City Council - Regular Meeting

Jessica, you've been promoted to presenter. Um, good evening. This is Durango City Council on March 3rd, 2026 and it's 5:30 p.m. Could we have roll call, please?

Councelor Gonzalez, present. Councelor Kosa here. Mayor Yazy here. Councelor Lawyer here.

And Mayor Pro Tim is absent. The next item on the agenda is the reading of the indigenous land acknowledgement. If we could have the recording, please Tom. This is a call to honor and respect indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. As residents and visitors of Durango, we are called upon to educate ourselves about the history and cultural heritage of the land we inhabit. The city of Durango is situated on the ancestral homelands and territories of the Nute, Hickoria, Apache, Apache, Pueblo of New Mexico, Hopicome, Hopi, and Da Navajo nations. The original stewards of this land were forcibly removed and exposed to countless atrocities by the United States government, including repeatedly broken treaties, forced assimilation, the tragic legacy of Indian boarding schools, and the loss of ancestral homelands. We recognize lasting generational trauma exists within native communities today. We affirm continuing importance of ancestral sites to descendant communities as integral to the living cultural landscape. This acknowledgement only becomes meaningful when combined with accountable relationships and informed actions. May this serve as a step toward inclusion and reconciliation.

The next item on the agenda is direction of the translator.

Yes. Hi and good evening. My name is Lee Torres and I am here with my colleague Le B Torres. We're here with a community language co-op so that everyone can speak and hear in the language of their heart. If you're joining us from a computer, you can access the language menu through the more uh through the more button and you can access it there for English or Spanish. and we can go ahead and get started.

Item three is opening remarks by mayor and councel.

Yep. Thank you, mayor. Uh, I've got several uh items under opening remarks. Um, first off, just a um a transparency statement. Um, my wife and I will be moving forward on permitting and new construction of a garage at our home in coming months. So, we don't see any conflict of interest, but wanted to make sure the council was aware that that was happening. Um, next, I had the sincere pleasure of attending the police and dispatch annual service awards uh banquet on Saturday, February uh 21st. the stories that got shared about the work that these individuals do and the lives they save while putting their own lives often at risk was really inspiring. Um there's so much more to the incidents and and the back room stuff that does that happens up at dispatch um that it's well worth anybody who can attend uh to hear that and it's much more than what we read about in the herald every year. So uh my appreciation for their work and I am sure city council joins me in congratulating all the award winners as well for the night. The only low point in the event was Deputy Commander Chris Gonzalez's butchered pronunciation of Flora. He said it with a Texas accent, and we're going to look past that and give him a year to figure out how to say the street name correctly, but after that, it should go on his record. Chief, uh, lastly, I Mayor Prom Woodruff and Mayor Yazy enjoyed staff presentations to Mountain Middle School 7th graders last Thursday as an experience in how city council works and a demonstration for the kids. Liam with multimodal, Commander Dunlop with our police department, and Shelley with public works did some excellent education, and I just wanted to publicly thank them and the ring master Clancy out there somewhere uh for organizing such a rewarding day for the kids and for this council member as well. So, thank you very much.

Uh next up is presentations and proclamations. I don't see any items under this section which would bring us to city manager updates. No updates this evening.

So next up would be committee board and leazison reports. All righty. So, um, I've been a little bit under the weather, but I did have the opportunity this past weekend to introduce Connor Gi up at the Fort Lewis Concert Hall. And this was all for the 150 250 celebration coming up. And it was really a great um evening performance because concert uh Connor Chi is a Navajo Indian who does classical pianists and he does it with his heritage in um full display of the music that he performs. So I found that really eventful. And then um I had the opportunity to meet with um a couple residents not at office hours but off office office hours and they were concerned just about also the parking with the um 9R but that's about it. Thank you

mayor. You do have a counselor lawyer with her hand up online also. Sorry Jessica.

You're good. I'll I'll pipe in when if you ignore me too long. Don't worry there. Mayor Um, I had council office hours on Monday. Um, had someone come by and thank council for supporting the ADU changes. Um, also had someone come by chatting about affordable housing and how they appreciated um, recent council efforts um, and the new division that we have, but we should be trying to do more and bring the cost of housing down. Um, had someone come in and talk about immigration, so that was great. Um, other than that, I went to the women's leadership conference up at Fort Lewis College last week. Um, and um, then there was a immigration um, listening session with Senator Bennett. Um, I forwarded you guys the email of all the legislation that he's supporting and putting through and the resources that they have. Um, and so we'll continue to track that um, as the city. So that is what was on my agenda. Um, council, I just wanted to talk about the library advisory board. Uh, there was cons significant concern by the group around any decision to delay pushing for a library district election until possibly 2028. Uh, more discussion was requested at our March meeting. I will work with Luke um to share council deliberations that impacted that potential delay and a refreshed survey on community input that would be delayed as well, but I wanted to make sure council understood that there was some concern at the at the advisory board. Thank you.

Next item up is public comment on items under consideration of adoption. If we could have the Public comment is encouraged on agenda items set for consideration and a vote by the council tonight. Public comments on items not set for consideration by the council come later in the meeting. Please begin your comments by stating the agenda items set for a vote you intend to speak on, your full name, and if you are a resident of the city of Durango, make your comments directly to the council. Do not expect a response from the council or staff. Comments are limited to three minutes per person unless modified by the council. Unused time is not transferable to other speakers. Comments must be specific to the item you identified when you began your comments. Profanity, hate speech, personally derogatory remarks, speech unrelated to the item you identified, or other speech that is disruptive to the meeting will be ruled out of order by the chair and any remaining time will be forfeited by the speaker. Exceeding the time limit infringes on the rights of others and is out of order. Only a majority vote of the council can modify time limits. Please note, you must sign up prior to the mayor calling the item on the agenda. Signing up after the item is called will result in your name not being called to speak. Uh, mayor, we have one uh, person signed up under this section on 8.3.3, which is a resolution approving allocation of round two 2026 logers tax local event marketing and that would be Beth Lambertson. Hi, I believe I'm here to speak tonight on the Eltech um grants that are going to be voted on tonight, not the event marketing grants. Are we good with that?

Thank you. My name is Beth Lambertson Warren. I'm in my eighth month as the executive director of the Durango Arts Center, 44year resident of the city of Durango. I'm here to say thank you. You have a vote later tonight. Um I want to thank the Eltech working group. I know one member in particular had to recuse himself on our grant. City staff Tommy Crosby, also the Durango Creative District, Katherine and Jared, and the elected officials. Um, these are highly competitive grants and we're on that list tonight and we're extremely thankful and grateful for that. I know tomorrow you are going to hear from folks who were not approved tonight and the Durango Arts Center has been disapproved in the past as recently as last year on two occasions. As our dear friend Ed Zinc said prior to his passing, sometimes you win, sometimes you learn. And as a professional grant writer, I know it's never just a guaranteed outcome. I'm very proud of what we were able to make happen with our application. In the 44 years I've lived in Durango, we've heard the talk of conference center again and again. sometimes more robust then it quiets down that and the parking garage. Um we are the downtown conference center at the DAC. We have 175 seats thanks to this very robust grant that should be approved later tonight of 18,800. We enhance our effort and our ability to be that conference center. And just this next year, 2026, right now we have 60 groups already lined up to use the DAC from entertainment to um relay Conference Center, Llata Electric to the festivals that you all know and love like Bluegrass Meltdown, Ragtime, and so many others. So I'm here tonight to thank you and I know there will be folks who are disappointed. We have been disappointed in the past and tonight we're extremely grateful. So, thanks for the hard work by everybody on the ELTAC funds.

Ve, can I check in with you? That was the only person that had public comment uh under this section. Yeah, sorry. We have two under um a resolution, but that would come later in the meeting. Oh, no. I checked that back. Um I'm sorry. That's completely wrong. Little rust, but that's Yeah, give me a month off. I forget what I'm doing. I'm sorry. So, two two additional people. Carolyn Re, please.

Good evening. So, this is in regards to the resolution on marijuana fees 2026-0019. Um, Carolyn Re withdrawing Organics cannabis business. Um, I just wanted to say that I'm pleased to see how quickly staff responded with a proposal for the revised marijuana fees after direction was given. um in the February meeting recently. Um I'm very pleased with the fees themselves that are being presented by the clerk's office. Um I may have misinterpreted a bit. I thought there was also um within that motion direction to review the application requirements and code provisions as part of that licensing process. And I know tonight there is a proposal on lower fees and that by far is the most important component of why we've been addressing the city. So I just wanted to say thank you for that support. Um on the other, it's my understanding that legislative changes and rules at the state level are typically tracked by the attorney's office and that um the ordinance detail and application pieces are kind of continuously reviewed by staff in the licensing and planning departments. Um any of who would recommend changes when rational or prudent. So for these aspects, I'll just connect with staff and seek any feedback or to be notified if any of those things are being reviewed for updates. But first and um you know mostly I'm just here to thank council for requesting the new proposal for the marijuana fees and ask that um it be approved as presented tonight. So thank you and for your time and attention over these past several months. Thanks.

Next up would be Johnny Ring.

Hi Johnny Ring. Uh, do we still have to say our address? 1389 Avenue to Del Soul Durango. Um, the owner of Durango Organics, one of the owners of Durango Organics. Um, first off, I wanted to thank city council for their cinderate for their consideration on reducing the cannabis licensing fees. Um, it was brought to my attention though that the council asked staff for additional information on the cannabis sales tax. Um, I realize that that is just a preliminary discussion at the moment, but we have had this discussion twice before in in front of city council and twice before city council voted it down. Um, understanding that uh the industry was already really heavily burdened by extremely high taxes and the licensing fees. Um, doing so now would be two step back, two steps back for us. Um, so I please ask that that's not a topic that's revisited. This is just something that I looked up and read. Um, thank you once again for updating the licensing fees and I hope that they are approved tonight and we appreciate you guys um taking care of it for us. Thank you. And that does complete the people who have signed up to speak. Uh, next up would be the consent agenda. Um, 8.1 is approval of minutes. Uh, we have no items on that section tonight. 8.2 is final reading of ordinances with 8.2.1 2.1 final reading of ordinance 20260006 for text amendments to the city of Durango code of ordinances chapter 27 the land use and development code in response to Colorado wildfire resiliency code uh 8.3 is adoption of resolutions by consent with 8.3.1 a resolution to wave additional administrative fees for the Durango Emergency Communications Center 911 services assessed to Lata County monthly billing beginning February 1st, 2025.

