City Council - Regular Meeting

Check. Check. One, two. Check. Check. We hear you. Tensor Kosa. You were able to hear me correct? I am. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you. Today is April 21st, 2026. It's 5:35. This is the Durango City Council regular meeting. Could I have roll call? Mayor Promruff

here. Councelor Lawyer here. Mayor Yazy here. Councelor Kosa here. And councelor present.

The next item is the uh reading of the land acknowledgement. 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, Hopienome, 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 the 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, the introduction of the translator.

Yes. Hi, good evening. My name is Lee Torres and I am here with my colleague Sam Guzman. We're here with a co community language co-op so that we can provide language justice for everyone. If you're joining us on teams, you will have the option to select interpretation through the more menu. You can select the more menu and then languages and speech and then you can select English or Spanish. If you're listening uh from an from a portable u mobile, then you can al find it through the three little dots. Samman and we can go ahead and get it started. The next item is opening remarks by mayor and council.

All righty. I'm gonna um say a few remarks. Um tonight we're having an election for a new mayor, Mayor Pro Tim. And I want to thank everybody for uh allowing me to be mayor for the past year because it's been a real honor and uh uh it was surprising to meet so many new people and enjoy the people I met. So hopefully in the future I'll have another opportunity to be your mayor. But uh it's been one of um it it's just been a wonderful thing. Okay. So I'm going to open this up with the election of the mayor and prom. So I would like to make the nomination of mayor would be Dave and mayor prom would be Jessica.

Second.

Seeing no hands. Could I get I I had a hand. I didn't know. Um uh so um so it's my understanding that typically it's been mayor um prom and then the next person in line was kept. So why did we decide to do it different? Um so you're saying that um you're against the nomination? Uh, no. I'm just wondering if this hasn't typically been done. This is discussion. She

um I'm just surprised that there would be not um a typical rotation. This is a typical rotation cuz like when I was elected, I still had to wait and Jessica and Melissa went and then I went with Jessica and then me. So, it is typical. I I thought it would should have been Dave and then Kip this year and then next year it would be Kip and then me. No, it's my understanding that that's always been the way it's been done. No, that's there was a shift. I'm just curious as to why we're making a change.

Okay. So, did you read the um the email from the attorney explaining the election how it goes and it's up to the chair? How it goes? I I do understand that it is a simple vote of the council, but um I've asked this question many times like having a rotating mayor um it's always been the person who was prom and then the next person in line would have been Kit and you know if we're not doing it that way if it's open for everyone you know it is open

so technically we could nominate anyone for mayor and we could nominate anyone one for me prom is that um on the table

you know what for the elections a simple thing it's on the table but let me explain what happened when I was um had the most votes and the council went ahead and nominated the people they felt that were the um most mature in their council duties to lead um the city of Durango forward and at that time Melissa and Jessica were selected. If we had followed the format that you're talking about, it should have been I should have been mayor prom with Melissa because I got the most votes. But it went ahead and Jessica was nominated and I'm fine with that because I believe that Jessica led us very well through um her term and it also depends upon who has the leadership qualities to move our council forward. Mayor, I sure would like to weigh in here at some point. Um yeah, I I um so again like um I've asked this question many times um and they've said that it's historically um it people take turns being the mayor and it's been based on um partly just historically um that's the way it's been done but also based on number of votes uh and that was how it came about. So, because Kip got the highest number of votes in his election, uh, in our election, actually, all of us, um, and Dave was already in line that it should been Dave and then Kip. And so, you know, if if that's not the case, if it's open any time to anyone being mayor, I think that that's perfectly acceptable, but that should have been noted sometime, you know,

along. and and you know, perhaps it's time for us to vote for a mayor specifically as a city and it's constituents can decide who they want to be mayor. But I know that's not on the table for the moment. Um I just um feel like if there's going to be a change in the way that we do things that um it should have been, you know, discussed um by the council. This is the first time I feel like there's been any public discussion about not doing it the traditional way. So, um Okay. So, um you want me to allow Kip to go first?

That's okay. Go Kip.

Historical precedent has obviously been that the interpretation of this process has been the positions are filled by counselors in order of votes received. I was elected with a majority of the votes in our election to city council with 25% more votes than the next counselor. It's clear that the voters were expecting me to play a leadership role in the city council. If you are talking about competence, I have extensive experience in running meetings, including multiple occurrences as board chair for multiple community nonprofits. I've served terms on national boards. I was hired as a trainer uh for boards of directors across the United States. So, you can't be sidelining me from an attempt to to It's not a competence thing. And then there's a situational courtesy here as well. No one discussed anything other than the historical precedent was probably going to be the same way we've done it before and the same way we were going to do it again for this meeting. You've chosen to object to me becoming mayor prom while I'm out of the state. You knew this would be my situation ahead of time and nobody talked about it with me. If there is concerns about me taking on the mayor to prom position, we could certainly table this issue and discuss and have a fairer discussion on it. But frankly, this blindsiding is a little bit ridiculous when everybody knew I was going to be out of town for this vote.

Um, yeah. I first want to ask what the charter uh uh Mark, can you tell us what the charter says about the mayor and mayor prom election process?

It's very simple. It says that you have to change um the mayor each year. It actually doesn't address the mayor prom at all that I recall. Um you do have to have a mayor prom, but it's very simply says is that no one can serve for mayor two years in a row. A lot of what's been referenced here has been tradition. Um I was asked to research if that had not been followed before and in fact it has not always been followed. Um but it's a tradition that's among you know you for your business on how you choose to handle it. I'll also point out since it's become an issue. The mayor actually has no additional authority over any counselor except to just run the meetings. So the chart is very clear. It doesn't give any additional power to the mayor. It doesn't give any additional power to the mayor prom. It's just how you guys govern yourselves. Um, I heard someone say that it could be tabled. I don't believe that's true. I think it's required that that transition takes place at this meeting. So, again, it's very simple in the charter. I had sent an email out trying to explain that. I'm sorry if I didn't do a clear job of that, but it's it is very simply in the charter. The mayor changes each year.

Um, I want to start by acknowledging that what um Mayor Yazy has put forward tonight doesn't follow recent tradition. Um, and I respect that. Traditions can serve as an important role in providing consistency and predictability. Um but traditions are not rules and they are not substitute for judgment. Um the roles of mayor and mayor prom are not ceremonial alone. They require leadership the ability to run effective meetings to build consensus to support staff appropriately within our council manager form of government and to uphold both the spirit and letter of our charter. This council fun this council functions best when there is trust. Trust among counselors, trust with staff and trust with the community and leadership positions should reinforce that trust, not strain it. Over the past year, it has been become clear that simply following a rotation does not always align with what this moment requires. This is not about personalities and it's not about disagreement. We all disagree at times. That is part of healthy governance. What matter matters is how we disagree, how we work through through those differences and whether we are able to come back together as a team. Leadership in these roles requires the ability to collaborate and find common ground to respect the boundaries of the council manager structure. It requires consistent professional engagement with staff and it requires a commitment to resolving issues within the body, not outside of it. When those elements are not present, it impacts not just council dynamics, but staff morale, organizational clarity, and ultimately the effectiveness of this city. I do not take this deviation from tradition lightly. Um, but I do believe that leadership decisions should reflect the needs of the present and not just patterns of the past. I think focusing on supporting the mayor in uh running efficient meetings,

respectful and productive meetings, upholding clear governance boundaries, strengthening trust between council and staff, and working to ensure that all voices are heard while still moving forward as a cohesive body is what's important. This is about stability, this is about functionality, and it's about ensuring that the council is positioned to serve our community effectively. I understand there may be questions about this decision, including from the public and the press, and I welcome that scrutiny. Our responsibility is to make decisions we believe are in the best interest of the organization and the community we serve. For this, for me, this comes down to one simple principle. If you're going to lead this body, you have to be able to work with the body. And tonight, I believe um this path could support that goal. Second. So, could we get a roll call?

No, no, no. I I've got my hand up.

Okay. Okay. All righty, Kip. I didn't see your hand there. Go ahead. Two minutes.

I council lawyer has obviously prepared remarks for this. There's obviously been some conversations around this. I would ask council why if they felt that there was a competence issue or an inability for me to to take on the role for mayor prom that some conversation didn't happen with me prior to this meeting um except I mean there wasn't the building trust through comp conversation and compromise is not anything that I have not been doing um if there is some disagreements at times it is because we legitimately disagree on the role of a council person But at this point, council lawyer's comments have just suggested that I am somebody that I don't agree with the premise behind her comments. So, I'm not sure I understand why this is taking place right now. Um, I find it um a little bit shocking that this is how we're going to conduct things like this and and that nobody's talking to me about what the issues are before this this meeting came up.

Right. I I I do think it's it obviously it's important. I have not spoken to any of my colleagues about this either. Um and clearly there's um some I discussion amongst the colleagues about what action was going to happen today that was not shared with me and so when you're talking about building community trust or building trust among this dis and even trust in the community they've also are very informed constituency kip was the highest vote getter they anticipate and I suspect that if we were to take that vote again today the numbers would show the same So, um I think that there is um this is an unnecessary action. Um I fully trust any of the colleagues here to be able to lead a meeting. Um it's not that I don't have complete trust in Dave or in Jessica to lead a meeting. Um but I also have complete trust in Kip to lead a meeting as well as have I for many years led council meetings. So I just I think this is a terrible precedence. I'm very disappointed in my colleagues that they've taken this action and I don't support it at all.

Just want to make a correction. I did look it up. The charter does specifically mention the mayor prom. So you're required to do both. All righty. Okay. So the clarification was that yes, we have to have election tonight and yes, we are electing a mayor and mayor proam. Any other comments, Mark? No, ma'am. All righty. Could we have roll call? Councelor Gonzalez, no. Councelor Kosa, no. Mayor Yazy, yes. Councelor Lawyer, yes. Mayor Prom Woodruff, yes.

Wow. With that, if uh the new mayor and the mayor prom would join me at the podium for these um oaths of office, please. So, I will read both of your oaths together. uh one time. Um so if you could uh when I stop and say name, they would repeat your name and then your position when I come to that point in so I your name at the same time.

No. Oh, Dress. I, Jessica Lawyer, do solemnly declare do solemnly declare that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States the Constitution of the State of Colorado the Constitution of the State of Colorado and the charter and ordinances and the charter and ordinances of the city of Durango of the city of Durango and that I will faithfully and that I will faithfully perform the duties of perform the duties of mayor Mayor Prom for the city of Duranga. For the city of Duranga. Congratulations. I'll have you sign your notes this afternoon. Okay, great.

The next item on the agenda is a short 15minute break for refreshments and to reset the dis.

Yeah, hit the gravel. We'll have a little

Let me know if I All right, everyone. We'll call the meeting back to order and on to the next. We are going to move on to presentations and proclamations. Um the first one being uh proclamation recognizing April 19th, 2026 as Ross Anderson Day.

All right. Uh whereas Ross Anderson, an enrolled Cheyenne and Arapo, who is also Apache, grew up in Durango and made history by being the first Native American and only person of color to ever secure a podium in secure a podium place in the pro skiing world championships. And whereas Anderson's crowning achievement came in April 2006 in Leart, France, where he established the fastest speed ever recorded from the Western Hemisphere at 154 miles per hour, solidifying his position as the fastest skier in American history. And whereas Anderson has been inducted into the North American Indigenous Athletic Hall of Fame, the US Hall of Fame, the Colorado Hall of Fame, the New Mexico Hall of Fame, and the National Native American Hall of Fame. hand. Whereas his top honors include 17 years on the United States Speed Ski Team, 84 World Cup finishes, 36 World Professional finishes, 99 bronze medals, 114 silver, 435 gold, eighttime national champion, second in the 2001 World Professional Championship, third in the 2005 FIS World Cup championships, and has held the speed record for 20 years. And whereas Anderson received the two the 2025 sports builder sport snow sports builder award from the far west ski association for his dedication to introducing skiing to native youth and he continues his outreach work through his star 154 foundation. Now therefore I do hereby proclaim April 19th 2026 as Ross Anderson day. Sure. So, unfortunately, uh, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson are not able to receive the recognition in person. Uh, but the city's honored to recognize Mr. Anderson's accomplishments. Um, also, former mayor Yazy, uh, was able to recognize Mr. Anderson in person at the 20th anniversary celebration just on Sunday. So, um, yeah.

All right. So, the next proclamation um is the proclamation recognized April as Parkinson's disease awareness month. That's right. Bring it up. All right. Yeah, feel free to come on up, please. Welcome. Okay. Whereas Parkinson's disease is a chronic progressive neurological disease and is the second most common neuro neurodeenerative disease in the United States after Alzheimer's disease. And whereas it is estimated that over 1.5 million people in the United States and an estimated 10 million in the world live with Parkinson's disease. Closer to home, there are over 17,000 known people in Colorado who suffer from this disease. And whereas the combined direct and indirect cost of Parkinson's disease, including treatment, disability, and lost income from the inability to work are an estimated at 52 billion per year. And whereas there is no known cure or drug to slow or halt the progression of this disease, but we are getting close. Everyone's continued financial support is still needed and appreciated. And whereas the symptoms may vary from person to person and can include tremors, slowness of movement, rigidity, gate and balance difficulty, speech and swallowing, cognitive impairment, dementia, mood disorders, and much more. Now, I by virtue of the authority vested in me as mayor of the city of Durango, do hereby proclaim that the month of April as Parkinson's disease awareness month. Would anybody like to come up and say a few words?

