter and reading through things and passing things and digesting things. Um but I would not include any of the language regarding um someone who's appointed. I you know if you need to underline or somehow in some other way emphasize the word elected um I think that's probably sufficient. I don't think there's many different ways to interpret that.

Mayor Proamman Council, our city clerk, who's a bit of an elections expert says that appointed years don't count towards that. So, that's probably the best way to go. If I could also suggest just for um you know speed for this evening and so on, uh I think we're on the right track here. Um maybe since we have a little bit of time between now and when the first reading of an ordinance would come, perhaps we could do a little research on what other municipalities are doing on this because I'm pretty sure this language is out there. Is that good with you, Mr. Coleman? Yeah, I think I think we'll you know I think as I'm understanding council we'll we'll go with the state language of a maximum of two four-year terms and three two-year terms which necessarily I think means if if you get a two-year term you're only limited to one more fouryear term because that would be six years and maybe we can we can say or six consecutive years after the two-year term limitation. So that uh because we do want to eliminate the possibility that one could win two years then four years and then four years.

I I think what I think what the city manager is suggesting is is that you do a little bit more research on this and and make sure that we get language that is okay, legal, and works. and we'll we'll we'll be able to review that again when it comes to an ordinance to approve this. I think the council roughly agrees on we want to include this. It's just a matter of making sure the language is tuned a little bit. So, I don't think we need to to keep digging into the weeds right now, I think, is what where we all are.

Now, one question. Do you do you want to make this a best practices change or do you want it to be a separate ballot question? Patrick, it's my understanding from our the conversations we've had here tonight is that it has to be a ballot issue that it just it has to be part of the charter. Is that correct? I mean,

I think I think what he's asking is make it as part of the best practices, the larger best practices. One, I would certainly be okay with that. I think we're basically operating with that. I don't think it needs to be standalone. I is the question. I I think have this as part of the best practices ballot measure would be good. I I would agree with that as well. I agree too. How does that when you say it has to be part of the best practice? It's just out of curiosity date like does that is that listed on as are the best practices listed on the ballot or is it just or is it written somewhere? Where would it be written if it it was a best practice?

Yeah. So, we'll have a we'll have a ballot question that references the type of changes, and it'll be only one of maybe three ballot questions, but one of them will include all of the the typos and the spelling errors and all that stuff and and the best practices.

That's what goes in. And at the bottom of the ballot question, we'll say as specifically stated in exhibit A of the ordinance approving the ballot. And then we'll create an ordinance that shows all of the changes except for the other two that are going to be part of separate ballot questions. And those two will also probably be referenced to exhibits B and C, but they will have something it will be an exhibit to an ordinance that will be passed and published and available online. So if if a if a constit or or a voter wants to read the specifics, they can go to the ballot and look at or the uh ordinance approving the ballot and look at the uh exhibits. And that that's kind of what I've heard from other city attorneys. I I I did a list serve question to kind of find out how they limited the length of their ballot when they had numerous changes. And uh the ones that responded said that they do it by putting the the specific changes into a exhibit and attach that to the ordinance rather than put it on the ballot. And then you just summarize it on the ballot.

And I I think just to clarify uh is Pat's asking us the best practices is an informal like category. So do we want this to be voted on separately or with a group of items we're considering best practices? It doesn't seem like anyone has any objections to including it in that what we're calling a best practices one. Agreed. Matt, did you have something or do you

No, I was just going to say that it it seems like people who pay attention, the constituents that do realize that or have in the past, if they follow elections at all, think of it as this. So, I don't see a problem with putting it under best practices and lumping it together. It's not a standalone um issue necessarily. Okay, Pat, I think everybody's in agreement. They're all shaking their heads, so Okay, that's good. And um so the the next um April's got one April's got one more thing I think she wants to add.

All right.

Thank you. I just have one more thing I promise. And um I really appreciate that we're we're deleting or going towards deleting the municipal utilities and the department of public health. Along with those lines, the only thing that's really outstanding as far as council is concerned in my opinion is our uh supervision of the appointed officials because we only have us down right now as dealing directly with uh with the city manager. we don't have a lot of clarification or and we don't necessarily have to have clarification but just maybe statements or as brief as possible saying that we also include the city attorney and the mayor. Um those that's my only input

regarding this city attorney I'm sorry that and the judge. Yeah, thank you. That's in there. Uh, but is that in But is it updated enough to so it's it's reflecting what we're actually how we're actually practicing now because I think it's not reflecting how it's actually practiced now after I reviewed the changes that you had initially recommended last meeting. I just want if you look under article three the council

