Council - Regular Meeting

yeah you guys ready yes you did

time being 6 15 i called to order the city of glenwood spring city council meeting good evening everyone now we have a long agenda tonight so let's get right with it it is august 6 2026 and ryan would you please take a roll call mayor dame here mayor protem zielinski councillor townsley councillor schmall councillor weimer councillor schachter councillor smith we have a quorum thank you ryan Moving on to item two, we have any changes to the agenda that I'm not aware of. I see none. We'll move on to disclosure of any councilor conflict of interest for tonight with items on the agenda. I also see none. We'll move on to item four, citizens appearing before council and council response for item that are not on the agenda. Ms. Chase, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Excuse me. Where I am.

Lori Chase, 705 Cowden Drive. And thank you very much for hearing me out here. last evening as i was walking into the community center two young people approached from behind on motorized devices and came within inches of me without any warning as someone with a physical disability this was frightening and could have easily resulted in a serious fall or energy injury i told them this was unacceptable and they should alert pedestrians by saying on your left or on your right before passing Unfortunately, this is not an isolated event. On almost a daily basis, I observe children and some adults traveling at excessive speeds on e-bikes, scooters, and other motorized vehicles along our sidewalks and around town. These vehicles are capable of traveling much faster than pedestrians can react, yet many riders appear to have little understanding of basic trail etiquette or traffic safety. For the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and riders alike, I believe our community should consider stronger education and reasonable regulations. The city should develop or could develop a safety course covering the rules of the road, proper passing etiquette, pedestrian right of way, responsible operation of motorized vehicles. Requiring completion of such a course before young riders are permitted to operate these vehicles in public would help prevent accidents and encourage safer behavior. Parents should also be involved in this education as they play a critical role in ensuring their children understand and follow these safety rules. In addition, I believe the city should consider establishing a minimum age such as 16 years old for operating higher speed motorized devices on public streets and pathways unless state law already provides guidance. Whatever age is ultimately adopted, the goal should be to protect everyone who uses our sidewalks, trails, and streets. This is not about limiting recreation or transportation. It's about creating a culture of courtesy and responsibility and safety so that pedestrians, including seniors and people with disabilities, can use our public spaces without fear of being struck by a fast-moving motorized vehicle. Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here. Anybody else here for items that are not on the agenda? For items not on the agenda, right?

Right.

Please come up.

Oh, I just thought you'd call on an engine. I don't know what I'm doing.

Neither do I. Believe me. Where are you, Rachel? I don't see you. Oh, here you are. Yeah. Come on up.

Okay, my name is Rachel Wind. I live in Glenroy on Bennett, 728 Bennett.

Thank you.

Been here 46 long and hard years. I think Ron and I had a project together today, didn't we, John? um i witnessed something yeah anyway i'm here about what i've been here before and that was about the parking on the block where i live and it's been you finished it july 10th and this is it's almost a month okay and i've been taking random I mean, really random pictures, photos. So I'd like to hand them. Are you willing to look at the photos of what's going on?

Steve, Steve will pass them out for you.

You. my my concern the last time i was here i said you know people just park random and there's a lot of times there's a big gap between the cars but it's not big enough to park but it's big gaps and so if we had lines then we wouldn't have big gaps i googled lines to find and i researched this they're 20 feet is what i found i went out and measured and they're 22 feet And now we have a designated big gap between every car, as you can see in the pictures. It's a lot less parking now. I used to, about once a month, I had to park on 7th or 8th. And this month, it's been three times. That just gives you an idea of when I come home from my yoga at night, there's nothing on my block to park. The good thing was you did tow some cars that had been there for months. We got rid of them. But now it's worse. So it was bad before, but it's worse now. And all my neighbors, we all agree, there's less parking. One of my neighbors now parks in the next, the house behind her has a spot where they let her park there because she comes home from work in the evening and there's no place to park on our street. But I have like, I think four neighbors here with me that came to give you what they think. Because I went around and asked some of my neighbors, what do you think? And they said, it's worse. So that's the end of that subject. my recommendation is get rid of the lines it was better before it was crap before but it was better um and the next step is the city came and chopped down some trees that were i think they were dead um but they leave stumps you got 10 seconds just to let you know pardon me you got 10 seconds and so we have seven stumps and we need to change the street name to stump street

Okay. Thank you, Rachel, as always. Thanks for being here.

Digging up the stumps and planting the trees. Finish the job.

Yeah. Right. Thank you. Got it. Uh, Councilor Townsley, uh, quick response to just quick response, Rachel.

I did check on that. They are planning on grinding out the stumps. They're getting to it. They will go away.

Okay, good.

Yeah, there you go.

Yes. Seven. Seven. Tell him seven.

So let's not change the name quite yet. Oh, that's good. Let's get some stumps removed. Yeah. Um, but just real quick about the parking line spacing, did we just take the length of the street and divide it by whatever was an equal space of parking?

off the top of my head, I don't know, but I will get with code enforcement and public works and anybody else involved. And we'll look into it.

I thought of parking field length was 19 feet, but I understand how I get it. I understand. Okay. Hang on. Hang on. As long as we're looking into it, I think we'll be all right. Okay. Um, let's see here. That was Jennifer bombs also here for an item, not on the agenda.

Yes, similar item to Rachel's. I am also a resident from Bennett.

Before you get going, I'll just cut some seconds off your time, but everybody has three minutes tonight for your comments, just so we know.

Yeah. So thank you for painting the lines. I think that it was a good effort. We have significantly lost parking spaces, and I was on crutches when this first started. And first off, the street was closed for a week on crutches. And now that it got reopened with the lines, there is no parking for people that live on the street. It has become an overflow parking for people that dine in Glenwood, for people that go to the pool. and for people that go to the farmer's market. And that's great that everyone's participating in all these activities, but there is a race to get a parking spot on Bennett for the people that live there. And it's not even that I'm asking to park in front of my house, is that I'm asking to park in front in my block. in the block that is the whole neighborhood of Bennett. And there is no parking. And it's, again, a race. People are idling behind cars waiting for them to pay their check at the Pullman so that they can go park in front of their house or on their street or on their block. Additionally, I would like to say that we aren't asking for luxury. We're not even asking to park in front of our house. We're asking to park in front of our block, like in our block. My suggestion, and I urge you to consider this, is to either designate one dedicated parking spot for a household and then the rest can be free game so that maybe people can still park there and go to the Pullman or go to the farmer's market or have residential parking for that street because we live right by the affordable housing building on that corner. There's significantly an amount of people there that have cars, maybe multiple cars, and they don't even get to park there either. I think that when the lines were painted, there maybe wasn't a thought of how many people lived on that street. Again, if it was residential or if there was an assigned situation, maybe enough people could park there sometimes. I just urge you to please consider the citizens that live here on Bennett or in downtown because I'm sure they're also struggling with that same issue. When we got the notices on our door, it said to go park by the public parking in the library. And so that should maybe be told to the rest of the people who aren't living downtown and don't have to park their cars there. Additionally, I also don't support ICE and we should have transparent and honest communication with our police enforcement.