I'm happy to receive this honor for for our Parkinson support group which started over 20 years ago by Joe Fly Goule. Some of you may remember Joe. He was instrumental in running the joke down competition for Snowdown and he taught Telmark skiing at Purgatory. He was a reading specialist who he died several years ago. You mentioned some of the symptoms of Parkinson's and when I first got it, I had a tremor and I was so embarrassed when we would go out to eat. I'd sit on my hands to try to hide it. And often people don't want to disclose that they have Parkinson's because they it's embarrassing. We think it's we think it's contagious. It's not contagious. It's not um it's expected to surpass Alzheimer's soon as being the most prevalent neurological disease. There are things we can do to slow down this progression which we often try. One is eating a good diet, not eating processed foods, meditating, meditating diet, lots of fruits and vegetables and pro good proteins are helpful. Um, psychotherapy, meditation has been shown to help. Acupuncture helps. massage because we get very stiff and some of the it addresses some of the symptoms that are unseen

which the mayor alluded to. One of them I had was masking when my daughter was a young teenager. I hadn't been diagnosed yet, but I had had symptoms of Parkinson's and I had a masked face, which means you don't show emotion. She would come home and tell me about something that she was really excited about from school, and I would not react, and she'd storm into her room and slam the door and say, "You don't even care what happens to me." And that was a difficult communication between the two of us. Another symptom that I have had is I have to work on my posture. It's a lot of people with Parkinson's get slumped over, which I've got, and my head is leaning to the right, which I I'm working on straightening. Um there's another symptom that some people have and it's um we don't have emo we don't have impulse control. One day I was at the thrift stores for seven hours. I went to my car when I needed my medication and got medication. Then I go back in the thrift store. I was at Goodwill. I spent almost $400 there and I was booted out when they closed the store at night. I went home and Ron thought somebody had hijacked my car or something. He was worried about me. But impulse control is exa exacerbated by

the medications that we take for it. One of the best ways to slow down Parkinson's is exercise. And we all try our best to to do that. Um we've oh and we've got a vitality our second annual vitality walk coming up on July 11th and it'll start at Memorial Park which is east across the river from City Market at 9:00 in the morning and we'll walk for half an hour and then turn around and come back and listen to music by Blue Grass. And um last year we at our first one we raised over 26 $6,000. This year our goal is 30,000 and the money will go towards our exercise classes. Some people who have Parkinson's can't afford the exercise classes. There are a lot of things that as you know when you have medical issues that have to be self-paid and a lot of people can't afford to pay for exercise classes. So we raised money for that. It also is an awareness rate increaser and you might be able to see um Pat Morrisy there. He was one of the four people who rode from California to Hawaii last year and they raised over $41 million for the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Pat has Parkinson's and he it was a real challenge for him to do that. There's

also a man named Dr. um who's has Parkinson's who's vowed to to run a marathon every day for 100 days. He's from New Jersey and he he might be here. So you might get a chance to walk with him. So people with Parkinson's are the real movers and shakers of this town. And you can join us on the second Wednesday of the month at Summit Church at 1:00 for our Parkinson support group meetings. We call ourselves the Parkinson's Fighters of Durango. And there's good reason for that. We're fighting as best we can to keep this disease from not engulf over overriding our lives. And I urge you to remember that. Um, choose to have an awesome day. Challenges are part of life. How we deal with them gives us control and hope for our futures. And I'd like to share a quote by George Elliot that says, "What do we live for if not to make life less difficult for each other?" And we try to do that as best we can. We hope to see you at the Vitality Walk. Join us and donate. Please help those who can't afford to pay for exercise classes. Thank you.

I just want to say I passed out the vitality boxed. I guess we'll see. All right, moving on to city manager updates number six.

Uh yes, mayor and council, we do have a update uh for you this evening. Uh kind of looking at our method for continuous improvement. Uh looking to just, you know, I know 2027 seems like it's a far time away, but uh the budget process internally for 2027, that wheel is already starting to begin to turn a little bit. Uh so this year, what we're going to do is just kind of give council a little bit of the budget priorities that staff will be looking at as we begin to put together the proposed budget for 2027. just allows you to kind of see what we're looking at as the uh focus points pretty high level. Uh nothing for you to approve this evening. Uh and then if there's any conversation afterwards, we can definitely uh have that. But it's just to give council a little bit more of a of what's coming so that it's not at the very end of you know September when you get the budget is the first time you've seen it. You'll kind of see where we're looking at for the priorities for 2027.

Great.

Good evening, mayor and council. Uh this my name is Gloria Platt the CFO for the city. Uh again this is the 2027 budget priorities. As Jose mentioned this is to provide some information as we get started internally with the budget process and um some reminders as well. This is with the um goal area of organizational stewardship. So first we wanted to provide um some of the timeline um so that council's aware of some of the steps um going on during the pro process. So the internal budget kickoff um was on April 9th with staff and this was um to open up the software so that the departments could begin working in in the software entering their numbers and working through the process. Um next on the list we have the parade of projects. This was a uh public engagement event that was started last year and was successful. Provides some um public engagement um some feedback from the citizens um regarding um the highlights of these capital projects. Um in the next few months, uh departments will be working heavily on their budgets. So they'll be reviewing their fees um for revenues, all line item expenditures, personnel plans, and of course these capital items as well. Um this will involve various meetings um with the city manager's team um as well as we review and go through the process um maybe some some followup with that um all leading to the city manager's proposed budget um to provide to council. Um, additionally, the capital project review. Um, this is traditionally um provided to council at a study session so that there can be taken in increments as it can be a lot to take in all at the budget retreat. And then the budget retreat um we have here listed as on October 14th. This is

kind of a placeholder. Um, state law requires that we do present the um proposed budget prior to October 15th. So, as we get closer to that date, we'll pull the council for an exact date. And then in November, we'll have the budget reconciliation and consideration of the budget ordinance. So, this will include any um any needed reconciliation since the budget retreat. And then December will be when we request adoption of the proposed budget and mill levy. And then just getting into a few of these high level priorities um for revenues and fund balance. We did want to um take just a minute and acknowledge the presentation that we presented here a few months ago um regarding some of the funds. We've um shown some 5-year forecasts that really show that projections in a few years could result in cutting services in the next few years in in these areas. So we don't expect to cut services in 2027 in this proposed budget. And our goal um as staff is to continue current service levels. Um we do want to ensure that we provide conservative revenue forecasts. So this will be a pri priority to review our trends and forecasts and ensure that they are conservative and reasonable to cover operating expenses. And then fund balance. We will ensure that the fund balance projections are adhering to our reserve policy. Then in the area of expenses and planning, uh we will review the the budget areas to ensure that they're guided by the city strategic plan and the the vision of the city. Also, uh the city practices zerobased budgeting. So staff will review all line items to ensure that these are accurate and that we are presenting these prudently. And we will include five-year forecasts. So this was something we implemented in this last year's budget so that we

really are looking at how the current budget as proposed will affect us in future years as well. So those are all of the items in this presentation. Again, just a highle overview just to start the conversation as we get started and include council and and um what's going on. Um and we'll um take any questions or comments from the council as well. Any questions? All right, Council Yazi.

Um, thank you, Gloria, for that presentation. Okay, so going forward, I'm wondering if we could get um I guess guesstimations of how our budget's going to be impacted by the status of the national finances. you know, like HUD got cut this past week, Prop 123 got cut, you know, so all these budget cuts are coming into place, which is the plan nationally. So, you know, just be aware of that. And um going forward, my preference is still um to retain staff and cut other areas because if we don't have the staff to perform the jobs, we don't get any work done. But anyways, thank you.

Thank you, Councelor Kosa. Did you have anything to ask or to discuss? No. All right. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Go. All right. Moving on to committee board and liaison report. Council lawyer.

Yes. Um I had the alliance meeting on April 14th. Um we had a career training presentation um from PBLO Community College of the Southwest. Um we heard from Animus Surgical Hospital at Megan Roberts there on insights on health care and the economic impact. Um and then we had updates about commercial solar tax rebates from Sha Shaw Solar. So there you go. That was the only meeting I had the last two weeks.

Great. Uh ma'am, I'm sorry. Councelor Yazi. Thank you, mayor. Okay. Okay. So, these last couple of weeks it's been a little bit busy. On the 8th, I had my office hours and the usual topics was, you know, bears and smart 160. So I discussed that with um the the people who came on the 8th uh myself along with Kip we went to the powerhouse to have a tour of the child care center that's called the wonder lab tour and so we looked at the new facilities that um they're putting forth for child care. On the 9th, I went up to Fort Lewis College to participate in um President Shdun's um elevation to um FLC president. So, that was a very good um event for the Native American population and this community because we're getting a new president and that's great. On the 10th, I did the indigenous leadership summit with the Fort Lewis um indigenous student leaders and their policy institute. So I had a chance to interact with a lot of the students then give them tips about continuing their education. And that evening we also had a gayla celebration for the new FLC president. So that was really fun and I got a chance to meet other people up there who I hadn't had a chance to meet before. Then on the 16th I um participated in the police department citizens complaint review panel and um it was a really interesting and educational endeavor. So that was that and then on the 17th I

had a um part of the natural lands and mountain institutes set up a zoom phone call with Jeff Herd our council person. So we talked about natural lands and how to protect our natural resources. Then on the 18th it was Earth Day. So I went down there and gave them an introduction and also um help them carry the banner down Main Street. So I had a chance to interact with a lot of residents. On the 19th that was Ross Anderson day. So we went down to Road Park and we had a celebration of his achievements. So, we had like a drum and dancers from the Southern Youth Tribe and it was just a grand time to celebrate um one of our local Durangians um accomplishments in speed ski speed racing of 154.05 miles per hour. And then yesterday on Monday, we had the RHA meeting, which is regional housing alliance meeting. And so we're still working on reorganizing to a smaller staff and setting up um protocols for going forward. So it was a really um uh really productive meeting. And then in the afternoon at noon, I went to the Colorado Department of Transportation Remembrance Day event. They had it on Main Street. And so this is a tribute to the Department of Transportation staff who have been killed in the work zones. And so people from this region and the other areas of C do DOT came down and laid out cones there in front of the fairgrounds. And we had like um a reading roll call of the names of the people who passed

and also a moment of silence. That was um that was really sad. And then we also yesterday we had a joint meeting with the um Lla County and discussed a few items of common um interest for both our organizations. That's all.

Holy smokes. Nice work, Councelor Yazi. Yeah. All right. Well, guess we got that to look forward to. Thank you for all that. Um my uh committee reports I had uh the Chamber of Commerce uh we have we transitioned from monthly meetings to quarterly meetings and so we decided to well they didn't we didn't decide that we had that meeting um just this morning. Um had some great conversation um around kind of some pillars that the that the chamber is working on right now. Um some of those like you know pillars uh revolve around committees and how the structures are like an executive committee, advocacy committee and membership committee and so um really good conversations around how those are structured. Um we had one board member moving away so we appoint appointed um a new um person for the board vacancy and it was Dr. Liz Cardier from the who's the dean of business at the cat school of business at the fort. So excited to have her on. Um, we had some feedback on Southwest Colorado Rocks. You know, this is the first time that they had Southwest Colorado rocks and not Durango Rocks. And so, um, there was some good feedback on how well the event went and how it they how we made it more regional instead of just Durangocentric. Um, and so yeah, they they also had the Southwest Colorado day at the capital where the all different chambers from across different municipalities all met up there to advocate for businesses and small businesses um to our statewide elected officials. Um yeah, so that was a really good meeting this morning. The only thing other thing I have is that tomorrow I've got my community office hours from 10 to 11:30 at the library. So, if you have some something in your craw, um, feel or you want to tell me how great of a job I'm doing as mayor one day and that'd be great, too. You can come in and tell me all that. Um, or if you don't think I'm doing a good job, you can tell me um that as well. Um,

anyways, hopefully I will see you all um tomorrow 10 a.m. Any other board? Councelor Koso? Yeah, I've um had a pretty couple busy couple of weeks as well uh at the investature for President Shottton up in uh FLC. Attended a wonderful event up there. Attended multiple board meetings uh continuing an effort to get engaged with those boards that includes the CDC meeting uh the FAB meeting um which was unfortunately cancelled uh and then the CCRC meeting. Uh I would bring up that there's two members for the CCRC uh that are exiting at the end of May and so an important board that we'll actually lose a couple members off of in the not too distant future and I know we're recruiting for those participation at Earth Day green drinks. Um I was also at Rotary Park with the uh former mayor uh for the Ross Anderson celebration and really appreciated um the the ceremony there at the alliance meeting with councelor Lawyer and then also at the bid meeting. Um so um been a busy couple of weeks. Thank you.

Thanks Councelor Koso. Um and then correct me if I'm wrong but the other 7.1 7.2 2 7.3 the community development commission quarterly report and the historic preservation quarterly report and the air airport commission are just reflected in the packet. We don't need to go over those in the meeting. Correct. That's correct.

Excellent. All right. Moving on to number eight. Public items under consideration of adoption. Tom, we get the Thank you. 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 or a vote you intend to speak on, your full name, and if you are a resident, 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 and council and Mark, just as a FYI, we do have folks signed up for the 11.1 and I believe you we were speaking about this that there may need to be a motion to suspend the rules to allow that public comment.

It would be my recommendation at this time to suspend the rules um and allow public comment on item 11.1, which is an item that I've pulled from the consent agenda dealing with the ordinance uh brought by citizens before you. um after our executive session that make more might make more sense to you but um on this such a serious issue I think the more public comment we have the better generally we don't take comment until things are up for consideration but it would be my recommendation that you suspend that rule and allow public comment at this time on item 11.1 also thank you motion to suspend the rules second

discussion a roll call please uh Mayor Woodruff Yes. Councelor Yazy. Yes. Councelor Gonzalez. Prom lawyer. Yes. And councelor Koso. Yes.

Uh we have two people online. I will go ahead and call the people that are in person first um to give Tom a little more time to locate the people online. So the first would be Grace Morage. Good evening. My name is Grace Mlage and I'm a resident of the city of Durango. The 14th Amendment mandates equal protection under the law. For residents of Durango to guard that right, they and other witnesses must be able to identify police officers with whom they interact. You cannot sue someone whose identity is intentionally hidden and is not released by the governing agency, as has happened recently in Minnesota and other jurisdictions where persons have been injured or killed by agents of immigration and customs enforcement. The Fourth Amendment requires reasonable conduct by officers during search and sea operations for the protection of all. We've seen locally that federal officers who hide their identities have been unrestrained from physically assaulting those they seek to arrest or those who may protest such arrests. Our law enforcement officers do not hide behind their identities, our local law enforcement officers. They strive to protect and serve all residents first and foremost. Laws requiring officer identification often vary from one location to the next. So long as such laws are reasonable and apply equally to all law enforcement agencies operating in the jurisdiction, they should be legal and appropriate. Furthermore, the citizens ordinance you are considering includes a severability clause specifically exempting officers

working undercover or in other ways required to conceal their identity. 1,700 Durango voters signed petitions of support because they are worried about the safety of our community members. I'd like to call on you to approve this ordinance, reserving as always your right to amend it if legally necessary. Thank you. Next is uh Nikki Massian.