8.3.2 is a resolution approving the allocation of round 1, 2026 lodgers tax arts and culture funding. 8.3 is a resolution approving the allocation of round two 2026 lodgers tax local event marketing funding. 8.3.4 4 is a resolution approving the allocation of the renew grant funding. 8.4 is approval of administrative items with 8.4.1 being placement of an additional member to the mayor's youth advisory commission. There are no requests for public hearings. Tonight, we have several introduction of ordinances with 8.6.1 6.1 being an ordinance authorizing the city of Durango to lease a city-owned parcel located at 1050 Aino del Soul to Advantage Treatment Center Incorporated for the purposes of providing community correction services. 8.6.2 is an ordinance amending in pertinent part the Durango code of ordinances chapter 15 municipal court article 1 in general section 15 through 17 court costs 8.6.3 6.3 is an ordinance enacting in pertinent part the Durango code of ordinances chapter 15 municipal court article 1 in general section 15-22 default judgment fees and section 15-23 collection fees 8.6.4 is an ordinance repealing in pertinent part the Durango court of ordinances chapter 16 noise section 16.9 exterior loudspeakers 8.6.5 6.5 is an ordinance amending in pertinent part the Durango Court of Ordinances Chapter 24 traffic and vehicles article one application and adoption of the model traffic code section 24-3 amendments to the metal traffic code and we have no request for excused absences. Uh a reminder to council with one of our counselors online we do have to do a manual voice vote on this item and all

items tonight. All righty. Would anybody like to pull any agenda items? Okay, I would like to pull 8.3.2 and could we have a a motion? Like to move that we um accept the consent agenda as read with the exception of 8.3.2. I'll second. Any discussion? No. Uh, Mayor Yazi. Councelor Gonzalez. Councelor Lawyer.

Sorry. Yes. And councelor Koso. Yes.

That brings us to item 8.3.2 is a resolution approving the reallocation of round one 2026 LERS tax arts and culture funding. I would like to make the motion to approve all items with the exception of Los Companeros and um the reason is I don't think they're in very good standing with the city of Durango given their outburst during our immigration hearing. And um I just don't think it's good practice for the city of Durango to give like $10,000 to a a group that doesn't uphold our high standards. That's about it. Any more discussion? I'll second just so we have the discussion for sure.

So, was um was company given funding for arts and culture to perform their event? Is that what the funding was? Uh yes. I'll have Tommy Crosby with our prosperity office just uh provide a quick answer to the what they have what they applied for and what they received.

Yes. So, Companos uh applied in round one of our 26 LERS tax arts and culture program. They received a funding recommendation for $10,000. Um and there was a few components of their application. Uh they wanted to expand the arts program for their afterchool bilingual um childcare program laita. Um they wanted to have uh support funding for their uh Latin American celebration covering things like food um uh portaotties um some of those costs. And then they wanted to create a community mural as well.

Where is the community mural? Um they're working with uh city staff on approving the design and location of the mural. They submitted uh one request for the mural um and it it didn't meet uh they wanted to do it under a bridge that just didn't work out with um the way that that that part of the river trail works.

I see. Okay. Thank you. Um so you know I thank you uh Tommy. you can um sit if you need to. But I so many of you know I worked at Companto for a little while. I worked with Enrique as a executive director. Uh and the Esqualita program is wonderful. It's an afterchool program um for children who are um primarily Spanish speakers and um you know they would have as many as 30 40 kids. uh I don't know what the number is today, but they would provide transportation from Park Elementary and a couple of other elementary schools and provides that buffer for after school for children um till their parents could come pick them up at Fort Lewis College. It was a wonderful program. Um I was really proud of the work that they did and and um all of the volunteers, the students that came in to support. Um and regard um I think there are times where we could find a problem with an individual but that shouldn't impact our support of a particular organization or their program. So um I will um not be supporting that. So I guess um I'll ask Mark. She suggested that we fund everything except that. So, um, by voting a no vote, then we would have to go through another round to Okay, got it. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

And Tommy, if you wouldn't mind, I know you just did in the study session, but because we're at a live council meeting now, can you state again for the record what the standards are for the awarding of the grants? I think you had mentioned earlier there was no taxes owed, good standing, whatever that was for the the awarding of the grant.

Yes. So, uh, addition to across all city grant programs in 2026, including the lodgers tax arts and culture grant, we have an attestation that a business um, in order to be eligible for a grant program must be in good standing. That covers uh, things like they um, have an active business license. um they're in good standing with um the the city of Durango. There's no uh as the city attorney covered earlier, there's no active litigation um against the city of Durango, and we tend to use that as um our standard for determining if a business is in good standing or not. Um the prosperity office works closely with the city attorney's office and the city's man the city manager's office um to determine on an individual case by case basis if a business if a business is indeed in good standing or not.

Mayor I have a comment when it's my turn. You can go ahead Jessica.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I'm gonna try to um address this um directly and thoughtfully. Um, I want to start by saying I was disappointed in the tone and conduct displayed by um the organization's director during the recent or in October's or November's immigration discussion. Um, I believe public discourse, especially when emotions run high, must still meet a standard of professionalism. And I think we're all accountable for that. and I do not dismiss those concerns. However, um I do not believe withholding lodgers tax funding is a appropriate response from from us. Um I think the funding before us is not an endorsement of an individual. It is not a reward for their behavior. It is an evaluation of a program's impact, eligibility, and alignment with the lodgers tax criteria. Open serves people in our community who had no rule ro role in that outburst. the families and individuals supported by the program should not bear the consequences of a moment of poor judgment by leadership. If we withhold funding in response to speech, even speech we strongly disagree with, we risk creating a precedent where funding decisions become reactive rather than policy based. I don't think that this um that would be good governance. Um, if there are concerns about professionalism, those can and should be addressed directly and appropriately. But I think lodgers tax allocations must remain grounded in established criteria. Economic impact, visitor experience, and community benefit. And I think Tommy did a wonderful job um outlining why this program did fit does fit into those criteria. Um, we have to separate frustration from fiduciary responsibility. Um, I can disagree with the director's conduct and still recognize that the program itself provides value to this community. Um, so for me, the decision is going to be based about merits of the application, not about setting a political

disagreement. And that is it. Mayor, I appreciate you bringing this up for discussion. I think it was a worthwhile endeavor. Um, but I I I also have to agree. I think this hurts a lot of individuals who don't deserve to be hurt more than um the the executive director that it affects the executive director. So, um but I do appreciate you bringing it up for the discussion.

Well, thank you, Kip, but I'm going to have to disagree because usually the leadership sets the agenda for the organization. how to move forward, how to conduct yourself in society, and how you're going to give back to the community. And I don't see how acting so rude and negative and cursing at our congressperson assistance adds to any cultural education. You know, that's a really fine line that I think that the city of Durango has to look at really clearly. Are we going to accept somebody who obviously sets the agenda for this group but breaks all norms? It is really upsetting to me to have to run into a person at all these other meetings and keep explaining that no, that was not the city of Durango cursing at the congressperson. That was a private individual. So, I'm against giving them funding. We get roll call.

Mayor Yazi. Yes. Councelor Koso. So the motion on the floor is to approve all the grants less the grant to Los Copanos. So you would vote in favor of that if you'd like to deny the funding. uh and against it if you wouldn't. No. Councelor Gonzalez and councelor Lawyer. No. Um I'd like to make a motion um or I'd like Yes. a resolution approving the allocation of round one 2026 lodgers tax arts and culture funding.

Second. discussion.

Same. Councelor Koso, yes. Councelor Lawyer, yes. Mayor Yazy, no. Councelor Gonzalez, yes.

With that, that brings us to item 10.1. Uh public hearing on the zone change of Lightener Creek Commons real property within the city of Durango, Colorado at 271 Twin Butes Avenue. Good evening, mayor and council. I'm Lean Bernstein with Community Development. Um this evening we will be discussing the proposed preliminary development plan and zone change for the Lightener Creek Commons housing project. Um this item touches on our strategic plan specifically innovative housing and economic development. Um so in the process uh we are in considering a first reading of an ordinance specific to the zone change and a resolution considering the preliminary development plan. Uh your community development commission made a recommendation positive recommendation during their regular meeting in January. And before I go a little bit uh too much further um just a little bit of an outline. So this item is on the agenda a couple times this evening. So to clarify that um this item is a public hearing specific to the zone change. Before we get into that, I will be presenting on the project as a whole, including the preliminary development plan and that the implications for zone change. U my recommendation with this item is to um open up the public hearing. Um, and then this item will come back later on in the agenda with a resolution uh to consider approval of the development plan and then um a first consideration of the ordinance for a zone change. So, I'll be back up. The subject property is located at 271 Twin Beats Avenue um just past the