Let's save that for later. All right, excellent. Anybody else about the parking lines? You're not on the list, but one after another. Please come forward.

My name is Emily McKittrick. I live at 723 Bennett Avenue, and I've also plagued by this parking issue. Fortunately, I work from home, so I choose to go grocery shopping in the middle of the day, because otherwise I can't find parking. And for the seniors that live on our block, it's really difficult for them to lug their groceries or anything for that matter. I do not know the particulars of the manner of the affordable housing unit on the end of the block, but I do know that some of those residents have multiple vehicles. Perhaps they could only be allowed to register one vehicle as a resident of that area. Some of those vehicles do not work anymore and are never moved, and code enforcement does not come and adequately remove them from a space. So perhaps that, I mean, I know a lot had to be towed when they were putting in the lines because they did not work. So perhaps that's one solution. If people are living there, they can only have one vehicle and that could help. But it has definitely been worse.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Please state your name and whether you live in city limits or not is Terry.

We know I live at 714 Bennett. Um, I've noticed some ups and downs over the 25 years that I've lived. At my address, um. What I've noticed recently is there's motorcycles and there's spots that motorcycles could park where the diagonal parking is. There's like a half a space that's empty and it's noted don't park here. And we have a guy with three motorcycles. So he can have three, what is it, 22-foot spots, one for each of his motorcycles. And that's kind of limited us a little. Also, it seems like code enforcement doesn't enforce the code. If I call and I say a car is parked in front of my house for X number of days, I have one right now with a tarp over it. And it's been parked there since July 18th. And I've called code enforcement twice on it. When I go and get groceries, which I do only once a month, I have to park beside that car and put my flashers on. So that I can carry my I mean I might get five five gallon containers of water. I have to park beside him put my flashers on and carry my things to my house and it's gotten so much worse recently and I hate to say it, thank you for cutting down trees and all that you do, but the parking has gotten worse.

Okay, thank you. Thanks for your comments. Anybody else about the parking before we move on?

No.

All right. Great. Then I got a different parking issue and that's Donna Yost. Please come up, state your name and whether you live in city limits or not.

Donna Yost, 995 Brush Creek Lane. I am here today because of a current issue on Brush Creek Lane, but it really began four years ago when decisions affecting our neighborhood were made without involving the people who actually live there. After four years, I still feel deeply betrayed by my local government. Your staff developed a plan that fundamentally changed life on our street without first talking to the residents who would be most affected. We were expected to accept the decision after it had already been made. Four years later, I still don't feel anything has changed. Getting responses is difficult. Having a real conversation seems almost impossible. It should not be this hard. We asked why these changes were necessary. We tried to present facts. We submitted a petition we were told would be considered. Instead, it was denied and we were told it was too soon that we needed to let the dust settle and for hearts to soften. Whose hearts were supposed to soften? Yours? Why should citizens have to wait for their elected officials to become willing to listen? Also, this issue may have ended four years ago for you. For those of us who live there, we are reminded of it every single day. Now, we have what I initially believed was simply a miscommunication with code enforcement. Code enforcement had been applying the parking restriction to an area in front of 993 Brush Creek Lane that is on the stem leading to the cul-de-sac and not within the posted no parking section. When I asked that clarification be provided to code enforcement, instead, the city conducted a fire truck demonstration without notifying me so I could observe it. Fortunately, my doorbell camera recorded the demonstration. The city's two still photos showed nothing useful. The video shows the truck could have cleared a vehicle parked in that location easily. The fire chief concluded otherwise. No conversation allowed. I have more information on this if you ever care to hear it, but no time to include it here. Four years ago, we asked to be included before decisions were made. We weren't. Now I'm still asking the same thing. A government willing to listen to its citizens, honestly review the evidence, acknowledge mistakes if they've been made, follow the facts wherever they lead, and explain its decisions with more than a single sentence, quote, our team has carefully considered your request and are not able to make changes at this time. That is not the transparent, responsive government your citizens deserve without having to file a CORA request. I hope this council will finally show us that our voices matter. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let's see. Anybody else? I don't see any other names without anything behind. That's here for items that are not on the agenda. Please. Brett KenCairn, yeah we do not take public comment that is for items, not on the agenda online that's something we stopped quite a while ago, due to some issues we've had so anyway. Brett KenCairn, Moving on to counsel. Brett KenCairn, I know to responses from Council to any of the comments we heard and we'll start with counselor Smith.

Councillor John Gallo- Thank you oh. he's gone. Well, way back to the first comment about sidewalk and trail conflicts among users and cyclists, scooters and such. Tuesday, two days ago, the Transportation Commission met in a regular meeting and, among other things, extensively reviewed potential policies, perhaps even potential ordinances, that strengthen clarity on what kinds of vehicles can and can't be used on trails, building from some draft language that city staff provided, but also taking into consideration some of their own discussions and their own imaginative ideas, which included the possibility of some educational programs through the schools and through parents. So very much what we were hearing from Ms. Chase is in play. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Councilor Schacht.

I would concur with Councilor Smith and Ms. Chase. We do need, we locally and the State needs to do something about the proliferation of young riders on too fast e-vehicles. I think that will come quickly. But regarding the parking, I would encourage you, and it's nice that four or five of you are here, I would encourage considering a neighborhood action group that meets. And I say that because several years ago, we had complaints about the other side of town over on Colorado Pitkin area. And rather than us try and solve it, we empowered and encouraged the neighborhood with staff help to meet, Dave Kuntz, come up with suggestions and plans that are not staff driven or Council driven. Dave Kuntz, And unfortunately, nothing happened i'm not sure why, but there was staff support it was Council support, I would encourage to try the same thing, rather than relying on us. Dave Kuntz, or only a couple of you or staff get a group together, if you can it's not easy. Staff has been willing to help to a degree with limited resources and come up with, if you can, some neighborhood consensus. It's sometimes hard because half the block may want one thing, half another. But it's a process that could work, and I would encourage it if possible and support it if possible. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Any other responses? No, I see none. Okay, great. Well, thank you all for being here, for your comments tonight. We'll move on to a close to public comment portion for items that are not on the agenda. We'll move on to council announcements. And we'll start with. Councilor Smith.

Thank you. As mentioned, the City, the Transportation Commission met on Tuesday in its regular meeting. In addition to what we just discussed, they affirmed two resolutions, two formal recommendations that they'd already considered before concerning long-range transportation plan for the City and some project recommendations that will be in play during the budget process. uh also affirmed a previous recommendation concerning fair rates for the uh right glenwood springs on demand the dial-a-ride service so those are coming to council that will be mixed into the discussions at the appropriate time two new resolutions from transportation one was an endorsement or recommendation city council to endorse Um, the a city application for additional first mile last mile grant from running for transportation authority, and then second, they passed a resolution, essentially recommending a partnership between the city and the school district or a combination school resource officer and trails ranger. I've just kind of imagined the idea that they nudged along with like city council and the school district to consider with some perhaps in the joint funding. More details on that coming into the mix later. On Monday, the Historic Preservation Commission met and briefly celebrated the partnership that they seem to be forming with the city's tourism advisory board on funding to do some shared funding that will help both commissions promote tourism by helping preserve and provide interpretive materials on historic sites in town. So that too will be coming into mix in the upcoming budget process and Both commissions agreed to send a delegate, in fact assigned a delegate, to the newly forming confluence consultation task force that the city manager is putting together with representatives from multiple commissions to kind of get that whole variety of perspectives on what to do down near the Roaring Fork and Colorado River confluence. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Solinsky.