Good evening. My name is Nikki Massian, also known as Nora Massie at the voting polls, and I'm also the proud widow of Joe Fly Goule, who Cheryl Bransma spoke of earlier tonight. I um live in city um city limits. And I'm here because I'm confused by the council's agenda and what seems to be a disregard for the wishes of our Durango citizens, over 1,700 of whom signed a petition that expects federal police operating with in our town boundaries to follow constitutional rules that our local law enforcement teams already obey. It appears that the citizens initiative is being swept under the rug without community discourse or any reasoning made public. It's ironic that the no secret police and Durango petition is being dealt with secretly in an executive session. I just hope I'm wrong about all this. In a time when trepidation rules our country, those of us who can need to speak out to protect those of us who are silenced for fear of being brutally separated from family and home. I have heard horror stories from community members about the event at the ICE facility in Boto Park last fall. Yes, protesters breached the law, but the violent assault by unidentifiable ICE members was unjustified, as was the fear and intimidation that the family being held unlawfully in that facility endured by these mask bullies. We need to protect our community from the secretiveness of ICE acting unconstitutionally. Violent actions instill fear that creeps through our small town. No matter what the color of our skin or recording or if we're recording questionable events, these tactics are meant to keep us all fearful and compliant. It's not good for our community. Our federal government is intent on feeding that fear beast with threats of lawsuits and the withholding of funding. If we don't stand up to the fear-mongering and raise our voices, we

will see our rights and freedoms taken away. We already have. I hope that this council listens clear clearly to the intent of this petition and honors the will of the constituents. At the very least, Durango's registered voters need to be able to learn about this ordinance and choose what they want for our community. Thank you. Next is Lisa Gabbor. Hi, my name is Lisa Go and I'm speaking today as a longtime concerned citizen of Durango as well as a local real estate agent. My husband and I were volunteers and circulators of the recent no secret police petition and were personally responsible for collecting several hundred signatures. And I can attest to the fact that many more concerned Llata County residents wanted to sign the petition but live outside the city limits. In my mind, this is not a legal issue but a human issue. I believe that no enforcement officers either local or federal should be allowed to wear masks to hide their identification except as provided by city ordinance. as I believe that masking of their identities can contribute to inhumane treatment of fellow citizens and makes it more difficult to identify and track said officers if any offenses are committed. We must remember that accountability is an important part of the democratic process and masking makes accountability difficult if not impossible. In addition, I believe that officers should wear identification such as name and badge numbers. Furthermore, it's our understanding that this issue is not being publicly considered by city council. I want to know why. Why the lack of transparency?

This is not the message you want to convey. The last city council meeting I attended, I felt our representative was very much dismissed by the city attorney and that didn't feel right. We urge you to listen to your constituents and take this opportunity to do the right and humane thing. You owe it to all of us. Thank you. Next is Maddie Migs.

Good evening. My name is Maddie Megs. Um I'm here to also speak about the citizens initiative ordinance. Um, my comments are less prepared than the prior speakers. Um, but I stand fully behind everything they spoke to. I'll speak from a personal uh place. I grew up in Durango. Um, my mother was on city council about 10 years ago, so I've um grown up knowing about the importance of local government, the importance of elected officials here in Durango, and the impact that you all can have. Um I I also was a circulator of the petition. I personally gathered about 80 signatures. Um and in that time I you know spoke face tof face with my neighbors um had difficult conversations um talking about you know issues that affect our neighbors and community members um that we are nationally concerned about and locally concerned about. Uh, one of the big things that I found in talking to my neighbors was people's feeling of helplessness. That so many of the things happening on a large scale, we don't feel like we there's a way to impact them as individuals. And people were very happy to sign this petition as a way to take some sort of action. And we were all looking forward to our elected officials then taking that ordinance seriously. we were, you know, there was some stress about being able to gather enough signatures and we gathered more than the required amount. I think transparency is majorly lacking um amongst elected officials generally these days. And so to learn that our local officials are not acting with transparency or bravery in a moment that requires it, I would ask that you all face the public the

same way that we face the public. Thank you. Uh, next online is Anna Leaden.

Anna, you should be unmuted right now. You should be able to unmute on your side and speak to us.

Okay, great. Thank you. Um, I uh my name is Anna Leaden and I am speaking about um ordinance 10.6.3. 6.3 uh the ordinance enacting uh traffic and vehicles parking administration regulations um parking prohibitions for recreational vehicles, trailers, and crafts. Um I am a Durango citizen. Um I have lived here for 22 years. Um, I am requesting that city council consider a longer window than 24 hours for homeowners who also own campers or rafts or trailers to park such a vehicle in front of their home in summer months for trip preparation. I often need more than 24 hours to pack and unpack my camper. I have spoken to over 50 homeowners and neighbors in the Crest View neighborhood who support homeowners being able to use the parking space in front of their homes during summer months for parking recreational vehicles, trailers, and crafts. I am happy to get signatures if that is helpful. I understand that the ordinance has currently been in place since 2014, but last fall was the first time in 7 years that parking our camper was ever an issue, and code enforcement began to enforce this code without neighbor complaints. I've been told by city officials uh via email many times now that violations are complaint-based, but this was not the case last fall when code enforcement began coming by um my house and many neighbors homes on a frequent basis. So, I am I am requesting some clarification on that. Um I have been an educator in the community for 21 years and I volunteer in many capacities. My family is hardworking and middle class and our vacations are largely taken in our camper that we worked hard to purchase. Um, I feel outdoor recreation is a Durango community value and spending time with family and friends in the outdoors just makes us all better people and I'm hoping that council can take this into

account when discussing the ordinance. Thank you. Last person signed up is online, Robin Helerin, but it appears that she has left the meeting. Is that correct? She has left the meeting. So, no additional people have signed up at this point. Thank you. And then we move on to number nine, executive session. Is there a motion? Make a motion to convene an executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and a legal opinion from Holland and Hart on specific legal question regarding the citizenled initiative as permitted pursuant to CRS 24-6-424B.

Second. Any discussion? You get a roll call, please. Council Yazy, yes. Councelor Kosa, yes. Mayor Woodruff, yes. Councelor Gonzalez. Yes. And Mayor Prom lawyer. Yes.

The time is now 6:55 p.m. and we will now convene an executive session.

I'm not stress. Microphone's not working. the G.4. See this? The time is now 7:49 p.m. and the executive session has been concluded.

The participants in the executive session were Mark Morgan, Kip Koso, Jessica Bule, Jessica Lawyer, Dave Woodruff, Gildazi, uh Shirley Gonzalez, and Jose Madreal. For the for the record, council met in executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and a legal opinion from Holland and Hart on specific legal questions regarding the citizen-ledd initiative as permitted pursuant to CRS 24-6-424B. For the record, if any person who participated in the executive session believes that any substantial discussion of any matters not concluded not included in the motion to go into the executive session occurred during the executive session or that any improper action occurred during the executive session in violation of the open meetings law, I would ask that you state your concerns for the record. Seeing none, the next item on the agenda is the reading of the consent agenda.

Item 10.1 is approval of minutes. There are no minutes in the packet for approval tonight. 10.2 2 is final reading of ordinances with 10.2.1 an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of a city-owned parcel located at 271 Twin Avenue for work force workforce housing purposes. 10.3 is adoption of resolution by consent with 10.3.1 a resolution to allow allow the expiring members of the financial advisory boards to extend their term to December 31st 2026. 10.3.2 2 is a resolution ratifying the city manager's declaration of a stage one water shortage drought condition and implementing mandatory water use restrictions. 10. There are no items under administrative items or request for public hearings. 10.6 is introduction of ordinances with 10.6.1 an ordinance amending the city of Durango code of ordinances chapter 27 the land use and development code regarding fasttrack review. 10.6.2 2 is an ordinance amending in pertinent part the Durango code of ordinances chapter 16 noise. 10.6.3 is an ordinance enacting in pertinent part the Durango Code of Ordinances Chapter 24 traffic and vehicles article 3 parking administration and regulations section 24-82 parking pro prohibitions for recreational vehicles trailers crafts and amending the master fee schedule. There are no requests for excused absences.

Right. Thank you. Um I think we get a motion. Does anyone want to pull anything? Oh, you want to pull anything from the consent agenda before we move on? Yes, counselor. Yeah, I'm I'd like to pull 10.3.2, please. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Last 10.3.2 too. Discussion, right? Roll call. Councelor Kos. Yes. Mayor Pan Lawyer. Yes. Mayor Woodruff. Yes. Councelor Yazy. Yes. Councelor Gonzalez. All right. Uh, councelor Koso.

Just a couple. Oh, sorry. Couple questions on the um the drought management plan. Uh um we need to make a motion. Hang on. Do we have to make a motion first for 10.3.2? So hang on. I'm going to make a motion to approve a resolution ratifying the city manager's declaration of a stage one water storage water shortage drought condition and implementing mandatory water use restrictions. Second. Sorry. Thanks, Councelor Costa. Go ahead.

Um does the U municipal drought management plan take into account restrictions implemented on the heaviest water consumers? I I brought this up at the last meeting either residential or commercial. Um that you know a previous study had looked at the fact that we have about 700 or of our roughly 7,000 residents and commercial accounts are responsible for about 70% of water usage. It seems that the water restrictions in the early stages at least are blanket restrictions across all residents. And I just wanted to ask if heavy users are going to be targeted in some way in subsequent stages.

Yeah, thank you. Uh, mayor and council, that's a really good question. And so, we might uh suggest additional uh revisions to our water use restrictions as if we have to move forward. Right now, you're right, all of the restrictions apply uh unilaterally to all customers. Uh I do want to point out though that we were working with our large water using customers before we even came to the council about reducing uh uh water across the uh the entire community and and they're working well to to cooperate with the community. U John I have I have been quoting that 700 of 7,000 residents in commercial accounts are responsible for 70% of water usage. I I got that from a a study or an article in the Herald from last year. Is that still an accurate piece? Do you know?

Uh, it sounds close. I can't give you an exact number, but I think that's fairly close. Okay, that's fair. One other question, too. Um, is there an ability for us to put instructions around the water restrictions into our utility bills in both English and Spanish? Uh, we can c certainly look at doing that. That might be a timing issue, though. We'll have to work with our utility billing team to see when those those bills go out and how long it would take to produce those uh those educational pamphlets. but something we'll look at doing. Yeah, appreciate it. Thank you. Any other discussion on 10.3.2? All right. Roll call, please. Mayor Prom Lawyer, yes. Councelor Gonzalez, yes.

Councelor Koso, yes. Mayor Woodruff, yes. Councelor Yazi, yes.

All right. And then now we move on to uh item 11 items pulled from the consent agenda. 11.1 is an ordinance amending chapter 17 article 2 offenses relating to the administration of justice and order to add section 17.24 to the city of Durango code of ordinances prohibition of law enforcement officers concealing their identities. Uh the full title is included in the agenda packet and this was pulled by our city attorney. item to be moved as read. Second for discussion.

Mr. Mr. Mayor, if I may, of course. Um, given the matter has now been motioned and seconded to the floor, I'm going to ask for a standalone separate vote of a waiver, a limited waiver of the attorney client privilege. So, you are free to discuss both my advice and the advice of the attorneys from Denver as you discuss this very important matter. So the motion on the floor now is a motion for a limited waiver of the attorney client privilege on the issue of the citizen brought ordinance. So moved. Do I move? Do I make a motion for that or you made it? I'll move. So moved. I'll make a motion for that. Second. Second. Great. Discussion. All right. Roll call, please.

Councelor Gonzalez. Yes. Uh councelor Yazy. Mayor Woodruff. Yes. Mayor Promier. Yes. Councelor Kosa. Yes. So now with the waiver, the the underlying motion's on the floor and you're free to discuss it and disclose the advice that you've received. All right. Now for discussion. Um council lawyer. Okay. Um I can ask questions of staff about funding and such. Um so I'm assuming Sarah and Tony is there parks and recck funding too or not?

There is not federal funding. Was parks have a little bit of impact. If you don't know, it's not a big deal. Okay, great. So, um I'm I'll ask you a couple question. I'll say a few things as you make your way up here and then I'll ask specific questions. Um so, I wanted to start with this after some of the um comments that we received during the public comment. Um what we choose to do here is we we will live with the consequences of okay and I think it's important to be very clear about what is happening in this moment. There's been a narrative that council is not being transparent or that we are somehow avoiding action. I fundamentally disagree with that. What we are doing is taking the time to fully understand legal, operational, and financial impacts of this proposal so that we can protect everyone in this community and come to the right conclusion. That is not a lack of transparency. That is responsible governance. I also think it's important to recognize the broader context here. The Colorado House Bill 26-1275, which closely mirrors what is being proposed here, was introduced at the state level and indefinitely postponed. In other words, the state of Colorado, after reviewing the same legal complexities that we are now facing, chose not to move forward without being and now we are being asked as a municipality to step into that same exact space. We should be asking ourselves why did they the state pause and what do they understand about the legal risk that we also need to fully understand. I want to be equally clear about something else. The council has taken meaningful concrete action. We have passed a resolution supporting our immigrant community. We have reaffirmed our commitment to due process, equal protection and transparency. We have established a task force to bring forward informed communitydriven data recommendations. and we are committed to monitoring legislation and litigation at both the state and federal level. These are not symbolic gestures. These are structured, thoughtful steps to get this right. Me as one counselor, I do not

believe and I can probably say without talking to all of my counselors and the staff that's up here, no one here wants mass federal agents in our community. That is a fact. So now here is what I have that is a real concern. We are being asked to consider an ordinance that based on the legal guidance we have received is likely uninforceable, in conflict with federal law, and potentially in violation of federal funding agreements. So, I want to ask very direct questions. What are we asking our community to sacrifice for an ordinance that may ultimately be for show and not enforceable? Because the consequences here are not theoretical. They are real. They impact real people and often they impact our most vulnerable populations first. So, I would like to ask a few questions to staff because I think it's important that this clearly is understood not just by council but by the public. So, Sarah, um, can you walk us through what portion of our transit operations rely on federal funding and what the potential risks would be if the city were found to be out of compliance with federal requirements?

Yes, good evening. Sarah Hill, uh, transportation director. About 25% of our transit operations are federally funded. um 80% it is uh responsible for our capital transit program and then about 50% of our multimmodal projects are funded federally. Um we're currently administering a total of about $4 million on this year's budget. Um and it is very regrettable. We were notified by the FTA that if this ordinance does move forward, we should expect to lose all of that. We have already been notified by the FTA that we will lose $4 million if this ordinance moves forward.