Speedway. Uh it is the former site of Animus High School. Uh the aerial um on the screen does still show those buildings although those buildings do not currently exist on the site anymore. Um so this project has a bit of a history. Um so it uh kind of first started when Twin Butes development and the city entered into a housing compliance agreement. Um part of that agreement was that Twin Bes transferred this property to the city with the understanding that the city would um pursue an affordable housing project. Um so the city worked to put out a request for proposals and we um eventually awarded that to Elevation Community Land Trust um who is part of the the application team uh uh for this project in front of you. Um, Elevation Community Land Trust working with Tributary Development submitted a conceptual development plan last year. That's the first step in a planned development. Um, and that was approved last January. Um, so at a very high level, I'll just touch on that piece of things. So, the proposal is for a community land trust model housing project. Um, it's planned to be potentially a mix of employerowned and forale housing units. um aiming at 70 to 120% area median income. Um as a reminder, the items that are in front of you this evening are specific to land use. So the uh preliminary development plan and the zoning and the housing agreement and the land conveyance is is a separate item. Um so a little bit about the project. Um so the preliminary development plan is proposing 29 units. It's a mix of one, two, and threebedroom units. Um, a handful of amenities include um, of

course, parking, EV parking, um, exterior storage for each of the units, common areas, bike racks, and direct access to, uh, Lightener Creek Trail, um, which will actually be constructed on a on a part of the site. Um, the zoning that goes along with this is, uh, just a PD zoning, plan development zoning. That's what the ordinance uh later on will be speaking to and what the public hearing is on tonight. Um so pursuing this PD approval and PD zoning uh we are entering into a plan development agreement with the applicant. Um and essentially says that this this development is is unique and wouldn't otherwise be able to fit under strict adherence of our land use and development code. Um so uh the final site plan is part of that agreement and it the approval essentially points to that site plan. It it has some flexibility regarding site area, lot width, um building setbacks and some unit configuration. Um this is a pretty unique site. It's long and narrow. There's a large hill definitely and of course the creek. Um there's definitely some site constraints that a little bit of creativity and flexibility um was beneficial. Um, I've included a unit mix and breakdown for reference and a couple examples of the um, unit layout and floor plans as well as some of the design concepts. Um if everything is going smoothly, we can anticipate uh construction next year and the first delivery of units in 2027 um and then uh through uh 2028. Um so this uh preliminary development plan was reviewed with uh by the community development commission in January. Um just a couple minor changes

have happened since then. Um addressing some of the comments um and questions provided by CDC. Um the individual storage areas uh were kind of external to the buildings. Those have moved internal to the buildings. Uh the applicant has revised some color schemes. Um trying to figure out how to fit more trees onto the site which is dependent on the final trail alignment. Um and then of course we are continuing to finalize documents regarding land conveyance and deed restrictions. Um so for reviewing the preliminary development plan again the resolution that will come back to you a little bit later this evening. Um the review criteria essentially says that this is consistent with the conceptual development plan. Um and uh staff and CDC has found that it is. There are a couple recommended conditions with the preliminary development plan approval um that were written in the staff report. There are some technical comments by engineering um and by the fire marshal that the applicant needs to address. Uh we are not anticipating that addressing these comment these these comments will impact the site design whatsoever. They're fairly technical in nature. Um and then there's a separate re review criteria for the resoning. Again, staff and the community development commission found that uh reszoning this to PD plan development zoning fits with these criteria. We have not received any public comments on this application either before CDC or before this meeting. Um and um again CDC and staff recommend approval of both. Um, so with that I would recommend Oh, I will say that we do have some uh representatives from the applicant team here in the audience and I believe on Zoom um in case there's any questions that come up for them. Um, but with that I would recommend you all open the public hearing.

Move to open the public hearing on the zone change for 271 Twin Butes Avenue to change the zone from commercial general to plan development for the Lightener Creek Commons plan development. Councelor Lawyer, yes. Councelor Gonzalez, yes. Councelor Koso, yes. And Mayor Yossi. Is there anyone signed up? Uh, no one has signed up under this item to speak. So then um do we need a motion to close the public hearing? Mark,

move to close the public hearing.

She raing has been well and um can I just remind counselors to turn on their mics because I can't hear you guys. I miss the seconds and the acclamation vote. So, just don't free to turn on your mics so I can hear you. Thanks. That would bring us to item 11.1, a resolution of the city of Durango amending and pertinent part the master fee schedule section marijuana license adopted and superseding resolution R 2014-24 and resolution 2016-40.

Thank you uh mayor and councel. My name is Ben Florine, chief deputy clerk in the city clerk's office, and I'm here this evening um to uh give you updates on a resolution updating the marijuana license fees. And specifically, it's a resolution of the city of Durango amending in pertinent part the master fee schedule section marijuana license adopted and superseding resolutions 2014 24 and 2016-40 supporting our strategic plan goals of organizational stewardship and engaged and informed community. And so before I get into reviewing marijuana license fees, I wanted to provide council um a snapshot of what Durango's current marijuana license fees look like in our in our structure and what licenses we currently provide. So the city of Durango allows for medical marijuana licenses, retail marijuana licenses, and testing licenses for both retail and medical. We no longer have any testing businesses in town, but we have 11 retail shops and two medical shops. We've had medical marijuana since 2010 and then retail marijuana shops since 2014. So to give you a bit of a narrative on Durango's current marijuana fees, um they were adopted in 2014 with the new licensing of retail marijuana stores and testing facilities. So at the time the fees were established to cover the cost of services. With a brand new industry in Durango, there was substantial staff time devoted to setting up appropriate regulations, zoning, community safety, and addressing consumer safety as well. In the past 12 years, we've seen the cost of service subside in the clerk's office with licensing paperwork at the point of renewal really being the focus.

With that said, their license fees also cover the cost of service with code enforcement for inspections and compliance. Um, it also supports the police department for emergency response and background checks at the point of renewal. And then it also uh the finance office supports uh marijuana businesses with sales tax management. And these operations are not limited to the point of renewal, but may require service at different times throughout the year for these businesses. So what do our current fees look like? This is actually a slide that I had shared with you guys, I believe last October, uh when we were reviewing all of our uh license fees with the city of Durango. It's a some mapping of our marijuana fees, but we have numerous line items like application fees, license fees, operating fees, etc. that get pieced together to get a total fee for their new application or for their renewal. But to summarize it, it is currently $10,000 to apply for a new license and $8,000 to renew it afterwards. We also have an assortment of fees charge uh charged for changes to businesses such as modifications of premise like when you add or reduce their footprint uh for changes of location, corporate structure changes, and a few other items. Those fees are smaller, but they range from $50 to $2,000. However, are rarely submitted as marijuana businesses don't change information that often. In the 12 years I've been managing the licenses, we we rarely get um uh report of changes for marijuana businesses. So, I wanted to provide you a snapshot of other regional entities and what they charge for marijuana fees as well. Um, you'll see on the on the slide here that Pagosa Springs and Llata County both

charge $3,000 for a medical or retail marijuana establishment application and then they charge $2,000 for the renewals. Um, I also found some information on the city of Cortez's website. Um, but it actually came to my attention that they had some old info on their website. Uh but Cortez's um application fee is $7,000 and then their renewal fee is actually $1,200. So the information that was published on in the packet was incorrect, but so Cortez's renewal is $1,200. I also identified several cities that have additional voter approved taxes on their marijuana sales. On the right hand of the slide, you would see that Grand Junction and Golden both have an additional 6% voter approved marijuana tax and that's in addition to their regular tax rate. Denver has a 5.5% voter approved tax rate or marijuana rate. Manito Springs has 5% and then Boulder's on the lower end with an additional 3 and a half% marijuana tax that was approved by voters. So this establishes the theme of municipalities funding sources when it comes to marijuana. Municipalities are balancing revenue with the appropriate cost of service. And with the additional marijuana taxes, voters in those entities that I shared have approved the revenue coming from the customer instead of the business. to plug some of those numbers in. Um my my um teammates in finance um they provided that in 2025 Durango collected $444,828 in marijuana sales tax. That's just with our three 3.5% regular tax rate. If voters in Durango were to ever approve a uh 6% marijuana tax totaling nine and a half percent, that revenue could look like $1 million $27,390.

If Durango voters approved a marijuana sales tax rate similar to Boulder, an additional marijuana uh sales tax rate of three and a half% that would turn our marijuana tax rate into 7% which would provide the city $889,000 $889,656. So, just kind of giving you some projections on what other towns uh what other towns voters have approved for marijuana tax and what Durango could look like if that was something that uh if that was the will of the voters. So getting to the main focus of this res of this resolution, after reviewing our fees and comparable fees, our goal is to balance the cost of service with our fees charged and also to simplify our fee structure. So we're proposing to mirror the marijuana enforcement division's level one licensing categories for the types of licenses we allow, which would be $2,420 a year for a new application or renewal. We are also proposing to update our fees charged for changes to the business. Instead of charging an assortment of fees for premise modifications, trade name changes, corporate structure changes, we would charge a single $250 fee for those items through a report of change. And then last lastly, we'd eliminate fees for items like background investigations and duplicate license fees. I'd also like to review the proration of marijuana license fees. We had a licensing scenario this past year where a marijuana business was changing ownership a few months after they had renewed the license. And at the time they were required to pay a full application fee of $10,000 though they had just paid $8,000 to renew it. There was interest from council to allow for

proration of licensing fees in the event of an ownership change. So in this resolution, we've addressed this by notating that an annual license fee may be prrated based on the day of issuance of the license to the new LE. We could prrate the license fee for any remaining days of until the expiration based off the new $2,420 fee. So if a change of ownership happened halfway through a licences licensing period, um it would be $1,210 license fee. The other item I wanted to point out is uh this resolution if approved would be implemented on July 1st, 2026. There's never a perfect time to implement a fee change. However, this is more of a good fee change um in the perception of the industry. And uh if we started it on July 21st, it would allow me to start in April noticing the businesses whose licenses expire the second half of this year. also wanted to review the fiscal impact of lowering these license fees for marijuana business. So by renew by reducing the license fees to $2,420, there'd be a reduction in the general fund of $72,540 on an annual basis. The general fund would still need to fund current staffing levels that support the cost of service to marijuana businesses. And without an immediate replacement source of revenue, the funding gap would remain. Generally, $72,000 could support positions that service marijuana businesses, like a deputy clerk in licensing in the clerk's office or a financial services consultant who would manage taxes with the business. And you can you could see those wages identified on the on the slide. That's their annual wage plus insurance, retirement, and other benefits.