I just want to give a huge shout out to our River Commission. They did the, I think, twenty-fourth annual River Fest River cleanup. There were approximately a hundred and seventy-eight participants, and we picked up an estimated over five thousand pounds of trash. We need to wait for the original or the official count. but i think that is pretty significant because that is grassroots volunteer only and uh well and staff member jim hardcastle who was a new need was out there busted too, but pretty significant, pretty impressive, and a really consistent event. I'm super partial to the River Commission. I think they're pretty dynamic. So I wanted to also make a pitch that we have an open seat for an alternate member on that commission, as well as a youth liaison member. um this is something we do on all of our river commission or all of our boards and commissions we invite a youth member somebody who's in high school to come and participate to just kind of get a sense of you know how they can have that civic connection and be a part of you know building the community they want to live in for the rest of their lives so um that's my pitch for that um and then carfield county board of commissioners has uh had a work session discussing the hogback and i know that that is not in glenwood springs but it's a partnership with rafta it's something that we support it impacts a lot of residents um who maybe don't live in glenwood but work in glenwood and so it does impact us so if you have strong opinions on that i encourage you to pay attention to what's happening and maybe communicate with your commissioners as they continue to kind of navigate towards a solution with that

Okay, thank you. Any other announcements? We'll see none, thank you. Moving into the consent agenda for tonight. With item six on the agenda, we have item A, the July 16 Council Minutes. B, reappointment to the WFAB members, WFAB Board. Item C, Financial Advisory Board appointment. We have Ordinance 202616, an ordinance of the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, amending section 070. 06050F of the Glenwood Springs Municipal Code regarding the regulation and permitting of right-of-way encroachment license. Second reading. And we have item E, Ordinance 202617, an ordinance of the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, amending Title 070, Section 070-040-110 and 070-070-030 of the Glenwood Springs Municipal Code regarding signs. Second reading. And that concludes our consent agenda. And with that, I'm entertaining a motion in the consent agenda. And we're looking at Mayor Pro Tem Solinsky.

I move to second, or I move to approve the consent agenda as read by Mayor Dane.

Thank you. And second, Councilor Townsley. I second the motion. We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. Any discussion? I'll see none. I'll call for the question.

It passes 7-0.

Thank you, Ryan. The board. There's the board. Okay, excellent. And Mayor Pro Tem Celine. I turned you off again. So sorry.

I just want to take this moment to thank the continued service by Commissioners Meadowcroft and Groskopp on our Workforce Housing Advisory Board and welcome back Mike McCallum to our Financial Advisory Board. He has served in the past and continues to serve and we really appreciate him.

Excellent. Thank you for that. That concludes our housekeeping items for tonight. Regular session moving on into action and or presentation and I assume that's what most of you are here for the next item item 7 public update on special use permit and certificate of occupancy status for 100 Middle Avenue unit 1, 10 to 10 occupied by immigration and custom. enforcement, also known as ice. And we are starting this with city attorney Carl Hanlon.

Please kick us off. Yeah, thank you, Mayor down. Council Carl Hanlon, Carpenter and I serve as your city attorney.

I think I think it's very low.

Oh, sorry. Carl Hanlon, Courtney Hanlon. I serve as your city attorney. What you have before you tonight is an action item related to a zoning violation at one hundred Midland, suite one, ten and two, ten, or more specifically, one ten. Just by way of background i'm sure everybody in the room knows, but i'm gonna for the benefit of the press and those watching online on April the eighth.

The last time it's good to see a lot of you. We're all here as well.

Um, that there was a hearing in front of the Glen Springs Planning and Zoning Commission regarding a special use permit that was issued in two thousand and three regarding a temporary ice hold facility. The conditions of that were that it can only be used for 12 hours. The Planning Commission on a bite on a boat of 5 to 1 voted to revoke that special use permit based on evidence presented in the record that a number of folds over not only the last year, but over time had exceeded the 12 hour limitation. Nobody from either ice the ownership group or the General Services Administration appeared at that hearing. They did not appeal it within the seven day window to you, nor did they appeal it within the 28 day period provided for under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106 a four. So on about June 4 that decision planning Commission became final. And I'm going to pause for a minute and kind of describe what a special use permit is so you guys kind of understand its relationship to uses. So I'm actually going to use the example of a bank with a drive-thru. So a bank is used by right in the City of Glenwood Springs in certain zone districts. Drive-thrus require a special use permit. And so, if, for some reason, imagine the one next to the polo neighborhood that has a drive-through. I remember that only one, because the whole neighborhood came out to talk about that drive-through when it was ultimately approved, and why it set up the way it was. But if, for some reason, the bank did something that resulted in a revocation of that special use permit, What it couldn't do is operate a drive-through. And so I just want to be clear about that, that what we're talking about is the operation of a hold facility at 100 Midland. Because as the code is currently written, as it was adopted in 2017 or 2018, that temporary detention facility no longer would be a temporary detention facility. Christopher Moffatt- Conditional use that would be subject to a special use permit. It is simply not permitted in the zone district. Christopher Moffatt- I say all of that because it is relevant to kind of what comes next when we talk about what's going on. And I'll walk you through a couple of potential processes so Christopher Moffatt- After that hearing. I think one of the things that I think I know I was concerned about. And I think staff was concerned about was we don't want You know, if it is used, we want to have verification of it, and we also don't want to dissuade calling EMS services if they are needed, which is important. So on July twenty fourth, We were called to the facility on an EMS call, emergency medical services call. And at that time, based on the reporting from that call, we can confirm that it was being used as a temporary hold facility at that time. That in my mind gave me the factual basis to say that it is a right claim to potentially bring back to you for action on the zoning violation and where do we go from here? So that's why just kind of as a timeline basis, You know, from that April 28 hearing through essentially currently calm dev Community Development has been trying to contact owner ice GSA trying to confirm those information that information and has gotten a response. It's important factually for me as your attorney. If I'm going to walk into court that I have a legal basis and I have a fact that I can rely on regarding its use. And that's what I got with the July 24 EMS call So that puts us in a position where you can give me some direction on if you'd like to take an enforcement action regarding a land use that is taking place in a location in which it is not permitted under the code. You're going to hear me talk a lot about that and for the moment I'm going to set aside my personal feelings around ICE, immigration policy, all of those things because as you're returning I will tell you Your job here is to decide whether or not you're going to enforce the land use code. Under the land use code. It doesn't matter who's violating it. That's not the decision making process that matters. And it's not the one that I will ultimately need to defend in court if that's where we wind up. So process, given the fact that they're pretty non responsive. I imagine we're going to wind up in another state or federal court. we're going to have a couple of options that i'm going to talk about but i want to walk you through process and cost and timeline and expectations because i don't i don't want any to be you or anyone to be underneath the misunderstanding that if you guys decide to move forward like suddenly we're going to go down there and we're going to have you know our police department chaining doors or anything like that is a judicial process we need to rely on that just like we would in any other land use context I'm also going to pause there and say, since at least 2000 when I've been involved with the city in one way or another. We have never held a hearing to revoke a special use permit. We've never had to up until the one April 28 John Potter, Our goal is compliance or a person who's in violation voluntarily stops doing the activity or withdraws or drops of, you know, says, Okay, I'm not going to continue to try to pursue or operate underneath the special use for that so John Potter, This is a unique circumstance for us as a city because normally we just don't have to go this far enforcing these things.