And yes, in various amounts like we have some operating funding um that I I'm not sure what the uh legal opinion is, but there was the Colorado um lawsuit and opinion that exempted us from some of the language in our grant contract. So, at a minimum, that funding is expected to be held um from us for an extended period of time. So, we wouldn't be able to use it. that would still result in transit service reduction.

When um before I was on council, transit funding was cut um and routes were taken off. And then when I was on council, we just reinstated the highway 160 route. Correct. Um and is there any others that we reinstated? Um, we reinstated the Mercy Hospital rout uh highway 160 and then we increased evening hours into midnight. Um, and I think that Yeah, that's it.

Okay. Um, airport director, sorry, I'm going to be quick because I have eight seconds. Can you outline the federal funding streams that support our airport infrastructure and operations and what are the potential consequences both short-term and long-term if those funds were put at risk? Um I don't know if we want I make a motion to suspend the um time frame here. Maybe just add two minutes. You don't need to suspend it totally or something. I mean I have lots of stuff and I can add more later, but I just want to finish the I think it's just these questions. Okay, great. Thank you. Good evening. Do we want to we need to vote. So yeah. Yeah. So uh an extra two minutes for for Tony to answer the the last Well, everyone would get two more minutes. So seven minutes total for the first round. Is that good? Pretty good. Good. Say I

I Okay, great. Two more minutes. Okay, thanks Tony. Sorry.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Tony Vicary, aviation director at the Durango Lapata County Airport. Um, as a quick rundown, uh, the airport does not utilize federal funding for operating expenses at the airport. However, the airport is heavily reliant on FAA, Federal Aviation Administration funding for capital expenditures at the airport. Uh over the last four years, the airport has had approximately $50 million in total capital expenditures, of which about $ 31.5 million of that is federal funding. So that represents about 63% of all the capital funding at the airport over the last four years has been of federal funding sources. Um so it's safe to say that those are critical for the operations of the airport. Um, examples of projects that have been funded by uh FA funding sources include the repaving of our sole runway at the airport, the most critical piece of infrastructure we own, uh, numerous major um, pavement projects to other critical aspects of the airport, as well as the ongoing renovation and expansion of the terminal facilities at the airport. Um, currently we have about $9 million in outstanding undrawn down uh, federal funding um, that if it should be at risk would potentially create that level of liability for active executed contracts at the airport.

Thank you. Um, all right. And so I think those are my only questions for you guys. Um, I just think that this is the part that we need to sit with. We don't operate in a vacuum and we cannot make decisions um, in isolation from the real world impacts that they create. So, um, I have 30 seconds, but I'll wait till my next. Great. Thanks, Council Councelor Gonzalez.

Thank you. Um, thank you for, um, you know, we know that the federal funding is at risk and so I'm glad that those questions were asked first. Um so we understand the potential damage to our community um as a result of this ordinance. Um but the psychological damage to our community I think is 100 times more severe. Um, having been with many of you that day when the ICE agents attacked our community so violently, um, gave me much more confirmation that we have to take these small acts of solidarity to really fight against this administration. Um, Durango is I have just been so proud of us as a community for coming together during these difficult times for the people that led the petition. Um, and all of those that signed it. Um, I believe our fully informed constituents about what the implications are of losing this funding. And we know that we're going to have to come together as a community and cover the gaps. I believe we can do that on the transportation level. They've done it before during the civil rights movement. Um, federal aviation is much harder to come by. Um, but I always believed our community should do whatever it could to pass an ordinance. I'd hoped we could have done it the first time around. Um, but the citizens took the initiative and did it themselves. And that's why we have this ordinance before us. Um, with this very unfortunate situation, I think the one thing councelor lawyer and I can agree

on is that this idea of mask agents in our community is completely unacceptable. But at some point, we have to decide how much risk we're willing to take. And I believe that as a community we'll come together and we can resolve some of these issues as best we can. Um I think my questions really are for marks for some procedural support. Um I think the council hasn't done anything like this before. This is the first time not just this council but councils all over the country are still grappling and struggling with this issue because every community is trying to fight back in whatever way they can. So just if we pass this ordinance today, we understand that there are risks um with immediately withdrawal of federal funding. Is there a potential to have to go back and return funding that was originally funded or has already been implemented?

Joe, one or I don't know if that's for Sarah or for you. Um uh one little correction, can't pass it today because it's only up for introduction. We'd have to pass it at at a later date after the introduction would be complete. And I don't mean to correct you, but

Okay. This has been a confusing exercise which is really why the executive session was so important because I think none of us have done this before and I think perhaps even the community hasn't done this before. Um my understanding from the attorneys that we engaged at Holland and Hart who have deep reach into the DC area and the administration that uh is the Trump administration is that all of your funding both past and present is at risk if this is passed. no guarantees, but that's what the experts have have indicated to us that they believe that that's at risk from the agents that they have working um in and close to the federal administration and what they've been seeing um over this past 13 months or whatever it's been.

And so what would that look like? The return of the tariffs, what what does that process look like if we actually Well, we don't know yet, right? Because the federal government could sue be determined. Have they ever refund requested refunds from cities? I wouldn't know the answer to that. What I can tell you legally, procedurally, um, they could file a a lawsuit against us for a breach of the grant agreement. I see. Um, okay. So, that's likely an action that could be taken. We don't know, but that's a potential.

It's a possibility. You know, publicly likely. It's those are just words lawyers like to stay away from away from. It is a possibility. And the attorneys that we hired said that they have seen that type of behavior from this administration, very punitive um economic um actions by the administration against local um communities that uh resist or object or pass ordinances that try to control what the federal government's doing. And I think also what we've learned is that is we are the first m municipality to be faced with this level of of whether we pass an ordinance, whether it goes to the ballot. Like there's not very many or perhaps there have been no other municipalities that have sent this issue to ballot.

So my research and again I don't get paid to know what everyone else is doing. I but I try to keep um attention. Denver passed Denver's council passed an ordinance um that occurred before a citizen initiative got to them from what I understand. If if a citizen initiative did get to them, they passed it at this stage. They they have a different charter. I don't know exactly how they operate, but my understanding in Colorado from the research that my staff and I have done and that these attorneys in Denver has done that we are unique and that if this was to get to the stage where it went to ballot, we would be the first community to take a anti-masking identification ordinance to ballot. I think that's what our unique situation tonight is. Could it have happened in some township in Wakapa, Michigan? I don't know. But at least in Colorado, I think for this for the state is concerned like we would be the first municipality to take an ordinance like this to ballot.

Yes, ma'am. I can say that with a degree of confidence.

And so I think that's you know again like the difficult place where that we are in as a council is that this is very uncharted territory. And so I think you know we are um are working through those details. Perhaps that's why the issue of transparency has come up that we are trying somehow to hide. Um the reality is we just have never done this before. We as a community have never done this before in many ways. Um we've never dealt with an administration like this one. Um and I I think this is a learning exercise for all of us. So um uh thank you for all of the work of our legal team and and all of my colleagues for taking this issue up. Council

Koso. Okay. Thank you. Um, the the proposed ballot measure seems to have the following flaws, and I'm I'm interested in any conversation both from council or or attorney on this one. It seems to me that Holland Hart have been clear that it's not enforceable. A federal court is more likely than not to hold that the proposed ordinance conflicts with the supremacy clause. So, that seems to be pretty clear. It puts grant money at risk for the airport, transportation, everything that we've just heard. So the um again, Holland Hart had illustrated that the federal government has extraordinary broad latitude to terminate the agreement if it wishes to do so or to take other unilateral action adverse to the city. The cost of a special election, which we have not talked about, I don't know what the cost of that special election is. I think it was somewhere around 55 to 60,000. I'm happy to be corrected on that, but that's certainly something that we didn't have in the budget at this point. I think another issue is that we potentially put our local police in a position where they are required to enforce a an ordinance and commit a felony for obstruction of federal officers doing their duty. And I I incredibly uncomfortable with that as well. All that being said, the follow-up analysis around the proposed ordinance is whether it's ex legislative or administrative powers is inconclusive. It's not clear and suggest sending it to the courts to decide. But by gathering the signatures and pulling together the initiative, I believe the voters have spoken and a judicial determination is of lower importance than the fact that 1700 voters got together and wanted this to pass. So I think city council has the opportunity to share its concerns. I have very big concerns myself. Um, and we can decide not to pass it as an ordinance and put it out to an election,

which I think is most appropriate. That is city council doing its job. However, city council just doesn't have the right to get in the way of a public process that's core to citizen involvement. We should educate on the very serious public or serious issues that could result from passage of the ordinance. But I think we need to let the voters make their decision. So, um, we should move forward without the the judicial review in my opinion. Do you have anything?

Every point I've heard so far is valid. We all agree that masking the identity of law enforcement um just isn't the American way. But at the same time, as responsible counselors, we have to look out for the welfare of all our residents. What do we have? 20,000 residents minus 1,700. I can't do the math this late, but there's a lot of people out there probably didn't want to sign the petition. There's a lot of people out there who want to keep their jobs at the airport, in transportation, with the city, with the police department, with the recck department. Um, and all the other nonprofit groups that we support, um, I'm not sure the number, 40, 45, 50 that we give money to. All these people would be at risk probably through the end of the current federal administration. And it takes a whole year to bring the fiscal um circle to be refunded after the damage is done. So the financial issue to me is really critical. But then another issue that I'm looking at from a person of color um perspective um and I don't think that this ordinance addresses the viewpoint of American

Indians of the fact that we've already been um having federal laws of genocide against us and they still exist. Today we have not even addressed missing and murder murdered indigenous women. And I don't see how that takes precedence over um requiring law enforcement to demask. So yes, I am torn, but I do feel very strongly that as city council that we have to look out for the larger portion of the people who look to us to lead them forward. And that's all I'm going to say. Thank you.

Um I'm incredibly conflicted. I um also completely agree that we should not accept masked agents in our community terrorizing our constituents. Um, but my confliction is that we are going to essentially give up millions and millions of dollars and especially on the transportation side. Hurt a lot of the vulnerable in our community that are relying on getting to the hospital um with our public transportation system, getting to work because they don't have a vehicle. um going wherever they need to go that that they're wholly reliant on transportation. I think Sarah you had some some numbers reflecting how many people are frequent if not sole users of the 64% of the people that ride the trans and how many total uh riders 480k. So 64% of those people are wholly reliant on public transportation to get to and from um their their wherever they're going uh whether it's work or hospital or medical visits. Um and to give that up just to to say that we're not going to enforce this tells me that this is just a feel-good ordinance. And I I'm really I really don't feel I really feel badly that that if this does um pass on the dis tonight to move forward uh beyond introduction that we are going to the people that are also vulnerable in our community are going to be most impacted by this. Um and so I guess that's what I'm where I'm wrestling with and kind of where I'm at right now. Um and then I know Parks and Rec has some money. I don't know if PD has federal funds um that that come in.

And so um to know the landscape of total impacts to this community um I think is where I'm how it's going to adversely impact all of us to some degree whether directly or indirectly. Counselor lawyer.

Yeah. I'm going to take another two minutes because this is our first chance we've had to talk about this and like public and I think it's important. Um, I want to do start by saying I do truly appreciate the initiative, the push, the citizens, um, the level of citizen engagement that we're seeing around this issue. Um, I think it's exactly what local democracy is supposed to look like. And so, I do thank you and I thank the people for stepping up, bringing forward ideas, advocating for the kind of community that we want to live in. Um, I sat next to I was at the I was at dinner the other day sitting at a bar and I was sat next to this couple and this woman was outraged. I'm outraged by what's happening in our country and she was outraged about this little boy and uh the his father that were taken up in Boulder and um her husband wasn't getting as outraged as she was and she was very angry about that and they developed into this argument right next to me about why isn't he more outraged and I kind of jumped in and was trying to like talk to him about you know different policy and what we're dealing with in Durango. um she got up and went to the bathroom and her husband looked at me and she and he apologized for her and he said, "I'm so sorry. She just gets so worked up." And I looked at him and I said, "Don't stop her from getting worked up." Like those are the people that actually are going to create change when your state can't or when I can't or when my hands are tied. And so it's important that we have, you know, local and citizen engagement like we're seeing. um hip or councelor Koso touched on this, but um no municipality, not one, has asked their local police department to place federal officers in handcuffs um for carrying out federal duties. It's not the role of a local government, and it's not a position we should put our officers or our community in. And so again, I come back to this. What we choose to do, we will live with. So we all share the same goals. a safe community, a community where people feel respected and protected, a community where government operates with transparency and accountability. And I want to be clear, I do support symbolic resolutions and acts of solidarity when

appropriate. We have done that as a council before and I stand by those. This is different. This carries real tangible risk. We were talking about potential impacts to our transit system, our airport, our parks and wreck, police department, tourism economy, ultimately our sales tax revenue that funds core services. These are not abstract consequences. They affect real people, especially those who rely most on these services. I don't believe that I can make this decision alone um without ensuring our community fully understands what is at stake. So for me, the question is this. Do we as a community fully understand how this ordinance would actually play out in practice? And are we willing to accept these consequences? Because if the answer is yes, if our community wants to take that stand fully informed, then I'm here for it. But we have a responsibility to make sure the decision is made with our eyes wide open. Um, so I think it must be lawful. I think it must be enforceable. And I think it must not create unintended harm to the very people we're trying to protect. Any other discussion? Right. Roll call, please.

So, just because this is so important, I want you please

and um what is on the floor is a motion to introduce the citizen ordinance. A successful vote would take this ordinance to consideration on May 5th. unless a special meeting is called to do it earlier because of election constraints that we found dealing with ballot printers and other matters that I work with the clerk on. Um, a vote not to move this forward, a vote to deny the introduction would then move you further down to our agenda to the mandatory resolution to call the election and we will have to have another legal discussion at that point. So the vote on the floor right now is the introduction of an ordinance. A vote against it sends us to the resolution. A vote for it sends it to cons full consideration at our next meeting.

Thank you for the clarification, Mark. All right. Roll call, please. Councelor Gazi. Mayor Woodruff. No. Councelor Gonzalez. Yes. Councelor Koso. No. Councelor Lawyer. No. All right. Moving on to public hearings. No items. Uh number 13, resolutions. Madam clerk, would you please read 13.1?