And I'd be open to any questions from council. And you'll see the recommended motion on the screen. Move to approve a resolution of the city of Durango amending in pertinent part the master fee schedule section marijuana license adopted and superseding resolution number R-2014-24 and R2016-40. Second. Jessica, do you have some discussion?

I'll I'll just say I'm um thank you, Ben, for the quick turnaround. I didn't expect to be getting a presentation this this early and it was very thorough and I appreciate how in-depth you went into everything. Is there um there'll be a deficit obviously the 70,000 that you showed um is there a way do we have a plan for covering that for this this year going into you know next year maybe half of the rate this year and then the full amount next year I'm assuming

probably will answer that for uh for Ben uh it'll just have to be eaten up throughout our general fund. It's a general fund revenue that goes in there and we'll find ways to uh find a way to cover that deficit. We don't have anything at this point where it is coming from a a certain department. It may come from a lot of different departments to get there. And then also as next year's goes in, it'll just always depend upon uh any increases that we do receive in sales tax. Excellent. Thank you. Shop local you guys, right?

I I Ben, thank you. I'll I'll echo uh councelor lawyer's um comment as well. I appreciate the work and the turnaround on this thing. Um, part of the request from council, I believe, included examining the process as well. Is Is that part of what you'll be taking into account? I I'm not sure that's part of what we're doing here, but the process was also hopefully going to be examined. To confirm, are you talking about some of our local regul regulations paired up against the state's regulations? I think it's processed through the the applications for the license fee and all of those things, but it could be a wider it was a little bit vague in the in the request. So, I understand. And I was maybe just asking what your take on the request was.

Yes. Um I my take on the request was to really look at license fees um and more so pair those up with state statute with the short turnaround since the last meeting. That's kind of been my focus this past week um on this resolution. However, like members of the industry have noted, there's certain regulations that Durango implemented in 2013 and 14 that um may not be consistent with the state anymore. A lot of those items um are managed by other departments and I'm not necessarily the subject matter expert on that, but that would probably be something that we would be working through with community development and the attorney's office um to get rid of any redundancies or anything that is um less restrictive than the state is operating right now. And um if given direction, staff can certainly come back uh with some of those items. It would probably be a multi-dep departmental uh approach to some of those items.

It probably take some time. Okay, great. Thank you on that. And then I I I do just want to point out I mean we we when we have deficits, we don't need to put those deficits on the backs of a single um type of business. It wouldn't be fair to do it to the restaurant. It wouldn't be fair to do it to the hotelers. It wouldn't be fair to do it to the marijuana shops either. So, anything that it requires us to support the administrative functions that we've got, I think has to be distributed across all businesses and not necessarily targeting one business just because it happens to be a marijuana business. So, I just wanted to put that in the record. Thank you very much for the work on this.

Thank you. Um, thank you, mayor. And just also thank you to the folks from or uh Durano Durango Organics for educating me on this issue. It's something that is new to me and so I'm glad to just learn more about the industry and also it was one example of I think uh the way government works. We were notified of an issue. Um we here as the council took it very seriously. We worked together to come up with something more reasonable and it happened a fairly timely manner. So um just thanks to all parties who made that possible. um especially the business owners who I think brought it to our attention because it is something certainly I never would have known about if it hadn't um come from our constituents. So, thank you, Ben, for your work and the team for making it happen. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. I I would echo that. Um uh my partners in the marijuana industry, we've had great relationships for over a decade now and um I think it is a successful um example of how government and industry can work together. Any other discussion? Seeing none, let's get a roll call. Yes. Uh, councelor Gonzalez, yes. Councelor Koso, yes. Councelor Lawyer, yes. Thank you.

That brings us to item 11.2, Two, a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a me memorandum of understanding for the Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration regarding the North Main Housing Project. Good evening, mayor and council, and good evening members of the public. Uh, for the record, I'm Brian Devine. I'm the city's housing policy and planning administrator. uh here to talk about a memorandum of understanding for the North Main Housing Project. This item align aligns with our strategic plan goal of innovative housing and economic development, specifically to create a multigenerational mixed income community through innovative partnerships. I'm going to talk very briefly about the project location here um and walk you through the item uh in your packet requesting authorization for a memorandum of understanding. Uh it's always dangerous to put up a uh project location uh and parcel map um before you have a site plan. Uh and we do not have a site plan for this property. We're at a very preliminary stage of discussing uh this property and a housing project on it with the property owner which is the state of Colorado. So to orient you, we're talking about 3801 and 3803 Main Avenue as well as 3727 West 2nd Avenue. Uh and these are the um three uh main parcels in your image in the uh in the light purple. Um the building uh just to the right of center is the regional offices for the Colorado Department of Transportation and they are the owners of the parcel on the northeast. the parcel at the center and the parcel at the uh west center is the Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration. Um that department has a public private partnerships unit whose mission includes developing workforce

housing projects on surplus state land. um they have been in discussion with the prosperity office for a number of months now about uh possible project on this property and we are at the stage where we'd like to execute a memorandum of understanding uh with the state to proceed to formal site planning. Uh normally the authority to execute resides with the city manager and you don't generally see those on a council agenda. However, um this project is a little bit different for two reasons. One, uh this is the first time this project has appeared before city council. oftentimes we would be executing something like anou after you've seen it through either a conceptual development plan or annexation or initial zoning. That's not the case here. The second is that theou contains um some language that we haven't used before. Um this is non-binding language stating that the city will investigate new sources of financing not previously used by the city for these types of projects. Um for those two reasons um we've chosen to seek authorization from council uh before executing with theou and proceeding further to formal site planning and pre-development study. As such our recommended motion is um to approve resolution R20260020 authorizing the city manager to execute that with the Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration regarding the North Main Housing Project. Uh the resolution and theou itself are in your packets and I'll be happy to take any questions. Like to move as read

a second.

Oh, Jessica, do you have any discussion? Nope. Nothing for me. Hi. Um, you're Brian. Yes. Okay. Um, so Brian, can you go to the screen? Um, that just gives the map. You don't have too much information to share this. I'm a little bit concerned about why you don't have too much information to share because we've never done this before. I guess that's what you said. This is the first time the city has done a memorandum of understanding with the state related to a housing project.

That is true. Um it is the first time that we've asked to um be formal partners with the state on a project like this. We have on a number of occasions executed with development partners. Those are generally for city-owned land whereas this is state-owned land. So this project is unique from that perspective. It's also the case that um thisou is happening before council has seen this project in any other fashion like for some sort of development plan approval um or uh budgetary approval or anything like that. So we felt it was best to bring it to council first so that we didn't get too far down the road without council having any knowledge uh of this project.

And I imagine we'll have opportunities to engage once there's a project. Certainly. Yes. Um I think it is important to state u state parcels are are not exempt from our land use and development code. So this would go through all the normal um land use processes and if there are any city finance implications as stated in your packet documents um those would also have to come to council through the normal budgetary or appropriations processes and this is because it's specifically for housing uh is the why the state right the state has a program where they're dedicating funding specifically to affordable housing not just any housing I

that is correct for uh workforce housing is the term that they Um, so the the the state could proceed with development of the site without the city's involvement. However, we do believe that theou allows the city to be more involved and therefore for the project to be more tailored to city goals rather than specifically only to state goals and the state has been amenable to that approach. And so currently you mentioned these two parcels are stateowned.

These three parcels are stateowned. Yes. The um large parcel at the center and the parcel immediately to the west are both vacant and owned by the Department of Personnel and Administration. That's who theou would be with. The parcel at the upper right is owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation and is in use as their regional office. However, the way the state works is the Department of Personnel Administration would have the right to take over that parcel and also use it for workforce housing um if COT were to move out. though theou does cover all three of those parcels.

Okay. Well, this is curious. I guess we'll see. Is there is there a timeline? Uh we will uh have a lot of more information if thisou is executed um very rapidly. The state has a development adviser and financial adviser on board for this project already which means we can proceed to site planning and other pre-development studies um very soon after theou is executed. Okay. All right. All right. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, mayor. Happy to help. Yip.

Okay. Thank you, Brian. Okay. So, what are the benefits to the city? Would this count towards Prop 123? Uh, it's too early to say whether this would count towards Prop 123 or how much of it would count towards Prop 123, but certainly that is one of our goals for the site. Okay. So, if we did a partnership with the state, I'm assuming we would forego charging them for any fees. Uh, we're not committed to that in theou, but they would be subject to our fee waiver policy like any other development. Yes. So, that their their eligibility for fee waivers is not dependent on your action on theou.

Okay. Then at any rate, I I think I heard you say that they would move forward without us. Anyways, I can't speak on their behalf. Um, but they certainly could have proposed a development on this site without the prosperity offic's involvement and without this type of Yes.

Okay. So, what's their motivation for involving the city at this point? For the city, the benefit is that the project can be better designed to reflect local needs as expressed in our housing needs assessment as opposed to just the state's overall housing needs assessment and their plan and sort of how they operate uh within the department of personnel administration. So, our expectation is that this approach will produce a project that's a better fit for Durango um from a uh a housing needs perspective.

Okay. Okay. So, is there any way to guarantee that we would get Prop 123 um endorsements so we could add this to our obligation already?

Theou does not contain language that requires the project to include any particular type of unit. Um it does include exploring both home ownership and rental units. and the stated goals in theou align with uh Prop 123's definition of units that we can count towards our filing commitment, but it doesn't require any particular number of units that would have to comply. Generally, those kinds of decisions are made after you've engaged in the pre-development studies, um the site planning, because we we don't even know the total number of units that will go on this property. Um, so it's premature to require any particular number of units that would meet any definition of affordability, but certainly the city and the state share a goal of um delivering units on this and other sites that are um that meet those Prop 123 affordability requirements.

All righty. So at this point theou is just an obligation to investigate working with the state. It is authorization for us to formally work with the state and jointly do those pre-development studies, site planning, selection of developer, etc. That's correct. All right, that's all my questions. Any more discussion? Could we get a vote? Councelor Lawyer, yes. Mayor Yazi, yes. Councelor Kosa, yes.