And so

John Potter, So if we move forward with a judicial enforcement on this property potentially would be in either state or federal court that's probably likely determined by who you decide, you might want to try to enforce against. John Potter, If that is the land specifically, which is probably going to be my recommendation. i think that comes we try to bring that in state court which is i'm a little happier in because it's right over there it's in the community it's judges who know us that kind of thing if we try to enforce against all three of those entities we might as well just start in federal court because the federal government is entitled to be in federal court to have claims that are brought against So we would file suit complaint. Complaint would also ask for probably injunctive relief, preliminary injunctive relief, which would mean that we would be alleging that we need the court pending trial on the merits to enter an order in joining the landowner or those three, those other two entities from operating there as a temporary hold facility while we went to trial on the merits. Mr. More than likely in either of those two scenarios state or federal court, the immediate response from the defendant would be to file a motion to dismiss. Mr. The basis of that motion to dismiss would be more than likely asserting underneath the supremacy clause of the US Constitution that our enforcement of our local land use code and zoning is interfering with a core function of the federal government. Right, so You know, the majority of cases that you will see where the government, federal government, asserts a core function, and in fact, pretty much everyone that is a reported case, the federal government has won on that position. A great example is a North Hollywood case related to the post office where the post office was trying to lease a piece of ground. Local zoning said they couldn't build a post office there. They took him to court. Court said, hey, you know, delivering the mail is a core government function. You can't interfere with that. So that's kind of the standard that we would be fighting against on that motion to dismiss. What do we say in response to that? From my standpoint is you have a whole facility in Denver, you have one in Grand Junction, you don't use this one very much. It's not essential to your core function. It's not saying you can't enforce immigration laws, it's saying you can't hold people in Glenwood Springs. That would be the argument in a nutshell as to what we would say. Assuming we don't get kicked on a motion to dismiss, we would go to a hearing on the preliminary injunction. Preliminary injunction will not, a trial on the merits will oftentimes give you a roadmap for what the court is thinking about your claims. If we got a preliminary injunction, I'd be super excited. That would be fantastic, right? Like that's always what you're looking is to win one. A big component of that in both state and federal court is likelihood of success on the merits. that is where the uphill battle is. So assuming for argument's sake that we do or don't get a preliminary injunction, we need to move through the rest of the case to get to trial on the merits. State court, we might get to a trial in 18 to 24 months. Federal court, I was just talking to my team. We do a lot of federal litigation with my firm. They said, you know, you're really looking at 36 months before you get a trial date in federal court at this point. So you need to recognize what the timelines are if we were not successful in getting a preliminary injunction, right? Operations would go on as they are as we march through that. The other thing I should mention that is a nuanced difference between state and federal court typically in state court will say a motion to dismiss is pending. The court kind of stops everything we're not we're not expending resources or time on discovery case management orders, all of the normal course of litigation. And they like to keep cases moving. And so while you have a pending motion to dismiss that a judge may not rule on for six months, you're still grinding forward on all of those other things. And so you have to, you know, acknowledge that there's going to be time and resources put into that. So, you know, inevitably, there's going to be time and resources put into that. I would say we could get to a preliminary injunction hearing or through a motion to dismiss in state court call it $50,000. We can't do this haphazardly or not without thoughtful care and consideration. And frankly, that's just kind of what it takes to get there anymore. Federal court, we're looking at probably closer to $100,000. To get through trial, we're looking at $100,000. state court more than likely 250 to 300 000 federal court half a million dollars that's just the realities of doing this and one of the reasons for that and and one of the reasons we've seen costs escalate so much frankly is electronic discovery there's a lot of emails going back and forth there's a lot of information um discovery with if we do end up having to whether intentionally or not It just, it takes time and it's expensive. We would litigate it against a couple of other cases recently. And you just know that it's expensive and it's time consuming. So, so that's where that is. Likelihood of success. I would like to be the person who tells you, you know, but I'm on the billboard in Denver that says I'm going to get you everything you ever dreamed of. And I'm not going to do that. These are tough cases. And if you look across the country right now, there are two cases that I can look at that there has been marginal success in this arena. And I'm gonna talk about why they're a little bit different, but why we're using them, why we would use them as a roadmap. They're a little bit different because in both of those cases, one is in Oregon, one is in Kansas. And in both of those cases, Well, the tenant is a federal contractor. It's not actually the federal government. That's the probably important but nuanced distinction between two when enforcing local land use regulations. The other important thing in both of those cases is that the court really looked at the fact that you were enforcing your local zoning and land use regulations against this property like you would against any other property. You weren't singling them out because it was immigration enforcement. Or banks drive through or Taco Bell, you were enforcing uniformly across the board your land use code against a property owner who was violating that land use code. And I know for a number of you guys who served on the planning Commission you've heard me say things like that a lot before and other contexts, but that's really what you're doing here is a land use decision and direction on that land use on whether you're going to enforce them.

So.

that gets us to where we're at, which is I'm standing on the easy side of the dais in that I'm your attorney. I can tell you what things will cost, what the likelihood of success is, what the risks are, which I should acknowledge one other risk, which is a risk to me, my firm and the firm that we are potentially co-counseling with in this case, which is called a Rule 11 violation under the federal or Colorado's Rules of Civil Procedure, it's the same rule. And that sanctions me as an attorney personally if I bring a case that is frivolous and groundless. I will guarantee you that that will get argued, particularly in federal court, and that there will be an attempt to sanction myself and my firm if we bring this lawsuit because the federal government will say this is a matter of well-settled law, this is a core governmental function, and you should have known better than to have brought that lawsuit. We have asked a separate law firm to do that analysis we think we have a good faith basis to bring the claim, but ultimately a judge would decide that Rule 11 motion. So I say that not to impact how you think about that, but to say I also have a separate obligation to think about whether or not there's a good faith claim here or not. And there again, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I think immigration enforcement is a good thing. It has to do with whether I think under the law, we have a claim that is not frivolous and groundless. So I just wanted to, like, lay all of that out. And with that, you see in the in the memo that our recommendation is to move forward. My probably more refined recommendation would be to move forward against the property owner solely and in state court. And they say that because hopefully that forces them to you know drag me over to federal court if they want to join everybody else, but i'm not the one that just see the federal government and I don't wind up there immediately. And frankly, looking at the what has been successful, although in a different slightly different fact pattern that's our highest likelihood of success, I think, is going against the property owner themselves, now that we know, and we have clear evidence that they are in fact violating the zone. So with that i'm happy to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you, Carl, for this thorough explanation and background and everything. And I'll bring it back to Council at this point for questions to our attorney. And we'll start with Councilor Schachter.