A resolution amending the 2026 operating budget. Uh Gloria filling in for Jennifer Walker. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Gloria Platt, CFO. This presentation is actually for um both 13.1 and 13.2. Uh we'll cover both of these items for the operating and capital budget amendments. This item, the both of these items are under the um goal of organizational stewardship. So first we'll get into our operating amendments. Um these are first presented by um fund and for revenues. Uh the recommendation is uh to increase revenues in the grants fund by $94,480 and the transportation fund by $47,877. Um some of these funds are um grant funds that need to be rolled over into the 2026 budget. Then uh in the by fund for expenses, we have the general fund request for amendment of 46,000. The grants funds for expenses in the amount of $54,480. The lodgers tax fund. This is a continuation amendment. We have this separated. Um as you'll recall, recently we did have some continuation um requests for projects in the capital projects. um we did not have we did not bring before council continuations from um the operating budget and so these represent funds that were included in the budget and in the fund balance projection in 2025 and so we're asking to roll these forward and continue into 2026 and we'll go through these in more detail. Um the transportation fund uh amending by $332,548.

Building maintenance fund is a split of a one point or 1,818,941 to be rolled forward and 300,000 of a new request. The vees fund uh is a continuation request for 1,431,524. And then uh lastly, the technology replacement fund, a new request in the amount of $55,000. So going into the details of this uh request, um for the general fund, um we're asking uh to amend the budget by 32,000 in the area of development services. And this is for the comprehensive plan update. Um basically the um bids came back a little higher than what was budgeted um by the amount of 32,000. Um the department is um expecting a grant that will likely cover this. However, we don't have that final award yet. Um and regardless, that would still go into the expense. Uh and then likewise, the revenue in the human resources department. We're asking for an addition of $14,000 um for a uh consultant to conduct a compression analysis. This is related to the market study that we did for the 2026 budget um where we were able to increase some of the positions who were below market up to the market. Um this resulted in uh increasing those minimum um plan um with the starting plan amount and so this causes compression with those uh newer hires and the employees who have been here for a longer period of time. So the human resources department is hoping to address this within the 2027 budget. Um this contract will give us the information and um and the cost of this in the grants fund. Uh the revenues um are split between a police grant or um

for law enforcement and the municipal court grant totaling $94,480. This is in revenues. Um the police includes implementation of AI systems um in the amount of 54480 and the municipal court award offsets um part of a position in the amount of $40,000. And these are basically the offsetting expenses um for those same um grants the in the police department. These expenses are offsetting the um the the position expenses were actually included in the budget already. And so there is no increase for that. In the lodgers tax fund, this is a request for um it was related to theou dissol dissolution funds um for Durango area tourism office. And these were budgeted in 2025 again included in the projection of fund balance at the end of the year being spent. Um but they were not spent and we're requesting to roll these into the 2026 budget. And that um that agreement did outline how those funds would be split spent in these categories in the transportation fund. This is split on the slide between revenues and expenses um between between state grants and federal grants and um the revenue for pay by sale. this was new and um was inadvertently left off of the revenues um for a total of revenues of $368,877 and then the related expenses um for those grants in the amount of $332,548 in the building maintenance fund. This is a continuation of a project um that was budgeted in 2025 for the Carnegie

HVAC project. The uh continuation amount is $1,851,964. Um it was found that we do need to complete a bestus abatement and um to put this out for bid, we are requesting an addition to this project in the amount of 300,000 in the ves fund. Um you likely have heard about these snow plows in the past because they've been rolling forward uh somewhat since 2024. um partially due to COVID delays and um equipment um and these uh the amount that is remaining to roll forward to 2026 is $1,431,524 of these snow plows that we are expecting to receive in this year. And then the technology replacement fund um we're requesting 55,000. This is for firewall and router infrastructure. Um the funds are in place uh for these upgrades and the the reason for the expedited request is because of the increasing costs. These have been increasing rapidly and the IT department would like to request to go ahead and and uh expend these funds to get these upgrades done before any further price increases. And I have a recommended motion for the 2026 operating budget amendments. Make a motion um to approve the budget amendment by 2026 operating budget increasing appropriations for the general fund, the grant fund, the transportation fund, the lodgers tax fund, the vees fund, and the building maintenance fund for the city of Durango, Colorado for the 2026 budget year.

Second discussion.

Councelor Koso. Yeah, Gloria, I' I've got a question on the building maintenance fund. Um, on the operating funds amendment summary page, um, I didn't quite understand why there's a zero budget for 2026. Sorry, I'll let you get there. So, the building maintenance fund here on this slide in 2026, it's got a zero dollars in the 2026 budget. And I I understand the continuation in those pieces, but why a zero there? So this fund is really this project um and um the energy performance um contracts. There was not any um budget that was budgeted for this project in 2026. Um it was all budgeted in 2025 um with the expectation that those funds would be spent. Um we did we did roll forward other projects with capital project funds earlier in the year. that was a new process and we inadvertently didn't um get with our departments on the operating fund capital projects that needed to be rolled forward. Um and so after the fact we realized we had some of those um including the building maintenance fund, the VES fund there, and then the same case with those lodgers tax funds. Um so we are requesting to roll those forward. Again, they were included in the fund balance projection. Um, so they were already deducted in that projection and um, but they were not spent. Um, we're requesting to roll those forward, but we do have to we would have to complete that um, asbestous abatement first.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions or discussion? All right. Can I get a roll call, please? Mayor Woodruff, yes. Mayor Prom, yes. Councelor Yazy. Yes. Councelor Koso. Yes. Councelor Gonzalez.

Yes. And the the next item was the 2026 capital amendment portion of this um presentation. Sorry, did we already read that item? I don't remember.

A resolution amending the 2026 capital budget. Okay. Um so this um is divided by funds um again and and of um the total request here is $1,795,611. This is divided by the 2015 sales tax parks and multimmoal fund, the 2019 sales tax streets fund, and the sewer construction fund. And we'll go through these in more detail. And the 2015 um multim mo multimodal projects. Um also there's a request for $18,114. Um this is for um basically the bids went out and came back um with a shortfall a deficit of $18,114. So we are requesting the additional funds needed to go forward with the bid. Um and I'll go through these and then of course if there's any questions on we have the the project slides and uh the information to support as well. Um on the 2015 sales tax parks projects, this was the same case. We had a bid, the bids went out and we had a shortfall in the budget of $49,6545. Um and then the Chapman rink with this was additional request in the amount of $38,692 for dasher boards, kick plates, and cap. and staff is on hand to add to any um descriptions or justification and answer any questions as well. And then in the 2019 streets projects, um we have the alley drainage reconstruction and paving project uh in the amount of $393,262. Um and the pavement preservation program in the amount of $535,898

and the um the alley reconstruction and paving. This was really um um funds that were consolidated into um they were separate budget items on the on the previous CIP and they were consolidated. Much of this effort was in order to um receive additional bids. We were having a hard time re receiving bids for these projects and so the consolidation helped in that effort. Um but when they were um combined um the request was not for the entire amount. So, the request being made is $393,262 for that um project and $535,898 um for the pavement pres preservation program. In the sewer fund, um the department is requesting to establish um sewer emergency repairs in the amount of 275,000. Um you'll likely recall from the budget retreat, we did um establish this in the water fund so that when an emergency does arise, um these can be taken care of out of this budget. Um but we did not establish it for the sewer fund. And so staff is requesting to amend the budget here by 275,000 um for that amount or for that uh purpose. And then the SRWRF clarifier preservation project in the amount of 125,000 um is an additional increase um that was not previously um anticipated. And so that is the end of of those capital amendments. Available to answer any questions and have um this recommended motion. Make a motion to approve the budget amendment by resolution amending the 2026 capital budget increasing appropriations for the 2019 sales tax fund and the 2015 sales tax fund and the sewer construction fund for the city of Durango, Colorado for

the 2026 budget year. Second. Any discussion? Councelor Koso, do you have anything? I do.

Excellent. Go ahead. Um on the the sewer issues, I guess I wanted to ask and I'm not sure who's the most appropriate to speak to it, but um the 275,000 is this related to we're seeing increased breaks happening. I understand we did it for the water fund. It makes sense for the sewer fund. How did we get to 275 is the budgeted amount here? And then in addition to that, are we seeing are we tracking and seeing more and more incidents of aging infrastructure breaking and we're going to see this budget increase over the years? Sorry, three-part question there for you.

Sure. Uh, so I I don't understand the history of how that actual number was come up with. I think it mirrors what was in the the water fund, the emergency repairs for the water fund. I can tell you we've had two significant unplanned or unanticipated sewer line breaks this year. No funding to resolve those. No dedicated funding stream. So, we borrowed money, if you will, from uh, you know, other lines in the sewer fund. Uh would this number increase in the future? Um likely. I mean, we have aging infrastructure. I think we're going to see more and more of this in the future unless we catch up with our maintenance.

And John, is there any indication that we've seen this more and more from the past? Have have we tracked what emergency repairs have cost us in the pre previous three or four years? I think anecdotally we have an idea of what those have cost us. I can tell you the two breaks that we've had this year have been in excess of $100,000 between the two. So, we're we're burning through that that funding pretty significantly and pretty quickly early in the year. Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? Next, can I get a roll call, please? Councelor Gonzalez. Councelor Aoso. Yes. Councelor Gazi. Yes. Mayor PM lawyer.

Yes. Mayor Woodruff. Yes.

All right. Moving on to 13.3. A resolution directing the city manager to conduct a staff presentation on the parking situation at the new city hall PD campus, including the number of spaces required and the current number of spaces planned submitted by uh then mayor Yazy. Can now councelor Yazzy. All right. I'd like to make a resolution directing the city manager city manager to conduct a staff presentation on the parking situation at the new city hall PD campus including the number of spaces required and the current number of spaces planned. Second. All right.

Any discussion? Yes. I'm bringing up this issue because we um we can't put in underground parking at the PD and they've changed the um the specs for how we plan to do the parking. So we need to look at alternative methods to provide the park and we need for our city employees and this is to provide direction for staff to come with numerous options or yeah numerous options scope

try to figure out something that is workable for what we need to accomplish. So maybe every option that's currently available to us that that we have the option whether it's a policy or variance or whatever. Yes. I believe that uh if I I'm understand the intent of this uh item council is for us to come back with a a proposal that would show us finding parking solutions which would free up the current PD and city hall parking lots to be sold. Excellent. Any other questions or discussion? Councelor Koso.

Yeah. I was wondering if council was interested in in expanding this a little bit to have the old PD and old city hall buildings with what what the um what the alternatives for those buildings might include as well. So, one of them would be turning them into parking lots. I understand that. But also it it might be an expansion that we um hear what our proposals for both of those old sites. Isn't it to sell them to offset the cost of the building?

So yes, so currently what we had uh as we looked at that first uh design where we were was to be able to uh accommodate the parking sites we identified using the current PD and current city hall sites as parking. Uh if I understand councelor Yazy's request, it was to see what options are out there that we could utilize and present to the council that would free those both properties to be sold. So that's where I that's what the presentation will talk about. Uh I'm not sure if councelor Koso has something more in depth that he's looking for on that side, but that the presentation you'll get are all the options we could possibly do uh that would have our parking requirements met uh and allow the selling of both of these land parcels.

Yeah, that was unclear. That's fine by me. Thank you. Great. Any further discussion? All right, roll call, please. Mayor Woodruff, yes. Councelor Yazi, yes. Councelor Gonzalez, yes. Mayor Pam Loyer, yes. Councelor Koso, yes. Right. Moved under 13.4.

A resolution submitting to the registered electors of the city of Durango with their primary election to be held on June 30th, 2026. a ballot issue and title concerning a citizen initiated ordinance amending a portion of chapter 17 of the code of ordinances and the city of Durango related to offenses related to the administration of justice and order and the and authorizing other actions regarding the conduct of such an election.

Need a motion. Need a motion. Second for discussion.

Um ladies and gentlemen of the council uh our charter is very clear that when a citizen ordinance is brought and then certifi certified certain time uh clocks start ticking. It's also very clear that uh should the ordinance not be passed by the council, you required to pass a resolution to take it to election. your action earlier this evening um not moving the ordinance forward from introduction has the effect of not passing the ordinance which clearly puts us in the pool or the barrel of being required to conduct an election. Um my office um meeting our obligation uh researched the ordinance itself uh against the Colorado Constitution and the requirements for taking citizen ordinances to elections and uh discovered that uh there is a circumstance where depending on the nature of the ordinance it cannot go to election. uh very clearly. Well, maybe I should stop there and let you guys start asking questions, but let I'll finish explaining. You're going to have a decision to make before you pass this resolution. Um because you have been provided legal advice that it is unclear both from uh my office, the attorneys we hired, case law um and the state in general that the type of ordinance that has been submitted by the um citizens cannot be determined to be a legislative ordinance which is required to go to ballot when you don't pass uh when you don't pass the ordinance yourselves or if it is an administrative ordinance which is prohibited from going to ballot um by state law. So that is my best job of explaining late at night what situation you're in now. You have firmly moved away from passing it

because you decide not to move it forward. You're now in determining whether or not you send it to ballot by resolution and you have been provided legal advice that that is not a clear and easy decision because there are two different types of ordinances. Legislative and administrative. administratives can go to ballot, legislative cannot. So, um, and I know that's the first time that may have been presented to the public. It was something we discussed back in exe session. I'm happy to answer questions about that. You do have a separate memo about that from Holland and Hart. Um, and as your discussion goes forward, there are some options that were discussed back in executive session that that I will need some direction on. All right. Discussion, councelor Gonzalez.

Okay. Thank you. Um, okay. So, Mark, for clarity here, um, it it talks about a June 17th deadline. I thought we were talking about a November ballot. No, ma'am. The the charter very clearly says that starting at the day of certification, which was April 7th, you have 90 days, that's your outside date to conduct an election, but not sooner than 30 days. So, our window to get to 90 days is on that timeline. I think it's July 6th. Thank you. July 6th. Uh, the only date where there is an election currently scheduled where we can bootstrap onto what the county is doing is June 30th.

June 30th. Yes, ma'am. So, okay. So if we pass if we pass resolution pass this resolution then there will be a ballot item in front of the constituents on November 30th June 30th I'm sorry June 30th correct is what I meant to say. Okay and that is considered a special election or we always have an election

that is not a special election. That is a a a an already calendar primary election date which we and this is very common in municipalities. If there's another larger election going on, we put one of our measures on their election. It's cost-saving. It's very very expensive to print ballots. It's very very expensive to have poll watchers and people come in. So we always attempt to um to do it when another election is going. What we learned was that we do not have flexibility because the state of the state is that there are not ballot printers available to us for other dates. We have the legal authority to call a special election of our own, pay the whole bill, but we learned learned that um the people who do that, the people that print the ballots cannot accommodate us. So literally our only option to fall under the the state statute and our charter is that date identified as June 30th.