Councelor Gonzalez, yes. That brings us to 11.3, a resolution amending the master fee schedule related to planning and building permit fees.

Uh, mayor and council, I'll do a little bit of an introduction. Jamie, if you wouldn't mind kind of helping. Uh, this is a same presentation that we did last council meeting. Uh, however, we realized really quickly that uh, myself and Mark missed that there was a friendly amendment that was made during the discussion. Uh, Jamie and Aaron actually caught it, but we actually weren't exactly sure how the friendly amendment went. It kind of flew in a little fast. So, we just want to make sure that we are in line with what that motion was that the council uh, passed. So, we're not asking you to reconsider anything else. We just want to make sure we got the motion correct. Uh, and I don't know, Jamie, if you have what we believe that we got as the friendly amendment to ensure uh that we're correct. If you could just go over that motion to ensure that we're in line with the council.

Yep. Um, so it's specific to um the re- roof, the windows and sighting, and the solar. That's what we understood was going to be staggered to where it would be 125 April 1st of this year and then go to 250 to April 1st of next year. um wanted clarification that we had actually proposed something um 250 for residential and 350 for commercial. So I wanted to see if the intent was to provide uh a stagger for commercial as well or to have one fee for all of those type of permits. Do we need to move to approve the motion first before discussion? Yes.

Throw um can you throw that motion up for me folks? Move to approve a resolution R number R-2026-12 amending the master fee schedule related to building and planning and building permit fees. Do I need to put the friendly amendment attached that onto there? Um to include a 50% reduction in re-roof, window sighting and replacement and solar in the first year and a 100% fee in the second year. So it'll only just be a 50%. Doesn't matter what the number is. I believe that's what councelor Woodruff and I were pushing for. So, we need clarity on whether it applies to residential or residential and commercial, right?

Yes. 50% for residential and 50% for commercial. Correct. That's what I was shooting for. So, I have a 250 350 on there. So, it will be 125 for residential this year and 175 for commercial. My confusion. I didn't know if the intent was to only apply to residential to apply to both residential and commercial. I can see where the confusion was. We were only talking residential. So we we just hadn't mentioned commercial, but I believe the spirit of it was half for the first year and then the full residential and commercial. Any disagreements, councelor, lawyer, anybody? No. Second. Yeah. Second.

And then just revote if that's the correct motion. So, since I interrupted and because we do need to make a better habit of dealing with these super friendly amendments, can we reread the motion that's being voted on immediately before it's voted on when there's an amendment? One more time there, Vanna. Uh, and I was calling Tom Vanna. Thank you very much. Uh, I move to approve a resolution number R-202026-12 amending the master fee schedule related to planning and building permit fees to include a 50% reduction in the first year for re-roofing, window sighting and replacement and solar and 100% fee in the second year. Both res

for both res for both residential and commercial. Yeah, sorry. That's already reading it for clarity. Right. Okay. Jessica, do you did you hear that? Yes. I got it. Could we get a vote? Certainly. Councelor Gonzalez, yes. Councelor Koso, yes. Mayor Yazy, yes. Councelor Lawyer, yes. That brings us to 11.4, for a resolution authorizing a letter to the editor from city council to the Durango Herald.

I'll make a motion to approve a resolution authorizing city council to write a letter to the editor and a position statement. I was I had said that originally, but anyways. Second. Could we have discussion? I can start if you want, mayor, since I Yes.

jumped in there. Okay, great. So, um I went ahead and um took a stab at a position statement to get us started um with um basically to help provide clarity to our community regarding immigration related discussions. um specifically questions surrounding a potential municipal mask ordinance um and the actions this council has and has not taken. Um I over the past several weeks there's been significant public dialogue, confusion, and in some cases misinformation about what the city of Durango is considering. Um, I believe it's our responsibility as elected officials to clearly articulate where we stand, what authority we actually have, what steps we've already taken, and how we're prioritizing city resources. This position statement is not about advancing new policy tonight. It's about transparency. It outlines why the city is not currently pursuing a mask ordinance, what legal and fiscal considerations are involved, what actions we have taken regarding immigration related issues, and how we're continuing to monitor state and federal developments. Our residents deserve straightforward communication, I believe, not speculation or fragments that they find on social media and not assumptions about council intent. They deserve to hear directly from us. My hope is that this statement with some tweaks that my colleagues potentially give me because um I haven't had any yet and so um it'd be great for council to weigh in on this. Um serves as a factual measured explanation of our approach and that if council agrees it can be shared publicly throughout our information office submitted as a letter to the editor and a position statement so the broader community has access to it. So that is where I'll start. Surely

so thank you um so thank you councelor lawyer for for giving the first iteration oh let me start again okay um so thank you to councelor lawyer for g getting the first iteration of the letter going um and I was comfortable with the facts that were presented just not nec necessarily the sentiment. And so I think that's the difficulty of of doing what we're doing. Um, and so I guess what we're voting on is whether or not we submit a letter to the Herald, a position statement. Um, because again, I'm not really opposed to doing that. I'm not 100% comfortable with the content. Uh and then it just created some difficulty because we know that there's a petition circulating. They should have um we'll know by March 6th if the number of signatures were approved. And so um I'm more in line with what's being circulated. So I don't Mark can I get a little guidance on what to do regarding um you know again I'm not opposed to writing position paper. So um and I'm not I'm not opposed to the facts that are in the document presented. It's more of the sentiment that I'm concerned with. So where where do we go from there?

So you don't want to miss make the mistake that the county made where you're making these decisions outside of a public meeting. So now is really your time to make those and it's a little awkward, but we want to not violate OML, but now would be the time to get a consensus among your counselors about what should be in that letter if it's going to be different than what counselor lawyer has put in. So you would ask for the friendly amendment to add some specific language that you might want. Um or you could ask for more time to do that. It's there's no real it's a it's a council function for a council position that my only advice to you is that you have to do it out in the open and reach a consensus of you know more than three of you.

Well um I think you know I would like to offer for um to feel comfortable proceeding that the facts that are stated um in the position paper I support. Um, so I I don't um because I don't know that everybody's seen it. Um, I was it was my responsibility to do another round um of edits. Um, but I I've been reluctant to do that given that there was part of the sentiment I didn't agree with. So I I you know that's is again like the difficulty. Um, however, the facts I support.

Sure. I I don't have a whole lot of guidance to offer you. I mean, I see that the newspapers is here and whatever comments you make would, you know, that's one way that I've seen politicians do it where they vote in favor of something, but they they make comments that then get reported about their specific, you know, feelings about it. But that that's kind of getting out of my lane being the lawyer on this one. The the strict rule is any amendments that you want to offer, you would do them at this meeting in public and they'd have to be supported by a majority of your colleagues. And can I just chime in? Councelor Gonzalez, any any edits? I'm open to like there he said it was like awkward. I know it's awkward to talk about it. That was my initial just draft to like try to throw in what we had talked about like as a counselor and what we had done. So I'm happy and willing to, you know, like there's no hard feelings like if there's something that needs to be changed, I would like all of council to weigh in on it. Um I I have my hand go ahead right now.

Okay. So I'm feeling a little um perplexed at this point. So I would like to make a new motion. Um, I would like to make the motion that we postpone this at least until the next meeting. So, I have more time to discuss this with my council members. And if I could get a second, I think that would be a good thing. Thank you. But we can't discuss it outside of this meeting is I think there's a is there a motion? There's a motion and a second on

So, there's a motion to table, but that does require a second. And once the second comes, then that takes precedence over any further discussion. Okay. I I second.

So now the only motion on the floor is the motion to table the the resolution until the next meeting. And technically you're not supposed to discuss the merits of it. You're just supposed to vote on whether or not it gets tabled or not or why you would not table it. Technically, under Robert's rules, the discussion is supposed to be limited once you put a motion to table on. Of course, the rules are the way you guys intend to apply them and it's up to your chair, you know, how much discussion is allowed. I'm just telling you what Robert will say. So, you have a motion to table on the floor.

Second. It's been second. Second. Okay. Okay. Can we get a vote on that? Yeah. So, a motion to second to table to the next meeting. Uh, Mary, yes. Councelor Koso,

yes. Councelor Gonzalez. Councelor Lawyer. No. Not to add complexity, but now that it's tabled, is it able to Was it the next? So, yeah. Was it What was the vote? Three. 3 to one. Okay. Scared it was two. Yes.

Three to one. brings us to 11.5, a resolution approving the Lightener Creek Commons Plan Development Preliminary Development Plan Commons Preliminary Development Plan by Resolution. So happy to take any questions. Move to approve resolution R-2026-000021 accepting the plan development preliminary development plan for Lightner Creek Commons located at 271 Twin Butes Avenue with the conditions listed in the staff report.

I'll second. Please, are you gonna do a presentation? No, no more presentation. So, happy to take questions. That was the presentation on the public hearing. Okay. Oh, that's right. Okay. Oops. All righty. See no um hands or Jessica, do you have any um discussion? No. All righty. Could we get a roll call? Councelor Kosa. Yes. Uh, councelor Lawyer, yes. Mayor Yazi, yes. Councelor Gonzalez, yes.

That brings us to item 12.1, an ordinance for the purpose of amending the zoning of Lightener Creek Commons Real Property located within the city of Durango, Colorado at 271 Twin Butes Avenue. Thank you. And up in front of you is a motion to approve uh the zone change by ordinance. This would be considered the the first consideration with the potential for a final reading at your next meeting. General development comments plan development. Second.

Councelor Lawyer. Yes. Councelor Gonzalez. Yes. Councelor Kosa. Yes. Mayor Yazy. Yes. Brings us to item 12.2, an ordinance for text amendments to the city of Durango code ordinances chapter 27, the land use and development code regarding fair share housing and related definitions.