Thank you. This is difficult. And I will premise that when the time is right, I'd be glad to support a motion based on your recommendation. But my questions... Can I pause for just a minute?

Whoever's from...

I can't even hear it.

It's probably hard for me to hear these guys.

Thank you for turning your phones off, please. A couple questions for my own clarification and perhaps for others. Could you briefly also, Carl, help us understand the difference between CO and the special use permit and what is currently in place right now after the revocation?

Christopher McConkey- Sure, I Christopher McConkey- So I guess what I would say is going to sound a little funny. The revocation of the special use permit. Christopher McConkey- The CEO for detention purposes doesn't matter because the use isn't allowed. I mean, it matters from the standpoint of yes, there was one But the use is not permitted. That use of detention is not permitted. The office space use, the other permitted uses in the zone districts would be fine. It is that use that is not. My suggestion to you is that there again, if you're going to move forward, we're talking about the use, not the occupancy in the sense occupancy in the sense of it. You know mice to operate out of. They can do that in that they can't do under our code is detained is to have a whole facility in or to operate the whole facility rather and related to that and help clarify under under either state law or our code.

What are the responsibilities of the landlord? Board of Trustees Meeting in terms of Board of Trustees Meeting in terms of Board of Trustees Meeting in terms of the sup revocation Board of Trustees Meeting in terms of the sup revocation and known noncompliance by their tenant.

Board of Trustees Meeting in terms of the sup revocation and known noncompliance by their tenant. Board of Trustees Meeting in terms of the sup revocation and known noncompliance by their tenant. Board of Trustees Meeting in terms of the sup revocation and known noncompliance by their tenant. Board of Trustees Meeting in terms of the sup revocation and known noncompliance by their tenant. Board of Trustees Meeting in terms of the sup revocation and known noncompliance by their tenant. Board of Trustees Meeting in terms of the sup revocation and known noncompliance by their tenant. Board of Trustees Meeting in terms of the sup revocation and known noncompliance by their tenant. Board of Trustees Meeting in terms of the sup revocation and known noncompliance by their tenant. Board of Trustees Meeting in terms of the sup revocation and known noncompliance by their tenant John Potter, Now, what they will say, and that's why I talked about the Federal Government or anything they will say, Well, we're leasing you the Federal Government conducting a core function of the Federal Government. You can't interfere with that. But i'm going to make them make that argument.

Not us, and should we proceed somewhere along the lines of what you just recommended? John Potter, What the action will be taking against theoretically against the landlord. Will.

John Pimentel, not necessarily to decide who the tenant is right now, we would be seeking an injunction that they use or detention for a whole facility is in violation of our code, and we would be sinking both a preliminary and permanent injunction from the Court. John Pimentel, That the landlord could not engage in that that use could engage that use can least anybody for that use couldn't that it's not a permitted use and they can't do it.

John Pimentel, Thank you. And my last question. Maybe you answered what, based on the drive-up situation, whether it be a drive-up situation, or we granted a special use permit for a home care situation John Pimentel, when we find, and we have never done it before, but theoretically John Pimentel, We would expect the landlord, as you said, to cease that function, not necessary to vacate the premises, whether it be a bank or a home or a tenant.

Right. And that's why I was trying to think of a good analogy, which is why I use the bank one. The bank's still a bank and can function as a bank that's permitted, which you can't do without a special use permit is have a drive-through. And so that's where it takes away that use. John Potter, But not the ones that are permitted by by code, you know, in that zone district.

John Potter, And should they. John Potter, Not respond the bank the hypothetical bank nor discontinue the drive up.

John Potter, With the same question, the the are.

John Potter, Our recourse would be what you're basically outlining right now.

Absolutely. Thank you. John Potter, The code, the enforcement section of the code gives me a couple of different choices. And that's why I said, normally we never get to this one. John Potter, Because usually we can get compliance and response. John Potter, As you can imagine, haven't gotten much in the way of response and compliance.

Thank you.

No more questions.

All right. Thank you. And moving on to council small please. Questions to staff.

So Carl, that's your advice. At least I've tried to stay ignorant of the issues leading up to where we're at because you warned us that this was going to come to us. So I have to ask a few questions to understand better. The violations that were noted at the site John Potter, originally under the special use permit that was they were operating under had been corrected and satisfied right.

John Potter, Two separate things um. Christopher McConkey- There were issues related to the CEO on the building a couple of items that had to be fixed that has nothing to do with the special use for the special use permit related to Christopher McConkey- Having an evacuation plan which was provided to our, our fire department, but specifically had a time limit of 12 hours. for the hold facility. And that is one that you will find if you look kind of writ large nationwide. There are a lot of these facilities that were permitted in a similar fashion across the country because in kind of the 2003 up until June of last year, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol's guidelines for temporary hold facilities is you couldn't hold people there for more than 12 hours. and based on a directive from one of the assistant directors i don't have it in front of me i apologize they extended that to something like 72 hours so that's where that's the violation for which the revocation occurred and which they have not corrected i mean now they don't have a special use permit for it so they're used for it for a whole facility at all is in violation of the code

Dave Kuntz, And over the time that they had been operating there how many how many 12 hour violations had been recorded.

Dave Kuntz, On there had been and there again i'm sorry because I didn't know that we were going to go back to to the replication. Dave Kuntz, I want to say in the in the 18 month period there had been at least a dozen times they had violated that and looking at a broader data set I think there were some violations frankly that data back to. You know the late you have 2019 2020 range There again for what's in front of you right now That's not relevant to the decision because the special use permit has already been revoked by the Planning Commission and they didn't appeal that so it's simply not permitted now and Dave Kuntz, So that process planning and zoning can revoke a permit that Council doesn't get to weigh in on unless somebody appeals that decision they don't and the reason for that under the code, and I think i'm pretty sure that I briefed this in a memo to you guys um. John Potter, The reason is, is underneath the code a revocation of a permit always starts with the the the level at which it was issued. So if it is a decision of the community development director, then a revocation of that permit would start with the com dev director exactly like the approval was and then it could be appealed up if they revoked it or not and so the same thing here the planning commission issued issues all of your special use permits um unless appealed and so they were the body made the decision on the revocation The owner, GSA, and ICE all had seven days to file an appeal to be heard by you as counsel. They chose not to. They could have also filed an appeal under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106.84 regarding process within 28 days. They did not do that item.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Townsend.

A couple of questions for you. I'm trying to put them in the right order here. Let's say you took the simplest step and said, let's go after the landowner and state court. You've kind of alluded to chances maybe not being great, maybe not being... Give me an idea of what our chances are of doing that without getting... If we don't get dragged into federal court, what are our chances of getting an injunction? Ballpark. I mean, you can't promise anything.

Well, I don't know.

Less than 25%?

Probably less than 25%. I mean, this is... We're in a little bit of uncharted territory here, which... I hate to use the word fun, but as an attorney intellectually, I find this. I mean, this is an interesting area to be practicing in right now. But I have to recognize that the law is not necessarily on our side, so probably less than 25%. Okay.