Okay. And so as it was as we're learning, right? Um so if we don't pass an ordinance that was voter supported, voter initiated, it goes to ballot. But because of the challenges in it, this council could decide or could get um let me see how I want to phrase this because I I know that well I'm trying to understand it so that um I guess it was my always my understanding that if the council did not approve an ordinance that it would go straight to ballot, but that's not necessarily the case.

That is correct. That is the distinction between a legislative ordinance and an administrative ordinance. And because it was drafted by um citizens, no fault to them, they probably didn't think about that distinction. And quite honestly, that distinction has not been determined by a court or by another jurisdiction or anywhere in the country that I'm aware of. And um we had some very expensive lawyers look at this and they couldn't make the determination and um you have that you have their recommendation

that and right to to take it to a judge and part of that is just for our understanding um so that we because we are sort of breaking ground here for the first time trying to understand how this came about and really what our options are. Um, so, you know, I um I I fully support putting it on the ballot. It looks like perhaps there's a concern about that as well. Um, but I'm just, you know, trying to understand it myself so I can then explain it to to the constituents um should they have questions about any decisions that we made. Um, and and then therefore the implementation of whatever ordinance is ultimately approved or not. Um, so, uh, I just still trying to understand it all. It's new. Um, so I I think that's all the questions I have, um, as I just try to understand all of the moving pieces, um, in this crazy time we're living in. So, uh, thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

Council lawyer. Yeah. I just have a couple questions. How quickly do you think we can get a declar declaratory declaratory declaratory way it's like wait

and let me explain that you know a lot of what lawyers do is adversarial some of what we do is we throw up our hands and we say there's there's no case that has decided this before there's no statute that tells us what to do so we go to a judge and ask them to make a declaration please declare to us how we should handle this um it's considered a friendly lawsuit but it gets the issue in front of a judge to it can be decided correctly before you commit to a position. Uh the concern here is that if you make the wrong decision, one citizen could come in and stop everything by suing us and saying, "You guys didn't make this the right decision. I'm going to sue you to force the right decision in their mind." We would all love to see this go to election. We're just trying to make sure that when it gets to election, if it can go to election, it can't be challenged.

So, what happens if we say, um, nope, we're going to push it through to election. You know, we feel like the people should have a say. we're going to we're going to do that and then someone sues us um and they going to the judge and they win and it's like no this is administrative and it can't be on the ballot then what happens then the judge would stop the election okay I

mean the judge would have the authority to do that he would declare that you know under the Colorado constitution only legislative ordinances can go to ballot this is administrative because it's basically trying to administer the way the federal government operates there are arguments on both sides it can't be decided But the benefit of you guys sending it to a judge first is that you avoid that unfriendly litigation. You have friendly litigation with everybody and say, "Look, we we all agree with this can't be decided. Let's let a judge decide it. So when we go forward, we know we're good." Okay. Hope and I think you start out as how quickly did you ask?

Oh yeah, that was a question. Sorry. um knowing this was coming, having the opinion from the guys out of Denver and having the work that they've done, I can very quickly have a a petition for declaratory judgment formatted to file. The only thing that would slow me down is you have to serve an opposing party, which would be any one of the petitioners. Um and once they accept service, um if they don't accept service, we have to go through a process which takes time. If they accept service, we can do it the same day. Um, and then it just becomes a question of how quickly the judge will take up the matter. Um, and I don't I will never speak for what a judge does and what their time sprains are because they don't they don't like that.

So, how does this affect the time frame with the election then? Because obviously we're not going to meet the May whatever deadline if still could I mean I could have the suit in a perfect scenario. I could have the suit ready tomorrow at noon. I could get someone to take service tomorrow at 1 and then I could have it filed in the court before close of business and a judge could look at it the next day. So it could theoretically happen very quickly. Okay.

Um the alternative is if the judge because docket reasons or whatever it takes more time I would feel more comfortable requesting when we filed it that if the judge can't deal with it we would request a stay. That is a a stay is a a method by which we ask the judge to take our or our a charter which has time delays in it and say can time out. We have a real legal issue here that I need time to decide. It's not fair to have that time run against the city and run against the citizens um until I have the time to make the right decision. So, I'm going to stay and only a judge has the authority to do that. the judge can stay our charter and say um you have to have your election within 30 60 90 days once I decide arguably be 90 because we've learned it takes about 90 days to to get an election set no matter when we find out about it. So, what we would hope is that the judge could rule right away and we could keep that June 30th date that we've discussed, but we would want to leave an option to make sure that we eventually get to the right decision that uh the judge could stay that until after he has time to rule, which would push us push us to the November election date. So, should you decide to send this to a court for a declaration on what to do, the only thing you would lose is the time between June and November. So, if we delay for a judicial review, will the judge and let's say he can't get to it by the May 5th deadline, will he automatically grant us stay or will we be in will we be in some charter obligation miss if he doesn't? Does that make sense? I

I trust the judiciary in Llata County to understand the situation and grant the stay. I can't speak for what they would do. Um there is a possibility that we file this. The stay is not granted. There is no ruling and we're kind of left in a in a quagmire. It's risk. Thank you. Uh councelor Koso.

Yeah, I think there's risks uh no matter what we decide here, but um I'm going to go back to the fact that 1700 voters followed the process, put forward this ordinance. Uh judiciary decisions have still left this as a question for over a year. Uh delays in judicial review are a risk. I truly believe we should just educate as best we can on the ramifications of the ordinance, but it should move forward to a vote by our residents as a resolution. Council Yzi, if we go ahead and vote down this resolution, a no vote, and then we could enter a resolution that would say we would like to have a declarative judgment if this is administrative or legislative and that you could file that tomorrow and um also include a stay and that would give us some legal standing as to which direction would be most cost effective.

Yeah. Yes. So, if you I would I would encourage you not to vote this down. I would encourage you to offer a substitute motion to direct me to file a declaratory judgment. Um just because you don't want to be on the record as voting down, you know, uh something going to ballot. You want to be on the record as seeking a judicial declaration of whether it's legal to go forward. Um financially, I don't know. Can we get finance up here? I don't have a good answer for that one. Um I'm I'm sorry I might have missed your question a little bit, but um what the judge will do at some point in time is determine for us and really for the state um are these type of ordinances legislative such that they can go to ballot or they administrative to where they can't. um if he decides that it can't go to ballot um we may end up still paying for an election that doesn't take place um if he decides quickly that it can't go to ballot. We would save that cost. If he decides quickly that it should go to ballot, we're going we're obligated to make that cost anyway under our charter. So I would look at this as a cost sa there's one one of three scenarios where you would say the cost of an election but at this point the way our charter is set up and with the efforts that the the community has put in I would just bank on being obligated to pay for an election whether it goes forward or not. I mean I I would tell finance that that I can't guarantee a result. I can't guarantee what the judge is going to do. You need to budget for an election because in in several scenarios we end up having an election. It's not it at some point it'll become 5050 when it gets in the judge's hands. Um but that as far as the finances go that's my best advice to you.

And just one additional deadline uh Mark if I may. The if we're going to sign an IG with the county to participate in the June 30th election. That deadline is midnight tonight. It's been what? midnight tonight to sign the IG to participate in the election on June 30th. Well, hopefully the council will be understanding of our situation. I mean, at this point, um my legal advice would be that you authorize the city manager to sign that. Is that on the agenda somewhere? Uh it is part of that resolution. I believe uh your office added that as part of the resolution.

Yeah. And look, like I tried to explain earlier, um this is um it's almost like playing a game of whack-a-ole. I mean, you know, one thing goes down, thing goes up. Uh the legal advice here is do everything you have to do. Spend the money that you have to do. Sign the agreements you have to do um to make sure that you can go forward with an election if if the judge or the law requires you to do that. Um I mean, the citizens put in the work. I think you need to honor that. I mean, it's unfortunate that you have to spend that money and sign agreements that may end up mean nothing in the end, but that's just the issue with the time frames that are set forth in our charter. Um, and this issue we have with there not being people available in the state to print ballots for a special election. It really, really hamstrings the options that you guys have. And it's going to force you to spend money um that I mean generally you're spending money on an ordinance that is we now generally agree is not enforceable, but even beyond that um you may not even be um legally allowed to call an election in on the particular ordinance the way it was written. Um, yeah, I I I feel like the um the citizens have done their due diligence. I don't want to stonewall anything. Um, I kind of agree with Councelor Koso that we um I feel like we should move forward um with the election. Um, I know we want to get judicial clarity, but I'm I'm just unsure like to me like there's too many planets that need to align to get this done in a in a short timeline. So, um, I guess since this is guess somewhat precedent setting, I feel like it could be potentially on our side to

move forward with just having the election. But my two cents counselor lawyer. So really the only negative sorry I'm like trying to think because the only negative with going forward without getting judicial guidance is that we potentially could get sued. So we'll have a a lawsuit and then if they rule it uh administrative then we've paid for an election we can't do. Correct. But if we get judicial guidance and continue moving forward with the election in concert like at the same time is that an option?

Yeah, that's what he just said. He said we could like essentially we could get judicial guidance but also sign the with the county and continue moving the steps forward for the election in concert with the other with the judicial guidance. Correct. You can kind of do both. in hopes that we get the response back. You can certainly do that. I mean, once once you call the election without a determination of whether it's legislative or um administrative, the election's going to go. You can't unstop it.

But theou is the only step that has to happen before May 5th. Uh theou and the has to be signed tonight. Yeah, the ballot language is May 1st, but so we could do theou, the IGA, whatever the administrative things are that need to be done before May 5th in concert with a legal or a judicial guidance. And that way we're like ready and in step if they come back and say it is judicial or it is legislative. Yeah.

No, it's well not administrative. If it's Thank you. So many words. Um it's legislative. you're good to go, then we're good to go and we can get it for the July. But if it's administrative, then we can pull it and we haven't Well, you we haven't done the ballot language or anything like that. Uh no, I think at that point you will have called an election and the judge may rule that the election count. Yeah. So, we're still paying for it anyways. We're paying I think you're paying for an election no matter what happens. What's the matter with you is not printing ballots for us. This is ridiculous. Want to start a new business? Who wants to start a new business?

I guess the issue that you run into is that, and this is what we talked about earlier, is that if you call for an election that a judge declines is illegal, and if you have a favorable vote for it, you go back into that first pool of losing your funding. So getting judicial clarity first is the is the legal advice to put the city at the least risk. Yes, you're going to burn some money because you don't know the outcome of your judicial um input, but you're avoiding that risk of losing that pot of money which was the reason that you pass.

Like I don't you guys this gets and at some point it's not legal anymore. It's just a really really tough decision. But just so we're clear and because you've disclosed it, the legal advice from the attorneys in Denver and the legal advice from my office is that you should seek judicial clarity before calling an election. And that gets really wonky because we got to take some procedural steps and spend some money because we're we don't know how the judge will rule. Mhm. If you spend that money and the judge rules that you can't call this election, um I don't know. It gets really hard to evaluate.

So, we either vote on this that's currently up that Shirley motioned and I seconded. Um and we don't really none of us really want to vote it down, per se, or someone offers an alternative motion. And do you have to get a second for that to offer an alternative motion? An alternate or an amendment or a substitute. But does she have to accept the amendment? Yes. If it's a substitute, she doesn't. If it's an amendment, she does. Um, just make this a little bit more clear. I think for Robert's rules, right? Like I won't accept an amendment. Yeah. And so it needs to get voted down if that's the course and then somebody makes is that correct? Somebody makes an alternative.

That's a distinction between an amendment and a substitute. What you'll commonly see happen and it's it's one of the Robert's rules is that if you offer an amendment and someone rejects it, they come back and say, "Well, if you don't set my amendment, I'm going to offer a substitute." If the substitute is germanine to the the motion that was on the floor, then it takes the floor and it doesn't require um acceptance. It just requires a second. So, okay, I got my hand. But again, the the bigger issue No, go ahead.

So, if if the motion on the floor, if if there's a substitute or an amendment's going to happen, it's going to need to direct me to file the declaratory judgment and direct uh the city manager to sign the IG to conduct the election. And boy, that's really going to look weird when a 100 years someone comes back and looks at it. But that's just that's the quagmire we're in with the way this develops under our our code. Would that take a different motion or an amendment to the the current motion to to to go in parallel with one another? It would.

So, I'm going to offer a substitute motion. I move the council direct the city attorney to seek judicial guidance from the court to determine whether the proposed ordinance is legislative or administrative in nature under Colorado law as soon as absolutely possible. continue and then additionally continue moving forward with the election and sign whatever agreements IGOU to move forward with the election until we know specific dates and we receive guidance and that staff report back to council with timing considerations relating to ballot deadlines once that guidance is received. Second.

So you're asking for something to be done in parallel. So both judicial clarity along with moving forward with an election as if we were to vote yes on this specific amendment. Yeah. Unless I can't get it to you. We're totally but until until we get that like we are we're moving forward with with the election as if we are voting yes on 13.4 at this exact moment. Okay. But in addition to we're seeking judicial clarity.

Yeah. And what that does is that insulates you from an unfriendly lawsuit where someone requests an injunction to prevent the election from going forward. It puts the election where you want it to be, which is going forward um with judicial input as opposed to someone throwing up their hands and saying stopping everything um without your input. Yeah, I I could definitely support as long as those two are in parallel. like I want a yes here and I want to be able to provide judicial clarity at some point whether whatever that is. I think that I think that to me is like the best case scenario.

Okay. So I have my hand up here. So that's great. Okay. So if we follow this dual path to get a judgment and continue with the ballot, we're still within our charter limitations. Okay. Yes, ma'am. All right. So, we Oh, yeah. So, back councelor Gonzalez. So, just so I understand right the voting. So, was my motion now um no longer active? Do I have a motion on the floor? No. The substitute motion if it carries um your motion becomes moot.

Even though she seconded the motion on the floor. Yeah. the second doesn't play a role in that determination. What happens is the substitute takes precedence. If it's Germaine, if it fails, the underlying motion um comes back to the floor. If it carries, it carries as a substitute and replaces the the original motion on the floor. Okay. Councelor Koso, anything else from you? No. All right. Roll call. Councelor Yazy, wait. Is there a opportunity for discussion on the secondary motion?