Good evening again, mayor and council. Once again, I'm Brian Divine, housing policy and planning administrator for the city uh to discuss proposed text amendments uh to our fair share housing program, which as you can see by the audience exiting is the most exciting item of the evening. This item also aligns with our innovative housing and economic development strategic plan goal. I'm going to start with some uh introduction to fair share and some program history. So fair share is the uh city's term for what is usually called inclusionary zoning. Um this is a policy uh widely used around the country to require developments with certain characteristics to include a percentage of affordable or attainable housing. The fair share program design incentivizes developers to include these units on site as part of a mixed income housing development, but does allow uh developers some alternative compliance methods to contribute to affordable and attainable housing in Durango uh through other methods as required by state law. Uh as you can see on your slide, the um policy has existed in one form or another since 2009. um but it went underwent major revisions in 2024. There were a couple of causes of those amendments in 2024 or uh reasons that staff brought those amendments forward. The first was obviously the major changes in Durango's housing market um from about 2019 or 2020 through 2023 2024 when those were under consideration. And the second was in that same time period there was a um considerable amount of state legislation that applied to inclusionary zoning programs. Uh as a result um staff uh proposed and city council adopted um

major revisions to the program design um most notably uh including rental projects for the first time. Uh prior to 2024 fair share applied only to home ownership projects. The second was to explicitly promote on-site construction of those mixed income housing developments. Um, prior to 2024, the program design essentially balanced on-site construction with generation of revenue. Um because one of the alternative compliance methods that I mentioned is that developers may pay a fee that goes into the uh innovative housing fund that the city could then use essentially to fulfill that obligation on the developer's behalf. So in 2024 the other major change was to um through various methods uh strongly promote that on-site construction. Um and in fact that's even found in a purpose statement and a policy intent statement within uh the code language today. A major feature of the program design is that the code language is accompanied by a procedures manual um which was uh written in 2025. That procedures manual uh is adopted by staff though it is subject to public notice and council notification. Also in 2025, staff began uh processing and reviewing development proposals that are subject to the fair share ordinance um for the first time under the new 2024 standards. And uh as is often the case when you make a major change to a program design, as we did in 2024, applying those standards in the real world for the first time revealed a couple of things that were not clear or contradictory. Um, we resolved as many of those through the uh 2025 procedures manual as possible, but some of them do require uh amendments to the actual code language and that's what's before you today. Before I introduce those amendments, I

just want to describe the fair share program design uh because um a key part of what we're uh doing today is um making that design work more effectively. we're not making changes to the design itself or the program intent. Um, this image is from the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority. Don't get too hung up on the exact numbers presented on this slide, but what it represents is what we call the housing continuum in Colorado and introduces the concept of area median income or AMI, which is usually expressed as a percentage. The concept of AMI is a way for us to take what would otherwise be raw dollar values for both incomes, prices, and rents and adjust those for household size and for the incomes within a particular county. So, the idea is that you have an area median income and then you relate qualifications uh and uh procedures within individual housing programs or projects back to that area median income and that allows them to essentially be standardized around the state while reflecting local conditions and reflecting household size. So, I'd just like to draw your attention to a couple examples. A good example is that the uh minimum wage in Colorado for a full-time worker equates to 37% of the statewide median income. And these are statewide figures, not Llata County figures. Um ours are not terribly different and we like the graphic so we're using it. Um you'll notice in the uh range from uh you know 70 80 100 120% AMI some of our public service careers and other essential workers. And you'll notice that uh social security only for retired worker is 29% of the median income statewide. So again, we're just reflecting the kinds of careers that have uh these um housing programs uh that that might be appropriate for these

kinds of housing programs. And at the top you'll see u the kinds of housing products that might be um constructed and then targeted at those AMIs. Again, a continuum from shelter and supportive housing through what we call affordable housing, middle inome housing, and then even firsttime and long-term home ownership. The fair share program design, which again we're not changing today, is designed to produce units at 60% 80% 100% and at or below 150% AMI. So developers, depending on the characteristics of a project, have a couple of options for how to comply. essentially to produce uh some number of units relative to the size of the project at these various income levels. And again, we're not making any changes or not proposing any changes to the overall design or these income levels tonight. Uh I do want to call your attention to um the presentation that Mike French gave at your February study session. Um the housing strategies white paper that we submitted into your packet um does talk about some long-term need for the fair share program to be better aligned with some of our other strategies. Those are not before you tonight. We're continuing to work on the long-term future of this program and you'll likely see um other kinds of changes that are more significant than tonight's in the future. Those changes are in your packet. Um there are eight amendment items. I'm not going to go through them one by one, but I do want to tell you about the key changes and then sort of the overall uh message here. Um, so the the first uh problem that we identified in the fair share uh 2024 language is that it applies to ownership projects and rental projects, but it's ambiguous whether it applies to projects that have both ownership and rental. Um, we're choosing to uh propose to explicitly apply the fair share program standards to those

mixed 10-year developments. Uh the second item is uh the 150% AMI standard. So once again, the program design uh includes a method to um deliver units below 150% AMI for home ownership projects. Currently, the program design uh treats these as an exemption from fair share rather than another compliance standard within fair share. Um this has proven very difficult to implement in practice. uh it's difficult to process a land use application when something is exempt, but it hasn't actually happened yet. Um and so we kicked around a couple of different ideas for how to resolve uh this challenge. What we've settled on is just restating that 150% AMI exemption as a new compliance standard, which we're calling intermediate ownership. So this should function exactly the same way the current 150% AMI exemption does, but it will make processing land use applications in this range uh much easier um and uh align it with other language in the land use and development code. Again, this is not a change to the program design, just how we're treating those projects um to enable them to be processed uh like other kinds of projects in the land use code. Um the third item is uh the fee inloo increment method. So I mentioned that there are uh alternative compliance methods besides just building those affordable or attainable units on site. One of those is that developers can pay a fee again into the affordable housing uh fund essentially for the city to um undertake that obligation on their behalf. Right now what we have in the code is the 2024 basis for that fee but the pre2024 method for annually adjusting that fee.

Um so I don't know whether that was an oversight or not but uh in 2024 um but it makes sense for the um method that we change that fee amount every year to have the same basis as the starting point for that fee. There are also a couple of administrative changes. As I mentioned, we're trying to resolve some discrepancies and unclear language in the current code. We're trying to uh streamline the standard fair share agreement approval process um by eliminating some unnecessary and unclear language. Uh and we're uh adding and updating definitions. Uh in 2024 when this code language was updated, for whatever reason, the definitions uh which are in a different section of the land use code were not updated along with them. So, we're proposing to do that today. For amendments to the land use and development code, there are four review criteria that must be met. A full discussion of those criteria is found in your packet. But the short version is that since these amendments uh do not change the purpose or intent um or design of the program. They simply make it more uh efficient and effective and clear. Um we do find that the uh proposed amendments meet all the applicable criteria. No public comments have been received on this proposal. Um we do find that they adhere the proposal adheres to the review criteria as well as supporting the strategic plan. And the community development commission did uh conduct a public hearing on January 26th and ended up recommending approval of the proposed amendments as they appear in your packet. Amendments to the land use and development code are undertaken by ordinance. Um this ordinance was properly introduced on February 18th and uh today is your first consideration. Um we've proposed a final reading on March 10th and an effective date around March 25th after publication. We do have a recommended motion which appears on your screen and in your packet to approve an ordinance amending the city of Durango Code of Ordinances Chapter 27 the land use and development

code as shown in exhibit A regarding fair share housing and related definitions. And I'll be happy to take your questions. Move to approve as read. I'll second Friday. Do you have had any discussion, Jessica? Nope. Okay, Kip,

just a couple of small questions. Brian, um discuss a little bit the the fee and Lou. Um do they they add up enough to start making an impact? Are they combined with grant funding for some It seems like you're really minimizing the fee and lose with the changes. Does that make sense? I'm not sure how much background you want on this, so stop me if I go too far back, but um state law requires that you you can have an inclusionary zoning ordinance, but you cannot only allow for those units to be built on site. You have to provide alternatives. In fact, you must provide the developer with the option to pay a fee in lie of development. So that's why we use the term fee in loo. We use those fees uh in the housing fund along with other sources of revenue in order to uh as I said in theory undertake their affordable housing obligation on their behalf somewhere else in the city. Um so prior to 2024 the fee and the annual adjustment to that fee were based on the gap between construction cost and what's affordable. It is now based on total development cost. Um but the um annual adjustment method was not changed in 2024 and that's what we're proposing to do today.

Makes sense as you said. Okay. Thank you. And then um uh fair share units are restricted to 30 years from being sold at market rate. Did I read that correctly? They uh the current program design is that ownership units are dedicated in perpetuity and rental units are dedicated over a period of 30 years. Um that's generally like a refinancing period. Okay. Um so that's pretty standard. Okay. And and was there a seven to 10 year limit in some way connected to fi fair share that I'm getting a little confused with? You're correct. We've discussed that before. Um there is in the current code uh no length of time that those 150% AMI units

must remain at those at those price levels. Um, again, our approach today has been to just transfer that language from an exemption to a compliance standard. So, we're not proposing to add a length of time in the code updates today. But in practice, what we have done is say that the city will not approve those if they last less than seven years. And we've done that through that procedures manual. Okay. That accompanies the ordinance. Okay. Yeah. I I still want to see some conversation in the future about seven years feels pretty short to me, but uh but I appreciate the clarifications. Thank you, mayor. Sure. Thank you.

Thank you. Can you um just even still relate, how is there currently a fund balance in the fair share? Um there is. Those funds are co-mingled with other housing innovation funds. There is a fund balance. I don't have the number off the top of my head, but um sufficient for us to um make those direct contributions into projects in accordance with um city policy and the budget process. Um so there is a fund balance there and it is our goal to spend it um and use it to deliver units um for the city. Do you know how many units have been funded so far? Funded uh

through this program. There's not a specific answer to that question because it's not a separate fund. What I can tell you is from 2009 to 2024 when the original program design was in place, the uh the program produced several million dollars in fees in lie and exactly nine incomerestricted housing units over 15 years.