and that's on page 12 goes on to page 13 under section three powers of the council and there it talks about one of the powers. Currently it just says appoint and remove the city manager. Uh and we're recommending that you add the city attorney and the municipal judge under that. So that and then so that's a point and remove and then let's see we we've also addressed it

u right so you made these two you addressed it in your last thing but the question is is can that be can those two be included under best practices or can or does have to be okay

good enough thanks that was my only question I appreciate your time Okay. And and we if you'll recall one of the changes that was we're suggesting if you go to uh article five let's see or article Roman numeral six is where it addresses the that the the council uh oversees the municipal judge and then under section four the the changes to the appointment and qualifications of the city attorney we're suggesting that rather than limit the job to a duly licensed attorney in the state of Colorado that I think it's probably shortsighted to limit the search to only city attorneys or attorneys licensed in Colorado. There may be somebody in another state. Uh now they would have to become licensed in Colorado before they could start, but um a lot of states have what they call reciprocity where you don't have to take the bar exam. You just have to fill out the application and pay like $1,000 and that gets you light, assuming you pass the background check, you get licensed. Um, and then my recommendation was that we increase the experience level from 3 years to five years to

we agreed on that last uh last council meeting. Patrick, that would be a best practices I think as well. So, I don't think controversial. I'm going to back up and I actually have two questions on this one. One is how do we know what's going to be included in the best practices other than in until we get get we get the exhibit? Is that what I'm hearing from you? When we get the exhibit, we're going to see what you've taken from your recommended changes and included them in the exhibit and we're going to be able to look at that and review that because it's not all the changes that you made in the first one. So that's I just wanted to clarify that. And then this the exhibit

will be attached to the ordinance that you see on first reading in in January. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. We have the opportunity to make changes all the way through the public hearing to that exhibit. But then once it's passed and adopted uh then that exhibit is a you know it's it's part of the ordinance which is a standalone document that can be referenced in the ballot questions. Thank you. And so I'll look forward we will I'm sure we'll all look forward to seeing that. Uh I don't think we can do a whole lot of we're just bantering back and forth back and forth. we're going to have to see the exhibit before we decide,

right, what we need to change. So,

and and can I back up for a second uh just a little bit to the uh city attorney and and I I've given this quite a bit of thought after our last meeting and it talked about, you know, talks about him being uh duly licensed attorney in the United States for the entire five years and versus three. I I I I know there's a lot of variation in professional uh accomplishments and professional motivation and professional experience and I think that if we limit it to five years that's just limiting our pool a little bit more than because speaking as a physician if I know a physician who's been out there practicing for three years they may have had a rip roaring very inclusive experience versus someone who's just sitting in a small place and that and I'm thinking that is going to be the same for an attorney. And so I think I'd like to in my opinion I'd like to put it out before the council that can we not consider putting this back to three years and opening up our applicant pool a little bit.

I I would be fine with that. I think I think setting the floor in charter as three years is fine and then it would be up to council to choose qualified and experienced person and that may be it may be a rock star with three years of experience and it may be someone with 30 years of experience. I I agree with that. Yeah, I'm I'm fine with that as well.

We can do that. All right. Any other issues or thoughts we need to deal with? No, I think it it looks like at least the the council in in the chambers, it looks like we're all in agreement and and um to have the three the three charter questions, a best practices, a compensation, and the um the remote meeting question.

I did if we're going to move um I don't know if we're going to discuss remote participation, but I did kind of have a question about that. Um Pat, so if this is a standalone item and it um happens to fail, what happens to the ordinance? Wouldn't that be in conflict with the ordinance that was passed? And

so and and Drew and I talked about that today. I think it would be certainly appropriate that council me to consider uh revoking that ordinance if if if that provision fails at the ballot box. I mean there there's the argument and I certainly made that argument when you pass the ordinance that the ordinance technically does not conflict with the the current version of the charter. But if the voters reject the proposed language, it would it would seem to me that they're actually rejecting the ordinance as well. And uh so I, you know, I think it's probably appropriate to consider whether you want to revoke it after the election. I I personally would agree with that. I think that makes the most sense.

I would agree with that as well. I think that was a great question and I would support it. Okay.

Okay. Pat, I don't see any other questions coming from council. Um, city manager, anything? I think enough said. I think uh we've pretty well covered it. Pat, do you have anything? Pat, do you have anything? No, I I think we've we've taken an hour of your time and that's probably enough. Mayor Medina, anything? Nope. I feel good about what the direction. Thank you.

Okay. This is the end of the Cortez City Council work session December 17, 2025, and we are now in adjournment. Okay.