Yeah, I thought that's what we're doing. I'm I'm sorry. I thought you Yeah, of course. Would you like to add more? Just Yeah, I just want to make it clear for the record, you know, that I support this going to ballot. So is in a no vote. Um I'm afraid gives the implication that I don't want this to go to ballot, which is again why I'm confused about the motion. I understand your motion. Um but you know, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to vote no. Um because I want this to go to ballot regardless of what the courts decide. So yeah, I think am I correct in that assessment?

Well, sorry about that I I I it's important to me that the record reflect or and if I can't do that in my vote because all the record will show is that there was a motion and I voted no. So I I felt like I needed to say this for the record as we're going through the exercise. We have the opportunity to but if court says that it doesn't matter then our hands are tied. So it doesn't I mean whatever the court says we have to adhere to. Yes. But we don't have to take it to the court. Right. So that's what I mean. I see. Right. That's why I that's why I'm want to vote no. But I just feel like I need to say for the record since I didn't have that opportunity I see

with this new motion. Sure. That was now superseded my motion. Um so uh I just I wanted to make that clarity should you know we go back into the record and there's something in there that shows that I didn't support this item going to ballot. Uh so um I I I wanted to make that Sure. Sure. I feel like this you made the motion on both of these for the record like you've supported both of the items today and so I think that that yes is important to like this insulates consistency in this in this you know again like we're I mean I know this is a um unusual scenario but I want it to be consistent in my voting.

Sure. I'm trying to explain this to a judge at some point in the future. I'm going to explain to the judge that you were very adamant about this one being passed by the council and if it wasn't going to ballot and that's what your votes reflect. Okay. Mayor prom lawyer if I just might could you please just repeat the motion just so from the staff perspective we've got it down so we don't want to run into that last time where we had to come back because we didn't quite get it. So if we just get one more so we're clear exactly what that motion is and then

Okay. So, I move the council direct the city attorney to seek judicial guidance from a court to determine whether the proposed ordinance is legislative or administrative in nature under Colorado law as soon as absolute possible. I also uh move that we continue moving forward with the election and sign whatever agreements IGAsus to move forward um in the election pro process in concurrency until we know specific dates and we receive guidance um and that the staff report back to council with timing considerations related to ballot deadlines once that guidance is received. Thank you. Clear as mud.

All right. Roll call, please. Councelor Yazy, I'm voting affirmative for the substitute motion. Councelor Koso, yes. Mayor Woodruff, yes. Council Gonzalez, no. Councelor Lawyer, yes. Council, before we move on real quick, um we are going to run into a 9:30 cut off as per our agreement on council. Um I wanted to make a motion to extend our time on the das tonight to try to get through the rest of this meeting. I'll second. Any discussion?

It's going to be 11:30 or midnight for me. Okay. We think we can get through these ordinances quick. Mhm. I'll make the motions fast there for you, Kip. All right. Any other discussion? Are you setting a time or not? No time. Uh, no. I I had not set a a definitive time just to try to suspending the rule that we stop at a certain time. We finish when we finish. Correct. Any other discussion? You guys. All right. Um, can I get affirmation vote? I I All right. Moving on to 14.1 considerations of ordinance.

Uh just a reminder for the staff members here. Uh we do have presentations and just trying to be respectful of time. So does don't mean to rush or hurry through, but if there is some information that may be just a little more detailed than is really necessary. If we could make some adjustments to that, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Dana Debolt, Deputy Clerk Licensing in the Clerk's Office. Uh, this is a combined presentation on the next three liquor licensing ordinances on the agenda. I will be reviewing each one with individual votes for each ordinance. The first ordinance is 14.1 creating a liquor license late filing fee. Next ordinance is 14.2 liquor service affidavit update to include off- premise licenses. And last, ordinance 14.3, re-adopting liquor license rules of procedure in chapter 3, liquor. Here are the full ordinance titles you will see later for each individual roll call along with the strategic goal alignment of safety and quality of life and engaged and informed community. The first ordinance in this combined presentation I will be reviewing is 14.1 creating a liquor license late filing fee. This will be the most substantial ordinance with the most information. I would like to start with what renewing a liquor license with the city looks like. Durango renews 135 liquor licenses a year. They take a minimum of one week to a month to process. For the renewal of an existing liquor license, the state says the application shall be made to the local licensing authority not less than 45 days before the date of expiration. At the state level, there are no penalties if submitted after the deadline within the 45day window. Currently, the city also has no penalties for this. Submitting the application ahead of this timeline helps ensure compliance and allows sufficient time for processing. Once a license holder submits a liquor license renewal application, the next step is a thorough review. This review includes verifying that all required items are complete, identifying any

changes from the previous year, confirming that all necessary signatures are in place, and required fees are included. Once the application review is complete, cross departmental verifications begin. This process involves coordination with the police department finance and the Llata County Health Department. After all verifications have been completed and local authority approval has been given, the final step is to submit the paperwork and associated fees to the states. Again, this process takes 1 to four weeks to complete. Now, we will review the challenges presented if submitted within the 45 days of expiration. When there isn't enough time to process a renewal, applications can stall, creating a backlog and straining staff capacity and resources. Late submissions also limit the clerk's office's ability to conduct thorough compliance checks, address any deficiencies before the license expires, and ensure that businesses can continue operating legally without interruption. They influence how our office prioritizes operations, often shifting focus towards reacting to non-compliant businesses rather than supporting those that follow the rules. This reactive work creates unplanned spikes in our attention and workload. If the lenses renewal is not fully processed before the license expires, the business may enter a legal gray area, increasing the risk of non-compliance with alcohol service regulations. Right now, 17.5% of liquor license holders are out of compliance. These late submissions create processing, compliance, and legal challenges for both the license holders and the clerk's office. Based on the current trends, we expect approximately 24 liquor licenses to be submitted past the 45day deadline by the end of the year. This will

disrupt our office's workflow, forcing staff to spend more time responding to late filings rather than focusing on applications that were submitted on time. To encourage lences to file 45 days prior to their expiration date, the clerk's office is proposing a $250 late filing fee. This will apply to any liquor license renewal not submitted 45 days prior to its expiration date. Making this change creates a financial incentive for proactive renewal submissions while also supporting businesses in maintaining year-round compliance. This will also reduce the clerk's office's work spikes and unplanned reactive work. The clerk's office was able to speak with a few other municipalities around the state that have similar late filing fees. Specifically, we were able to speak with the city of Sterling and the town of Windsor. In Sterling, the late filing fee is $250 and in Windsor, the late filing fee is 500. The renewal applications are required to be 100% filled out at the point of acceptance. The clerks indicated that the fee and complete application requirements have significantly curbed late submissions, and they've noticed a big improvement with timely filings. This fee will take effect for all renewal applications with expiration dates on or after October 1st of 2026. To support a smooth transition, lences will receive advanced notice starting this late spring. To help strengthen awareness and ensure compliance, we will mail liquor license courtesy reminder notices to all lences that clearly outline the new $250 late filing fee. This effort will be reinforced through the public information office outreach and targeted newspaper campaigns to broaden visibility and ensure the message reaches all licences. In addition, all renewal notices will be

updated to include the new $250 late filing fee along with clear deadlines and expectations. By beginning these notices in spring of 2026, it will ensure that all lences with expirations on or after October 1st, 2026 receive advanced notice. The next ordinance in this combined presentation is 14.2 liquor service affidavit code amendment requirements in the city of Durango. The liquor service affidavit, which was also included in your packet, is a document that is currently only required for on premise liquor license holders such as bars and restaurants, but not for retail liquor stores. It affirms there will be a person on duty during regular business hours that has completed a liquor serving training course. This was added to the city of Durango code starting in 2021 to increase public safety and prevent things like overs serving and underage alcohol consumption. It enhances accountability and compliance for alcohol service. We've had several incidents and compliance hearings this past year triggering the realization that all license types should be included in this requirement. The clerk's office believes doing so will enhance public safety as well as implementing an extra level of accountability for alcohol service within the community. If this separate ordinance is approved, it will be required at the point of application and with the annual renewal application for all liquor licenses. I would like to add that we currently have a large voluntary compliance with this requirement by most retail liquor stores. And the last ordinance I will review is 14.3 reading the liquor rules of procedure into chapter 3 alcohol. This item is code cleanup. In 2025, there were updates to the liquor

licensing rules of procedure and they were added to city code. the rules were mistakenly adopted into chapter 13 licenses and business regulations instead of the accurate place being chapter 3 alcohol. I would also like to recognize the attorney's office for the time they spent helping to get these ordinances put together. And with that, here's a motion for the first of the three proposed liquor ordinances 14.1. Make a motion to approve 14.1 an ordinance part the Dango court of ordinances chapter 13 licenses and business regulations article nine local licensing authority section 13-27 rules of procedure for the purpose of establishing a late license renewals

second. Any discussion can get a roll call please. Mayor prom lawyer. Yes. Councelor Gonzalez. Yes. Councelor Kosa, yes. Mayor Woodruff, yes. Councelor Yazy, yes. I make a motion to approve 14.2, an ordinance enacting a pertinent part of the Durango Court of Ordinances, public beverages, section 3-16- renewal, oh, sorry, renewal of license and liquor safety training to require all liquor licences to provide a liquor serving safety training course affidavit. Second. Discussion. Roll call, please. Councelor Gonzalez, yes.

Councelor Yazi, yes. Mayor Woodruff, yes. Mayor Prom, yes. Councelor Kosa, yes. And then I move to approve 14.3, an ordinance for repealing and pertinent part of the Dango Court of Ordinances, Chapter 13, Licenses and Business Regulations, Article 9, Local Licensing Authority Sections 13-27, and 13-230 through 13-234 and reenacting it as chapter 3, Alcoholic Beverages Section 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, and 3-25. Second. Feel like we could have written that a little better, but all right. Discussion. All right. Roll call, please. Councelor Yazy, yes. Mayor Woodruff, yes. Councelor Gonzalez, yes.

Councelor Koso, yes. Mayor Promler,

yes. I just want to say for the record that I know we're towards the the the tail end of our meeting here, but I know the clerk's office did a ton of work in getting this in front of us. And so I want to make sure that you know that it's very much appreciated being in the you know food and beverage industry for as long as I have. I know how much work goes on in the back end. So I just want to make sure that you guys were all recognized for all the hard work that you presented to us and it was obviously a unanimous vote on on the dis but thank you for putting in the leg work to make it easy for us. So thank you. All right, moving on to 14.4. Good evening, mayor and council. Tony Vicary, aviation director at the Durango Lata County Airport. Uh, this is a simplistic item. I will move through it quickly noting the hour. Uh, so this is an ordinance authorizing a lease of property at the airport to Keith and Mary Fastpender for agricultural use. Um quite simply, Keith and Mary Fastpender are existing lees at the airport for an a lease um which expires later this year and they've requested a new lease to continue agricultural use on the premises. Here's a quick map of that area. It's just to the west of the airfield in the Flora River Valley that's not used for aeronautical purposes. Uh lease terms, it's about 60 acres in size of which hay production is about 10 acres. The rest is for horse storage and grazing. five-year B base based term. Uh the LEI uses their own independent water rights, not impacting the airport's water at all. Um our ALP depicts this as non-eronautical a use consistent with the lease. Um the airport commission has reviewed this agree uh lease agreement and unanimously approved it in March of 2026. City attorney's office has also reviewed. Uh fiscal impact is very minor. Uh the primary benefit of this is that the lei provides for ongoing maintenance of fences and ditch lines etc on the airport. Um so with that I would move to the recommendation.

I'll move to approve an ordinance authorizing the lease of property at the airport to Keith and Mary Fastbender for agricultural use. Second. Second. Oh great. Any discussion? All right. Roll call, please. Mayor Woodruff. Yes. Mayor Pimler. Yes. Councelor Yazy, yes. Councelor Kosa, yes. Councelor Gonzalez, yes. All right, moving on to 14.5.

All right, good evening, Mayor and Council. Thanks for hanging in there. Um, my name is Lean Bernstein, Community Development Department. um here to present a um a pretty straightforward amendment to the land use and development code regarding town homes in the residential medium zone. Um this item uh supports our innovative housing and economic development goals within the strategic plan. Um and a process with land use and development code amendments. Um this went to the community development commission back in March. They made a positive recommendation. Um so now it is in front of you all um for your consideration. Um so a little bit of the goal here. Um we realized that the there are some limitations in the land use and development code specifically regarding town home building types that don't uh town home building types in the RM zone, the residential medium zone that don't align with the goals of the comprehensive plan. Um so here is an image of this kind of definition of residential medium future land use within the comp plan. Um and a further description of this general area future land use designation is that it it should um include town homes as a permitted use. Um however, if you go into the land use and development code, this is our use table um in t you go you look at town homes and you see an S under RM, which means it is uh allowed as a special use. So it requires a special use permit. So, this takes you down a little bit of a rabbit hole in the land use development code um where the code states a handful of limitations that you need to adhere to before you can have town homes in the residential medium zone. Um it's allowed in a couple neighborhood types. Um it is required to follow the housing pallet. That part wouldn't change. We're focused on the neighborhood types that it's

allowed in. So further down the rabbit hole of the land use and development code, you're looking at the neighborhood types here that town homes are allowed in and you come to the conclusion that you need a minimum of seven acres, so a 7 acre lot in the RM zone um in order to build town homes. Um this is uh just not very realistic. Um, in fact, there are only about seven acres of undeveloped land in the RM zone across the city, and that's not even in one parcel. Um, so there's a there's a really big demand for town home development these days. There's a lot of justifications for that type of development, its efficiency behind the building, the demand for home ownership that town homes provide. Um, so this is something that we wanted to make a targeted fix for. Um, so the amendments are pretty straightforward. There are three items listed in the amendments. We're changing the S in that use table to an A. Um and then the other couple of amendments are just cleaning up the language of those further um special use requirements. So pretty straightforward. Um this is a map of the current RMz zoned areas across the city, developed and undeveloped. So many of these areas are developed. I apologize for the smallness of the map. Um, again, there's only a handful of these parcels that are undeveloped and and would be eligible for town homes. Um, this is a map of our future land use designation for resident that would be appropriate for residential medium classification. This one's a little bit hard to read. It looks like it's blue and dark blue. It's just blue muddled with uh parcel lines. It's kind of what makes it look dark there. Um, so this could affect areas that are currently in the city, um, or areas that we might consider to annex. Um, one note of concern that was brought up with CDC is

that this, um, our our old town, our EN neighborhoods, um, the grid here is designated as appropriate for residential medium um, development. And that I just want to touch on is really speaking to the density that's associated with this future land use classification. Um, and we find that it is um, highly unlikely that these areas would be, you know, reszoned to RM and thus allow town homes. It's just a scenario that we don't see uh, we don't foresee. Um, and in fact, there's kind of character protections in these zones that we think that would preclude it. Um staff finds that the proposed amendments do meet the review criteria for text amendments within the code. Um we haven't received any written comments. Uh we did receive a couple uh comments during CDC um which I believe were addressed with kind of um talking about how this wouldn't affect the EM zones. Um and ultimately city uh community development commission recommended approval as does staff. Um and I'll also note um that there are a handful of other um amendments that we foresee coming that pertain to housing and kind of these little like rabbit hole nuances that we've been finding. Um so there will be more coming in front of you um in the next year or so. Um so with that uh here is your recommended motion. Happy to take any questions. I move to approve an ordinance amending the land use and development code as shown in exhibit A regarding town homes in the residential medium zone with the finding that the amendments conform to the applicable review criteria within the land use and development code.