That was one of the reasons nine units in 15 years. And that was one of the reasons that I believe that council um wanted to change the program design to to strongly incentivize construction of units rather than the payment of fees because we did have a fund balance but we did not have a lot of units being generated. Yeah. And so it yes it does actually because you know it seems like the discussion around housing affordability feels recent but in fact it's not. It's and and when I talk to people, they say, you know, Durango has always been a very expensive place to live. Um especially um with or housing now everything's expensive, but housing has always been expensive.

Um so it looks like this is um a a policy that's been in place for a long time. Maybe it just didn't get attraction that we had hoped. Um

I I might phrase that in a little different way which is um the program design from 2009 to let's call it 2020 was um probably appropriate for the scale of the affordability crisis in Durango at that time with um the public health emergency, the rise of remote work, lots of people taking early retirement, relocating for amenities, things like that. um the the scale of the problem has accelerated and in 2024 I think there was a recognition that that tool was a little bit out of date. So the policy has existed since 2009. It's our to my knowledge the the longest um serving uh affordable housing policy in Durango um at least formal policy in Durango. Um and there was in 2024 I think a recognition that it needed to be updated. Um, and then again, it's quite normal for when you make a major update to then realize you have to come back and make some minor updates after you start using that new policy, which is what we've learned over 2025.

And that's what we're doing here. Correct. Okay. Um, just going back to the AMI scale, can you go back to this? Um, sure. Because I think is there an adjustment for housing prices that are so high or is AMI just based on incomes not related to cost of

let let me know if this answers your question. AMIs are purely related to household size and the median income in your county. You can design affordable housing programs to target different area median incomes. And one of the reasons you would change that is because you have a different kind of housing need than you used to. So that's not what we're proposing today because again today is just cleanup. But as we stated in that February study session, we do need this program to align with some of our other programs and our long-term funding sources, in which case there may be changes to, for example, what you see on your screen here, but not today. So that we do have a recognition that this program needs to be not just uh mirroring the decisions that were made in 2024, but actively responding to the conditions that we see uh in the community.

Okay, that helps a lot. Thank you very much. Thank you, Brian. Thank you,

Brian. I I do appreciate the fact that we're continuing to update all our regulations because that's really important. So, thank you for your work. Any more discussion? Okay. Could we get a vote? Councelor Gonzalez. Mayor Yazi. Yes. Councelor Lawyer. Yes. And councelor Koso. Yes.

Brings us to item 12.3, an ordinance amending in part the Durango Court of Ordinances Chapter 1, General Provisions section 1-16, general penalty penalty continuing violations. uh council. This is uh if you remember from introduction if I explained it, this is the one where we're amending our code to be in compliance with state law where no municipal offense uh with similar state offense provisions um can have a penalty exceed that exceeds the the statemandated maximum penalties. So there's not a whole lot of discretion on this one. We're required to amend it to be in conformity with state law. Uh, if I phrase it right, move to approve an ordinance amending in part the Durango Code of Ordinances Chapter 1, general provision section 1-16. Is that correct?

General penalty. Sorry, general penalty. Yes. Discussion.

Jessica, do you have any discussion? Nope. Could we get a roll call? Yazi, yes. Councelor Gonzalez, yes. Councelor Koso, yes. Councelor Lawyer, yes. That brings 13. Public comment on city matters uh not under consideration tonight. And I don't believe we have anybody signed up. Let me double check. No, we have no additional people signed up to speak under this item. Councelor, your mic's not on to make that motion.

My apologies, council. I did identify some folks who did want to talk in front of council this section. I'd like to make a motion to approve to allow Colleen and the kids from Park Elementary to speak. Could we get roll call? Councelor Lawyer. Yes. Mayor Yazy. Yes. Councelor Costa. Yes. Councelor Gonzalez. Yes.

Hi. Thank you so much for allowing us time to speak and uh we're going to be as quick as possible. Um, can I bring this mic down a little bit? Okay. Um, my name for the record is Colleen Morgan and I am the um, coach of the Park Elementary green team and these are my green team members and they have something that they would like to ask you. Who's going first? All right. speak into the mic.

We would like to talk about for Phantom Park. We would like to be talk about the dog poop. We have seen a lot of dog poop at our school and we like to change it and make it fun so that we have a clean school and we can play in a clean area. Sometimes when kids are playing like soccer or football, they step into dog poop. And sometimes when we have PE class outside, they might step in the dog. Say your name. This is Juniper. Um, when people do cartwheels at Park Elementary, um, sometimes they're they land in dog poop, um, and they have to go to the bathroom and wash their hands. We would like to put up signs at Park Elementary to share that we do not like dog poop at our school and that we would like to put a fine on it. Anything else?

I think that's all they have to Oh, come on. Got another one. So at at you know Fargo at you know that park it's you know there's a school right next to it. There shouldn't be you know dog poop on school grounds like Mhm. kids are stepping in it. There should be a fine for it. It's like and and not just kids, maybe even teachers.

Thank you. You

with no other people signed up to speak under this item, that brings us to 14.1. uh direction to staff to provide a presentation regarding the impact of turning off the flock camera system submitted by councelor Gonzalez. Oh um so I I we got the presentation today by um police chief. My questions really were can they just be turned off? Uh that's really what I wanted to know. He said they could be turned off. So, I would make a motion or I would request a motion that we turn them off. So, um that's what

I would request on the the next council agenda meeting that we Okay. So, motion to turn them off. Mark uh on this item. All good, man. Just want to make sure I get dog poop ordinance. And we do actually have one. It's section 4-43 for the kids that are here. It is illegal to not clean up your dog's poop in a park. So Mark, let me add a little bit of complexity if we're going to go in that. That's We actually don't own FanTo Park. That's the school district. Gotcha. So then we can't find on that property. Understood. Still illegal. Still illegal. So that's something. But you you'd have to talk to NR. NR.

So back to this item. because we called an item that was direction to staff provide a presentation regarding the impact of turning off the flock camera system. Councelor Gonzalez would like that to be for direction for us to turn off the flock. I imagine it has to go it has to be formally presented to the council because we got the presentation so I don't think we need to do it again. Um

I it that depends because I just want to make sure the presentation that was given was about PD and the technology that they're utilizing. I don't know if it was given on what the impacts would be if we turn it off. So just from a council perspective, just wanting the counselors to know that if if there wanted a presentation on that there would that would be a different presentation than what you received. But I'm trying again just because we called that item up. I don't know if that item needs to just go down and then the council Gonzalez would bring up another motion or another item to place on the next agenda. Depends on what the counselor would like to do. I mean

no um I am open to a full presentation. Um I just didn't I felt like I did get a lot of the information. I thought it was a great presentation um and this afternoon just you know if we could focus on just that so that he doesn't have to go through it all over again. And so would you want that to also have direction for staff to turn off the camera? That would be my request. So does that need to be another item is what I'm trying to get at on this side because this item doesn't have that. It's just a presentation if we're directing

the rule is it has to be germaine and this gets real close because one is just for presentation as one is actually for an action. So if the counselor councilwoman intends to ask her us to consider a directive to turn off the cameras. I think that's a separate item that you need to announce tonight and then it would come up in a new business next time. So I um Okay. just the the formality. I understand. I just felt like we got a great presentation today. Correct. Um so so it's your discretion if after the presentation today if you want to move forward with a directive to to turn cameras off or if you're satisfied and don't want to take any further action.

Well per could the presentation be what would be act of turning them off? Was that um yes that would be it but it wouldn't have the ability for council to turn it off at that meeting. So that's kind of that part. If you want the action to actually turn it off, that's a separate item that would need to be presented separately because this would just be regarding a presentation just regarding the impact of turning off the flock camera system. Okay. Well, I'll leave it as it stands. Okay. Thank you. So, you would need um a vote of the council to move that forward for That's correct. Oh, do I need my commotion? Yes,

sorry. Um, I move to direct staff to provide a presentation regarding the impact of turning off the flock camera system.

Jessica, did you hear that? Yes, I heard it. Okay. Okay, the motion fails for lack of a second. Okay. Any other? Yeah. Um, so, um, I just have a clarification. Um, Jose, the next meeting for city council is next Tuesday. Is that correct? That is correct because it's spring break.

Yeah. So, since my colleagues um tabled the item that I um brought up regarding the letter to the editor, I'm not going to be here at the next meeting. And so, um typically we have postponed things for counselors that aren't going to be here, especially if it was tabled with no direction or further of this item. Um but if we table it, it doesn't get brought up again until April 7th. um like if if we delay it one more time like we did for councelor Koso when he wasn't here. Um and it won't get up brought up till April 7th which I also feel is a disturbance to our community. Um so I guess I'm not quite sure how to approach this. Um but I wanted to let everyone know that I'm not going to be here and so if you want to delay it then delay it otherwise go forward without me. Jessica, do you feel like if um if I I took a next step with the letter, worked with counselor Gonzalez, that that's a solution for you or would are you preferring?

The problem is that I tried to work with counselor Gonzalez and she didn't she didn't give me feedback and so you can't technically we have to do this in a public meeting which is what I was trying to do not table it to like talk behind people's backs and then get in trouble for open meetings loss. So um that's where the struggle is. So, she couldn't talk to you to figure it out. She needs to We need to talk about it in an open meeting, which is what I tried to do. So, um Mark, could I have a um red card here for information? Okay. So, if we called a special internet session to work on this letter to the editor and did the 24hour notice, would that be suitable for working together without any

well clearly it wouldn't violate the open meeting laws if you announce a public meeting and you discuss it openly. Um the question I would have is that would it be a study session or would it be a special session where the public could participate? Um and that boils down to the decision. Are you are you making decisions? So as long as the special meeting would be to develop language that would then be considered at a public meeting for a vote, I think you would be okay. Am I making sense? Mhm. So, you could do a study session to work on proposed language. Um, you just couldn't commit to it until you actually got to a city council meeting to vote on it.