Following up on that, let's say that we are successful in doing that, and we get an injunction issued in state court against the landlord. Give me the mechanics of how you can enforce that.

Then I do show up at the facility because I have a court order that says you can't be doing what you're doing. We've seen in other instances that when faced with an injunction kind of along these lines, we've seen compliance. There again, I'm looking at the, I think it was Leavenworth, Kansas, and Multnomah County case out in Portland. around this um on a state court injunction on using a facility so you always you know worst case scenario i guess you you can have somebody who completely ignores that you know we would try to bring in the highest ranking official from that organization in front of the judge or in this case the landlord in front of the judge uh and ask for an you know contempt order from the judge which could include fines or or jail time

And then my last question for at this point, anyway, is going that route, investing, you said roughly $50,000, maybe more, maybe less. We get to state court, we lose that battle. If we decide, okay, this is a lost cause, do we just accept that and stop there? Or do we continue?

That would be your decision. If we got an order from the court, either on Well, if we got an order of dismissal, that's obviously a final order that is appealable. And I would come back in front of you and say, do you want to appeal that order or not? Do you want to run that up to the state court of appeals if we're in state court? And that would be your decision as the client to tell me whether or not you wanted to pursue that, or if you wanted to just live with the judgment of the court and be done.

Christopher McConkey- The appeal process, I take it, would be even more expensive and probably have a lesser chance of succeeding.

Christopher McConkey- Yeah, I mean, I think that it depends on the, you know, depends on if the, you know, John Potter, depends on the error that we believe that the judge committed in entering the order against us. It could be a lot of things from procedural to substantive errors that we might appeal an order on probably similar in cost, maybe a little bit less, because it's you know we're briefing a relatively contained record at that point on a motion to dismiss as opposed to a trial issue. And I really couldn't tell you in front of the Court of Appeals. A lot depends on how well the judge did the order. Right like that. That matters a lot.

Okay. So I guess I do have one other question, then. So if if we stay in state court and we stay dealing just with the landowner, the landlord, why would we have such a low chance of winning if he's in violation of our of our?

Yeah, it it goes to to him raising him raising this issue underneath the supremacy clause around my tenant is the federal government engaged in a core function. That's the defense that he would have to raise. That's why I'm looking to the Leavenworth, Kansas case. There again, was not the federal government as the tenant, but a contractor performing those services. it's entirely possible that the court says, yeah, that is the federal government engaged in their core function and it overrides under federal law, which the state court can invoke, it overrides your local zoning code, they are permitted to continue to do that. That's the, it all gets down to this core function argument, frankly.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Selenski, please.

Is detention a core function?

Well, that's that's a really, you know, I mean, that that's where we get into a really interesting fact question, right? I think that if I were the federal government, I would argue that it is immigration enforcement writ large. That is the core function that we are impeding is their ability to enforce. I think I think my position would be. You don't use the facility that much. You have lots of other opportunities. And nobody is saying you can't enforce. That's why I keep tying this back to all the issues. We're not saying you can't enforce. We're saying you can't violate our zoning code by holding people there. That's all we're saying. We're not addressing any of those other issues.

So the next closest geographic center where somebody could, if they needed to be held for a period of time, would be Grand Junction, is that correct?

I believe that's correct, yes. And then, you know, looking at looking at records from the deportation project, which is a nonprofit that has done a lot of FOIA requests that helps us understand kind of what's going on in the detention world. The vast majority of detentions are in in what's referred to as as the denver hold center or denver dn hol d den hold um that's where the vast majority of people from here ultimately are transported to whether under 12 hours or over 12 hours most of them wind up in denver which is a very large detention facility thank you thank you counselor small

John Potter, This was never a detention facility and I got that wrong and detention would be would be overnight more than 12 hours.

John Potter, yeah I mean it's actually ice refers to it as a detention facility it's gw or a whole facility on so that would be your point your point is exactly well taken counselor small is that this was always intended underneath. John Potter, But the permitting here before it was revoked as a temporary hold facility of under 12 hours when you move over 12 hours, it becomes a detention facility and either one of those two uses are not permitted in our current zoning.

Because we've revised our zoning.

Yeah.

Okay, excellent. Thank you for all the questions. A couple more. Counselor Smith, please. Thank you.

Pardon me if a couple of these might be overlapping or even a bit redundant, but just wanted to be clear. On the one you kind of characterized as an oh, by the way, the rule 11 groundless consequences potential would be against lawyer's licenses, or would it be consequences for your client, the city?

No, it's consequences for me and my firm. That's why it exists, is to keep us from inside the lines, if you will. I certainly would expect the federal government to raise it. I don't know if the landowner would on a state case. But we've seen it pretty consistently raised on the federal level as a tactic to go after the attorneys in the case. And frankly, yeah, I mean, you guys have seen this. Like writ large, this administration has a propensity to go after attorneys and firms. That's what they did.

John Potter, And usually in the form of penalties or licenses yeah it could be all of the above.

John Potter, They could also file disciplinary actions, if you get sanctioned under Rule 11 sometimes that gives rise to the judge feeling like they need to inform the disciplinary committee. John Potter, If they think it's egregious enough and it's fairly rare there again, I feel like we're probably inside the lines, but I just I wanted to kind of alert you guys that there is a broad array of things that we have to consider. John Potter, Before I come before you and say yeah let's move forward.

And I appreciate that answer. I appreciate bringing it up in the first place because it's important that we look at unintended consequences. So thank you. In the instances that you cited from Oregon and Kansas, the distinction you suggested compared to other efforts is that the tenant was a federal contractor as different from an actual government agent. Right. So I just want to be sure I understood why that was significant. Thank you. If either building on the Oregon and Kansas examples or otherwise, if the council were to decide and the city were to proceed, as you suggest, which is to seek court action against the land, the building owner, rather than the tenant or the operator, or is the landowner who's now obliged to go after the tenant going to run into the same supremacy clause barriers?

There is a contractual delay, and I can't speak for the landowner on how they would potentially handle that. The injunction would be against the landowner from leasing or allowing that occupancy.

They don't have any.

They don't have any different ability to overcome the supremacy, because they're in a contractual relationship, which is a little bit different than a regulatory standpoint right there. And if they're in a contractual relationship with the Federal Government to allow certain activities to occur on the property. If the Federal Government wants to condemn that property, that just like you or any government entity, you could do that.

um if they really wanted to but that's that's how they would assert that authority in that context i believe thank you um and related but really separate you've noted that at each of several steps along the way so far neither federal agency neither of the two federal agencies nor the land building owner have responded Dave Kuntz, Apparently that includes did not go to the planning and zoning hearing. Dave Kuntz, Now, is it fair to ask if they are here tonight.

Dave Kuntz, i'm going to be really blunt and say it's not I don't frankly care. Dave Kuntz, I know that sounds very flippant it's not intended to be, but this is a decision of you as a governing body of the city regarding an enforcement action. If they wanted to have a conversation about that, they could have called me up. If they wanted to have a conversation about that, we could have that conversation with the landowner.