Second. Any discussion? Right. Roll call, please. Councelor Gonzalez, yes. Councelor Koso, yes. Councelor Yazy, yes. Mayor Prom, yes. Mayor Woodruff, yes.

Thank you. Okay. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Daniel Murray, Community Development Department. The item before you are text amendments regarding non-conformities and permits and procedures within our land use and development code. The strategic plan goal this aligns with is innovative housing and economic development. Chapter six in our land use code is known as the administration of our code. It's basically what summarizes our permitting system. It lists out our permit categories. With each permit category, you have your decision-making body and then there's a corresponding procedure and public notice. Um throughout the year, staff are always identifying areas where there's lack of clarity or an opportunity for us to refine the permitting system we have. We have kept a list and what we've done here is bring these amendments together all pertaining to chapter six in the administration of the code with the overarching goal of clarity, effectiveness, and just updating our processes to meet modern practices. This is prompted by an ongoing effort in our department for most efficient development review. Procedurally, this item went before the community development commission March 23rd. It was on your agenda April 7th for introduction and here we are. First consideration April 21st. If you take action tonight, it'll proceed to the May 5th agenda. So there's seven categories. I'll walk through. The first one being we're clarifying that when a portion of a structure that is non-conforming is demolished, that rebuilt portion needs to comply with the code. It is likely just understood when the original drafting of the code occurred. We have found it necessary to be able to put an

explicit reference on someone deciding to demolish their structure pursuant to c certain thresholds here that when that happens, it needs to be rebuilt consistent with the code. We find that explicit reference to be very useful and resolve any gray areas. The second item has to do with public notice. From a high level, we have three forms of public notice. First being a publication in the Herald. Second being a posted notice on site, which you commonly see around town. And the third being mailed notice, which is in the form of a postcard, which you may have even received yourself. In looking at our public notice requirements, there were in the case of publication, five types of notice and only two of those were being used in practice. Two of them were identical and one of them was not referenced anywhere in practice. We've consolidated those. Similarly for posted notice, again two of them were being unused um and one um was combined with another one because they were synonymous. So we ended up with two. One of our objectives with planning process and what we take to be the serious responsibility of public notice which is due process is to avoid any errors. So this next revision is to consistently make our posting of notices 14 days across all project types. We have project types that are either 10 or 14. that is an uh area where there could be error and we think if we just consistently make it one posting notice period that removes that opportunity or potential for error. So 14 days which is the higher of the two thresholds. There were mailed notices where there were no notice uh radiuses prescribed. We've always used again the higher notice in that absence and we're now making that explicit. And then site plan review had an erroneous uh process for a project that

would go to hearing and we fixed that. Keeping with public notice, there were areas where there was no public notice required for appeals or at least it was unidentified. We've simply now stated that that will repeat the process for whatever that respective project type was. If that required mailing, we'll do it again at mailing for an appeal. We deleted the mailed notice for postrecommendation. This was always a headscratcher in the code. Most notice for any meeting occurs prior to the meeting. The requirement in the code was to notice after the meeting. That we don't think serves the public very well. There's really no decision-making opportunity or opportunity to weigh in on the decision-m. So, we've made that consistent with the practice which is to notify prior to the meeting. Um there were five project types where again we introduced that mailing prior to the hearing which matches our practice. Speaking of notice radiuses, we've consolidated those from the 150 all to be 300 ft again for consistency. The only exceptions would be in the surrounding areas of our city where they're in joint planning. We've kept the 500 ft. It tends to be a more rural environment, so a larger radius makes sense. And then we kept oil and gas at the much higher quarter uh mile. We also removed the section of the code that was not being used. In fact, it told us that this section of code is not even a valuable way of informing the public, which was an email list of opt-in subscribers. So, we've removed something that was not even viable. The next item here is to create consistency. Again, anywhere there was 10 or 15, we're just going to use the larger comment period for all project types. There's also two project types that did not have any notice. So, we removed them from the list because if you can't have a comment period, if they never kicked off notice, those two

examples are examples where we've actually brought the review type down to administrative reviews. Those of you on council for several years have seen the trend of us trying to right-size reviews, make things faster. The next item here, our whole process kicks off when a project is deemed complete. We found instances where the code is referring to a application being filed and so we change those references to completeness. Completeness is a very critical term in our process and that it sets a whole domino of time frames and that creates uh clarity for how we should go about project review. Um there was an instance where we expanded the 21 days to 30 days now that we've increased the public comment period to 15 days. And then this next per uh item also speaks to we have 10 days for example to approve an administrative project. Well, it's important that we're going to add the wording or request revisions because if an individ individual submits say a sign application and that sign application is inconsistent with the code, we want to be able to toll the clock for us to get revisions. So, that's the clarity we need to say that the time frame has been paused while we're getting the revisions. Um, again, 21 days is our standard review time. There was ones in instance where it was 20 days. This next item I mentioned modernizing our practices. There were explicit references to three or four copies of documents. We're almost all electronic. We can get by with one copy and then in the case of a recorded plat that one copy goes to the clerk and recorder and they keep it. So this modernizes our plat recording processes. And lastly, keeping with plat uh replplats, this is a common practice where someone will boundary adjust or lock consolidate. That was clearly called out in a table of the code. Now we're calling out in text of the code. That

process follows our replat which is an administrative review and pretty straightforward. The text amendments proposed we believe meet the criteria for review in the land use and development code. This item did go to the CDC meeting on March 23rd. We've received no comments prior nor any comments at CDC Community Development Commission and their recommendation was 50 for approval and staff finds the proposed land use and development code amendments adhere to the criteria support the strategic plan and the goals of the comprehensive plan. Here's a motion. I move to approve an ordinance amending the land use and development code as shown in exhibit A regarding non-conformities and permits and procedures with the finding that the amendments conform to the applicable review criteria within the land use and development code.

Second. Any discussion? Yes. Thank you. Can roll call please. Mayor Woodruff. Yes. Councelor Yazi. Yes. Councelor Gonzalez. Yes. Mayor Pam Lawyer. Yes. Councelor Koso. Yes. Thanks again, Daniel. All right, moving on to 14.7.

14.7 is an ordinance amending and pertinent in part the Durango code of ordinances chapter 4 animals article 5 empoundment section 4-96 authority. Make a motion to approve an ordinance amending print and part of the Durango court ordinances chapter 4 animals article 5 empoundment section 4-96. Second. So with the city's taking over of animal services uh we went through the code. We saw that the code gave no discretion on the empoundment of animals um for offenses as simple as being off leash. We amended that to make empment discretionary on most offenses and only mandatory on the most extreme extreme offenses.

Happy to answer any questions. Any questions or discussion? All right. Roll call, please. Councelor Yazy, yes. Councelor Kosell, yes. Mayor Woodruff, yes. Councelor Gonzalez, yes. Mayor Pam Lawyer, yes. 14.8. An ordinance amending impertinent part the Durango code of ordinances chapter 14 animals article 3 dogs and cats section 4-43 removal of dog defecation from public and private properties. So moved. Second. So this ordinance establishes a $25 fine for um not cleaning up after your dog. It does not cover cats or kangaroos. Okay, good to know.

All right. There was no there was no minimum fine, no fine schedule. So, we were asked by animal to put a minimum fine schedule in. So, it's $25 if you don't clean up after your dog first offense. Great. Any discussion or questions? Councelor Gonzalez. And so, Mark, who who enforces that the code compliance? O I don't know. The enforcement is what? PD and code enforcement. Yes. And animal control. Anybody with a ticket? Do we have animal control officers? Yes, we do. Yeah, we do. And um how many?

Okay. Uh and so, um and I guess they have the ability to issue citations. Yes. Okay. Okay. And to impound. That's part that's part of this package. Yeah. So, the city took over those services and this is just the ordinance is catching up with the the modernizing of that under our code. Okay. Okay. Maybe we can get a briefing later. I have some questions about that, but not related to this. So, I'll leave it there. Sure. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? All right. Roll call, please. Councelor Koso. Yes. Mayor Pro Lawyer. Yes. Mayor Woodruff. Yes. Yes. Councelor Gonzalez.

Yeah. All right. Moving on to number 15. Public comment on city under consideration. Um, mayor, no one else has signed up for this section.

Great. We're on to 16. Other new business. 16.1. A resolution directing the city manager to provide a monthly update at regular city council meetings on publicly releasable information on the utilizing of flock camera. The flock system which should include but not be limited to the utilization of the system by officers jurisdictions requesting access and access that was granted to other jurisdictions. Uh, I move to Yeah, sorry it's been a long day. Um, I move to approve resolution directing the city manager to provide a monthly update. Uh, as stated, we don't need to go through all that again.

I'll second. I have a question. Is this an easily readily available like report that we can just get? Uh, yes. Remember, this is just going to put it on the agenda. No, I know, but I'm just to put it forward to on the agenda. Like it's pretty quick and easy, right? Anyone can like request this. It's an easy report to get. It's not going to take you hours upon hours like compiling something like this for us every month. But we can work with something that can make it easy and Okay, great. I want I want that. But just for the record, right? Roll call. Roll call, please. No, no, no. Hey,

oh, sorry. I I apologize if I didn't see your hand up. The we've received emails from uh Ben Peters about the the criteria that should be looked at in this reporting. Um I'm not sure that this encompasses enough conversation around what might be included in that reporting. This is just an item for it to be placed on the agenda for discussion. So nothing happens on this one. uh this just places it on the agenda for consideration and discussion by the council.

I understand. Uh my concern is is that we we might want to be listing out the criteria so that staff can give feedback on the difficulty of pulling that forward on on the breadth of it. Should we just wait until that next meeting to give some kind of guidance on what we might be looking at? Uh yes sir, that would be the appropriate pathway. Any other discussion? Right. Roll call. Mayor Prom Lawyer. Yes. Councelor Gonzalez, yes. Councelor Koso, yes. Mayor Woodruff, yes. Councelor Yazy, yes.

16.2 is a request for a proposed ordinance that would regulate automatic license plate reader technology in Durango submitted by councelor Gonzalez. Um, thank you. Uh, as many of you know, I've been working with Ben Peters and the group to work on a proposed ordinance. If this is approved by the council, hopefully we can move forward, work with chief, and with Mark to uh create an ordinance that's specific to Durango, that's specific to municipalities. One of the one the one we've been working with is really for states. So if uh this item moves forward, hopefully we can come up with something um that as a baseline, the ordinance that they've proposed as a baseline, but that we can create something um more appropriate for Durango. So that would be my request. Is it a motion?

Yeah.

Is it okay? So I'm sorry, a motion for approval. council. Um, if it's appropriate, I I would ask for a little more latitude and not be restricted to um, license plate readers. Um, I've had a discussion with a couple of you privately that if we're going to go down this road, I think you may be better served with me working with the police department, with Ben's group on something more broad that would um, involve mass surveillance uh, not just limited to license readers because facial recognition is everywhere. It's in the airports. I mean, that's I think we can do a little better service to you guys and to the community if we try to develop something that's more mass surveillance oriented as opposed to specific to one system, license plate readers.

Thank you. So, we have to do multiple ordinances trying to effectively do the same thing. Yeah. Um, and again, I I've met with the group. I don't know if I told all you that, but I did meet with the group prior to this coming up and explain to them and I was happy to work with them and the police department and you guys. Um, and there's lots of common ground out there. So, um, my only request is that if you move this forward that it not be restricted just to license plate readers, but something more more general, mass surveillance based, whatever that includes as we move forward with it. Thank you for for that recommendation. I think that's sounds very appropriate. So, do I need to change the language? Well, I think just for introductions.

Yeah. Do we need to do an amendment to to that really quick or just a Yeah, I would just amend it to include, you know, other forms of mass surveillance. So, proposed to amend uh your a request for a proposed ordinance that would regulate automatic license plate readers and other forms of surveillance, mass surveillance uh in Durango. Second

discussion. I just want to ahead of the game say like thank you for working with them, but then also thank you to working with everyone to kind of make this what's best for our community because I don't want unintended consequences to come out of something that's going to prevent us from doing keeping our community safe. And so I I am glad you guys are all able to work together to hopefully make a product we can all get behind. So go team. Okay, there you go. What's up? All right. Any other discussion? All right. Uh, roll call, please. Sorry, Gild. I apologize and blowing it.

Okay. Um, all righty. So, how is this different from the flock proposal that's floating around? How is this different from the flock proposal that's that's out there now? So proposal,

sorry, the FL proposal as I understand it was um legislation developed as a multi-state model by the ACLU. Um and this was fully discussed with them when we met. What what I think is different here is is that we want something that's Durango specific and that is a little more far-reaching as to uh an ordinance dealing with different mass surveillance techniques. Um some of what has been proposed I may recommend coming through a policy as opposed to an ordinance because if we have a general ordinance on mass surveillance we can then have policies that are consistent with that in our police department or whatever else happens in the future. So that's how it's different. one is very specifically designed for states to a very specific system and um what's what I understand is being proposed now is a more general ordinance about mass surveillance that leaves the opportunity to to work on um specific policies that are internal.

Thank you. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Councelor Gonzalez. Yeah. Uh, council Gazi, Mayor Woodruff, yes. Uh, Mayor Perm Lawyer, yes. Councelor Koso, yes. Any other new business before we adjourn? All right. I hereby adjourn our meeting. Thank you.