All righty. Because I think from what I'm hearing is that um the language just needs to be tweaked slightly.

Sure. And I I will tell you that it is it's not a violation of the open meeting laws for council lawyer and counselor Gonzalez to work on this together because you're not you you have to have three to violate the open meeting laws. So it it's it's completely up to you guys how you handle it. Um but one the the original idea was for just two counselors to work on it together. Um and if there needs to be more time for that to happen that can happen or you could do what you're suggesting. You really have as many options as you want. Um, as far as counselor lawyer's request, um, you have two ways you can handle that. You can do the pinky swear thing that you did last time that when it comes up next time, you'll defer it again. Or because we're still in session, you could actually um, move to reconsider the motion to table and just insert a new date of April 7th instead of March 10th. So, those are the two options. If you want to um grant the request to push it out to the 7th, there's two things to consider. You know, how and if you want to um reconsider the date that it's table to and then secondly um another option to to get to the resolution without violating the ML.

Okay. So, I'd like to make a motion to have this discussion on April 2nd. Time certain time certain to April 7th. Um, so I would move to recons I would move to reconsider the motion to table um instead of tableabling it to the March 10th, table it to April 7th. Okay. So I move to reconsider the motion on April 7th. That works. Second discussion.

Uh Jessica, I guess I I worry that this is a little bit of too long of a delay. I I I don't want to bo get bogged down here, but I've got a serious concern that we're taking another 3 weeks to get something out.

Kip, I totally agree and I don't understand why it got t without any like forward motion. Like, so yes, I agree that it's getting tabled way too long and by this point in time, why even do it almost? because like the you know our constituents want what our constituents want and that's information on what we do and what we're standing behind and why why we're doing what we're doing and we couldn't we can't communicate that apparently until after April 7th. So that's a bummer. Any other discussion?

Yep. All righty. So, um, a yes vote would be postponing it to the to April 7th. Okay. Could we have roll call? Mayor Dazi? Yes. Councelor Gonzalez? Yes. Councelor Lawyer? Yes. Councelor Kosa? Yes. All righty. Any other new business? Yes, Mayor. I do. And my apologies. I've got a considerable list here. So, um

Okay. Maybe if you need to refine them, just um read the topic and then we can Okay. Um I I do need to clarify the group that came in about Phanto Park. Um they were told that it was a city park. We just told them it was a school district park and and not much guidance on how they get enforcement going. So, I'm hoping I can get some clarification from somebody that could forward onto that group.

That part is I would just look at legal in regards to it's a legal issue of can we site somebody on a school ground property and would the school district have any reason to be upset about that? I mean, it it is school property and I think that's the part. So, if it's going to be policed, the school district would need to consent in some way. So, I think the first part of it is actually talking to the school district first and seeing what their stance is on it. Yeah. Um the the the ordinance actually says school grounds, which that doesn't mean anything. It's not determinative. Um but I because it does say that, I think that we can accomplish this if the school requests that we enforce pursuant to the statute.

Could I get something in writing that I could forward on next steps for these guys to take? So I think we've just got a teacher and and a lot of Park Elementary students. I'm not sure. Sure. they're going to be able to navigate this very smoothly. Sure. I can um if the council agrees with you, I can put together a memorandum on how the the ordinance reads and if there's any issues with enforcing it on school grounds. Okay. Need a affirmation vote? Yes. Um okay. So moved. We need a second. Second. Could we get any discussion?

I mean technically we can't do it this way. You got to because it's coming up for the first time. Um, you don't need an acclamation vote. You can just put it on the agenda. It'll come up under new business next time. Okay. But I can I can get a head start and start working. Okay. Okay. Mark. So, we're good on that one.

Um, I'd like to put under new business uh for staff to review possible improvements to the agenda functionality, including polling counselors on improvements they'd like to see on the functional use of our agendas for our meetings. I find these agendas incredibly difficult to use. Um, and I have broached this subject about six months ago or eight months ago or so and just would like to see if council's got some inclination for us to improve the functionality of these agendas. Um, agendas meaning the council agenda this the the agenda that gets sent the link that is sent out a week before the agenda packet

packet. Sorry, you are correct. I should have thrown a noun on there. So agenda packet like to request staff to present an increased overfill trash can fee that is what they determine to be a reasonable and meaningful disincentive for overfills. I'm happy to take any suggestions for edits on any of this too. staff and council. I'd like to request staff to come back to council with an outline of an annual bearproof trash can maintenance program aimed to keep bearproof trash cans in good repair. I'd like to ask code enforcement to provide positive and negative impacts of designating one ranger position to be focused on bear education and enforcement including overfilled trash can violations and intentional vandalism for 50% of their work out work hours for 6 months. Does that make sense? Half of their time for the six-month period is focused on bare issues.

All righty. Do you have anything already? I have one item. I would like um a staff presentation on our parking situation at the PD city hall. Since we've been presented with no underground parking, maybe just go through the figures, the area, the amount of vehicles that we need to repark, and the amount of parking spaces we have here at city hall and PD just so we have a a picture of where we are right now because I'm getting a lot of questions about the parking. So, I just need some firm facts and some possibilities.

Um, mayor, there's a piece that I was trying to get to, which was potentially having another um meeting around PD and city hall that was a format that allowed more conversation um than the last meeting. I no criticism on the last meeting, but it just didn't really fulfill what we were looking for. I'm not sure if we can combine those two or if you've just got something that's really separate there. I would like this to just be a staff presentation where they parking something to hand us, but we could do like public hearing or a um I don't know what the engaged Durango schedule's like. If we could do a mini one, but

I guess what I'd like to propose maybe is that Clancy could come back with a recommendation on a different format for another meeting talking about the changes from the original ballot measure to the the current iteration. um it just felt to me like the last meeting did not fulfill what we were trying to accomplish and so uh I don't exactly have a core idea here. So I'm hope happy to have some discussion kind of getting into a whole lot of portions of uh what the connect and engage was about and what it wasn't about. Connect and Engage was never designed for council to go there and get input and make decisions based on projects. If we kind of circle back, connect and engage was a format where when we condensed our boards and commission meetings, there was a part where citizens were like, well, where do we go to contact and have those discussions with staff? And that's what connected engage turned into. So, I would not look at from a standpoint of this isn't I don't think we would change connected engage if the council wants something different. I think it needs to be a different program with different parameters because we're trying to fit one thing into something that was never really intended to be that. It was connected engage was a way for us to kind of give an update on something that was going on. And really, the time was for citizens to be able to have that direct one-on-one contact with staff to talk about things that they were having. If we were looking at a PD city hall that the council wants, I think that's a forum that you all should discuss and decide of what that looks like to you and how you would look that to go and what staff support would possibly be needed for that. I think that's a that's a different subject than trying to change connect and engage.

Do do you object to potentially Clancy re making recommendations on what the format of that meeting might look like? I think that the council needs to be careful and I'm going to go to with my uh Mark on this because now you're starting to pick out individual staff members and try to direct them and the direction needs to come through the city manager. So I think it's more of if you want to say Jose can you work with staff to bring back I think that's working well. But when we start isolating different staff members we're starting to get really into the details in the administration of the city. It's what is it that we're looking for? Outline the goal and allow staff to work on it. I apologize I mentioned Clancy's name, but I think the the thrust of the argument there was can we work with city staff to potentially provide an alternate.

It's for sure and it's not just the CL I mean there's more people that are working on the PD city hall than Clancy is and Clancy actually hasn't had that part. You've got Bob, you've got Aaron. So there's some parts in it that if it's about PD city hall, there's more people that need to be involved in it and that's kind of why it's staff can you look back and find out something of where it's going through. Sir, you have taken this and just kept all I was asking was potential format for a meeting. That's it. That's ended. I wasn't trying to exclude anybody and I wasn't saying that anybody should or shouldn't be in there. I'm just looking for some content to expl. But I do believe as city manager I have the ability to talk about administration in regards to some of the concerns and try to get clarity. So I'm not trying to undermine you. I'm trying to gain clarity for the council so they can understand how we get to where we go. So, and I'll just I'll point out that and I'm hope that I'm helpful, but if if council if you're requesting a community meeting between the council and the public on the topic, you can do that. Um, and maybe that's what you're requesting and you can request that the administration assist you in that. But this community engagement, it's a presentation and it's supposed to answer questions, you know, of the public. So, I'm not sure. I I'm just not sure why we're fighting so hard on this. We We've got a We've got a community that would love to have a dialogue about this project. This project is a $61 million project. The meeting that was done was pertinent to to the goals that you might have had around it, but it didn't fulfill what the community needed. And so I I'm not sure that we got to keep playing this. It feels like we are defensive on this whole thing. And I would just love to see us start talking about how do we get community input out there, let them have the room and the discussion that they want to have. And if that's not putting staff on the firing line, I understand it. If that is a town hall, I I just don't have the expertise that some of the staff do in regards to potentially guiding what that might look like.

Can I jump in real quick? Isn't this supposed to be where we just put things on for the next agenda for council to see if they want to even back this? like we're having this huge discussion about something that we don't even know counselor council wants to back what councelor Kos are saying. So can he just like write a little line and then be like done. All righty. But the problem that sometimes I run into and I'm sure that Kip does is the fact that we can't discuss anything unless it is at a public meeting. Yeah. Um and this is part of the discussion and I I do feel like there are a lot of people month later because we can't make any decisions. So that's great too. you're you're mixing issues,

right? Um, so I think where we're at right now is if we can get some s suggestions out on how to move forward with a discussion, whether it be a public hearing or a form that council can have to hear what the public would like to tell us, but at the same time, I would like to look at letter B if we can interact with them because if we do a public form, you know, we can't we can't talk back, you know, and that's really hard. Um, so maybe if you could look at that issue for the next time.

How does that work? I'm fine. However we got to that. Any other agenda items for next time? Hearing none, uh we stand adjourned.