If you guys decide to go forward when I issue an invitation to come talk to me in the form of a summons and complaint, it kind of in that regard, when the planning and zoning decision became, as you call it, final on June fourth, because the appeal opportunities had passed. Was there some sort of formal notification to the three entities that that date had come and gone?

Not that that date had come and gone, because that's on them to keep track of. But there was formal notification notice of decision, which we issue in every land use decision. We refer to it usually as a nod. Nod that was issued. There was follow-up on that, because there was no response. You know, I believe I was not able to. I heard people have told me that if you look at the recording that you can see on the Zoom that the landowner was present on the Zoom for that meeting, but did not raise their hand and speak. I don't know because I was engaged in this and with the public. So I don't I couldn't speak to that.

OK, so thanks. The. And this is this one I know pretty sure is redundant because I think it's been asked twice before, but I want to be sure. Dave Kuntz, The kind of the crux point for this presentation and which includes a recommendation it kind of shifted perspective was the coincidental. Dave Kuntz, emergency response to the building where. Dave Kuntz, officers of the city noticed people being detained. John Gerstle, yeah um and and that and the and the. John Gerstle, The problem with that was not that they had been there a certain amount of time, but that they were there at all exactly and I want to say that I I wouldn't use the word shift in perspective, I think what i've been.

John Gerstle, I think we all knew that they were probably using it, I needed something that I was comfortable walking into court as evidence that they were in fact using it in violation of the code. I also, frankly, don't want them not to call if somebody is in medical distress and we need to respond as EMS. And so every time you bang on the door, you probably raise that propensity a little bit. And so it's not a perfect answer, but it's the reality. When we got that call, when we knew that that was occurring, that gives me something very defensible and makes the case right if I walk into court. I can't just walk into court and say, I think they're doing something wrong. The court's going to say, well, provide me proof. Now I can. And that makes it a lot easier to stay there in court now that I have that evidence.

Fair point. I was blurring together two questions. One was that it's not just that it's another 12-hour violation. It's just that there's presence at all. There's presence at all. And the other is just what you just explained. So thank you. originally, though it was the twelve-hour violation of the twelve hours limit that first got he and he involved, and and this discussion started at all. Yeah, I understand correctly when city staff did inspections or an inspection visit Dave Kuntz, There were other other questions in play about what kind of facilities, what kind of furniture what kind of accommodations were there for what could be a detention Center and those at least in a minimal sense we're in order.

John Potter, You know, I think that's a subjective or qualitative question or subjective question in the sense that John Potter, Was it built plans and specs. Is it yet as they proposed and put in place in when originally permitted. Yes. I mean, I'm not, I'm not really going to comment. I mean, John Potter, I'm not going to comment on that. There is never a hold facility or a detention facility or a jail cell that I've ever been around that I would look at and go, that's a place I want to be. You know what I mean? In terms of quality or equipment for it. So I think what's critical to your decision tonight, and it's easy to drift into those other subjects, the special use permit doesn't exist. They're engaging in a use that is not permitted in the zone district. That's what we're talking about tonight.

the reason i drifted and will drift a little further is is to the degree that there has been or or is or could be some sort of some sort of relationship between city staff and ice staff John Potter, As regards how they otherwise operate now I know there's no special use permitted place it can't operate. John Potter, If they're going to end up ignoring whatever happens. John Potter, Have we by pursuing court action, have we lost opportunity to negotiate better conditions for people who are held.

I have not found ICE to be particularly cooperative on negotiating better conditions for anybody. I mean, that's something that we've seen consistently. Christopher Moffatt- Something we've seen consistently and has been an issue. Christopher Moffatt- And one that the legislature took a nibble at but not a bite in that Christopher Moffatt- Representative Glasgow sponsored a bill. Christopher Moffatt- Regarding inspections of ice facilities hold facilities, but unfortunately from the first draft of that bill she excluded government run ones. So it only applies to vendors. There is some case layout in the ninth ninth circuit that that is a legitimate local interest is the welfare and safety of people in those facilities that would actually be in our instance that would be obviously administered through the county as the as the health department here. But under the state law that that authority wasn't even That authority wasn't granted under State law to even for us to find out if we could challenge it or not, because it's simply excluded from the bill that was run.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Back to Council small, please. Questions.

So, Carl, equivalent equivalency of violation. We've seen things like that we've enforced is a code violation that endangers other people. It becomes a public safety issue. And it's been over a year since we began issuing citations and trying to enforce John Potter, The code violations that's going on there. And to this day, it's still in violation. Is that not an accurate statement.

That is, and you'd have to talk to the county about it.

John Potter, The county in our fire district. John Potter, right or fire district only has authority as they can utilize the county for code enforcement restaurant violations sprinkler violations that's pretty common also right, and they they generally get corrected, and they don't get their zoning changed because of it, or their use ability because of it. Is that correct?

let me parse that out a little bit um yes we will have fire code violations and yes we work very hard to get those corrected um that's our goal always is compliance uh the zoning code change that you're referring to i think you're conflating a couple of concepts there um what we did in the adoption of a new zoning code that changed a lot of different things in the adoption of that code and like i said i always figure out whether it was 17 18 19 in there So that's a little bit of a different thing. That was a citywide update of land use code that made changes to a wide variety of zone districts. This particular use I don't think was either targeted or not targeted in that. It just was a use that I think probably was determined to be incompatible with generally The other reason for that is typically a detention facility. If you look at the one next door is run and owned by a government entity, and that is subject to a different set of review criteria underneath the location and extent review typically. So that is just kind of a whole different category of thing. And then, as to a special use permit, this is a unique situation in that we typically can get compliance before we have to go to a revocation hearing. so i will say that is a little bit different in this instance um we did ask the question would you stop doing that and they said no so that's kind of that compliance piece where normally um looking over here at the chief on say a fire issue we work really hard to get compliance because we want people to be safe right um and we're usually pretty good at that from a city perspective there again i can't comment on John Potter, You know, I would probably take a slightly different approach as the prosecutor on the pallets, but that's not my jurisdiction.

And John Potter, In all likelihood, if we were successful to stop that facility being used for any kind of processing. John Potter, Detention, even if it stayed under 12 hours. The work that ice is doing is probably going to go on anyway. And whoever they have in custody is going to be sitting in a van or vehicle, rather than inside the facility. Is that accurate assumption.

I couldn't necessarily speak to that. I think that's a possible outcome. I'm going to circle back to why this is a land use matter. Christopher McConkey- The issue that we're facing is somebody is operating a facility in violation of our code, are we going to do anything about it and how they respond, I think. I worry about that. But at the same time, the question in front of us is, do we enforce the code or not, there are a lot of possibilities. We could have 100 ice agents here, we could have no ice agents here. People could get stuck in a van in the parking lot and hundred degree heat. I think those are all real possibilities, but I can't predict what those are. So I think we need to think about that. that's why that's not the policy and whether or not ice is a good or bad thing honestly isn't in front of you it's whether or not this violation we should move forward with enforcement all right thank you any oh there's one more additional question councillor schachter please just just circling back to what councillor small said and i think you answered it carl but clarification

City Council Chambers, zoning changes that have occurred over the years, including the last zoning modifications. City Council Chambers, And my correct those zoning changes. City Council Chambers, had no direct targeting effect on this particular property or tenants or anything like that they were city wide revisions based on our goals and plans yeah no absolutely Thank you.

City Council Chambers, Thank you, Mayor pro tem silence, please.

So it's been a minute since your presentation so just refresh me. We choose to move forward, we take action against the landlord based on the recommendation. Do operations don't cease, or do they cease?

So the the Yeah, i'll just i'll walk through again. We would file suit. We would file a motion for preliminary injunction at the same time. We'd need to get that served on the land board. We they would have an opportunity to brief and respond to that. call it a month in when all of that is ready to go, get some time on the court's docket for a preliminary injunction hearing. If whatever judge gets assigned to it believes it's worthwhile to go to a hearing and they might just deny it on the pleadings, I would wanna hopefully go to a hearing so we could argue our case in front of the judge. If they entered a preliminary injunction, then yes, we would have grounds to, Dave Kuntz, You know that the owner would need to cease the the use of the facility in that way.

Karen Hollweg, So that that's my question because the that way that's the detention or is.

Dave Kuntz, Just just the whole facility it doesn't. Karen Hollweg, that's what I thought that's what I thought. Dave Kuntz, The rest of the like us as a staging area uses office space, whatever else they're doing that is consistent with zoning they could continue to do it would be an injunction for prohibiting them from. temporarily or permanently or any other way, using that as a hold or detention facility that's not permitted in Glen.

That's the clarification I was seeking, because that was my understanding.

Yeah, and if you don't get that preliminary injunction, then all of the uses go on until we get to trial on the merits. Okay, thank you.

That was the clarification I was seeking.

All right, thank you. Any additional questions from counts? Okay, I see none. Thank you, Carl. Thank you. We're moving into the public comments at this point. I got a list here with a few names on it. I'm sure some of you have not put your name on this list. Oh, there's an additional list. We'll add that to it. Thank you, Ryan. Still not a whole lot, but we'll get there. And then we have at least one hand up online, which we will listen to. The only thing I'd like to tell you, and of course, all of you have your right to voice your opinions and your comments. If you hear a comment exactly like to yours, please, for the sake of time, let's keep it simple. If we can, we all know why you're here. And of course, we'd love to hear from you. But again, sake of time, let's see if we can get this streamlined and let's get this thing moving forward. With that, you got three minutes. If you go past three minutes, I will cut you off. We will cut the microphone. And we'll move to the next comments. So we'll start with Ashley Stahl. Please state your name and whether you live in city limits or not.

Ashley Stahl, Glenwood Springs resident. For many of us, this started in January after Renee Good and Alex Pretty were murdered. People here were grieving and angry, and instead of stopping there, they started asking questions. Ordinary people with jobs and kids teaching themselves land use code at their kitchen tables. They found that this building had operated more than 20 years without a valid certificate of occupancy. The city said that couldn't be right, but the community said no, and the community was right. We said there were violations happening inside that building. We were told we were mistaken, so we brought the data. The community said no, and the community was right. Then came planning and zoning. Staff recommended against revoking. This room filled up, the hallway filled, the overflow room filled, and the commission voted five to one. The community said no, and the community was right. And tonight there's a staff recommendation that I can actually get behind. Thank you, Carl, for that sincerely. But look at what finally made it possible. An EMS call on July 24th where the fire department went in and saw for itself. But we've been telling you about this for months. People in this very room have sat outside that building and documented what happens there. We have the records. We have video. Nobody's ever asked us to see any of it. It just wasn't usable until it came from someone other than us. The community said no, and the community was right. I want to be honest because it would be easy to act like we just discovered this, like this all just started in January. But this building was never a secret, not to everyone. Our immigrant neighbors have known exactly what happens at 100 Midland for 20 years because it was their brothers and their mothers and their cousins who were taken through that door never to come home again. They said no first, they were right first and nobody listened. What took us 20 years wasn't finding out what was happening, it was listening. Which brings me to what I'm asking tonight. Vote to enforce and then work with us. The residents who built this case are not your opposition. They're your best researchers. They've worked for free for years, and they're still finding things. And here's the first thing I'd ask you to hear from us. Don't take this to federal court. Don't name GSA and ICE. The violation in front of you is simple. A private landlord is leasing space for a use our code simply does not permit. That is a state court case against a private property owner with no federal defendant to remove it. The moment you name two federal agencies, you hand them sovereign immunity, the supremacy clause, and two to three years in federal court. Sue the landlord and state court. There's no front line somewhere else. It's wherever the people decide to stop being polite about what they found. If little old Glenwood Springs can do this, anybody can. For seven months, this community has said no, and the community has been right. Tonight, we ask you to join us. Thank you.

Thank you. I I understand your enthusiasm, but it also takes time. So that's fine. Aaron and Aaron Anderson. They state your name, or do you live in city limits or not?

Yeah, my name is Aaron Anderson. I say they them pronouns, and I live in Glenwood. I've spoken here about ice facility in Glenwood Springs. I want to start tonight by sharing how truly grateful and relieved I was to read the staff recommendation that came out with the packet about the Midland Center. I hope you're taking that advisement and voting to enforce our local code. A couple notes on what Carl said. Being scared that ICE won't call 911 and provide life-saving care might be more legally defiant and should raise major red flags that shouldn't curb our desire to seek accountability. The evacuation plan literally says run, fight, hide. Highly recommend all of you go read it. To small directly, please look up the readily available data about the increase in detentions, the closer you are to a facility and the radius. It's super readily available. They have a great graphic format. disagree with some of the aspects of what was just explained and i'll let the people with more legal analysis analyze this but i will say that every single case of a hypothetical win carl just mentioned there was a group of people no different than us who decided to try something new a long shot that they probably wouldn't win and they did it anyways and are winning we should look at that with inspiration and enthusiasm enjoying other communities taking brave steps I have to believe that you all are going to follow the recommendations and move forward to enforce the laws equally for all business owners. There's no logical reason not to, whether you're a conservative business person who wants a fair and efficient government or a liberal whose heart breaks over the stories of removals that we have shared here over the months. Those of us who have had loved ones removed, we're never going to just give up and stop trying. That's not an option when it's your people and your family. And you never know what narratives are going to actually stick with the public and media, so it's fascinating that the narrative that's echoed loudest is that nobody knew about this happening. Now that we can all agree detentions and removals have been happening, I have to earnestly ask for my friends who can't come stand here with us tonight, do you really still believe nobody knew? That none of the families or the loved ones had any idea that people went through that facility in Glenwood? Or is it possible that white folks who want to live in a community where nothing bad happens simply willed that narrative into being? There are many people who don't have the privilege of walking in here tonight and participating like this, who definitely know that that facility has been here. Reading Carl's recommendation, I literally cheered. We have found common ground. We are recognizing what is happening and are at a way more similar position than we have been. Frankly, it's felt pretty adversarial posture between community members asking about this in the city. I understand that it was at the advice of your lawyer, but we haven't actually heard from any of you on this, nothing. We have heard a lot from city staff and local police repeatedly suggesting we're wrong, conflating stories, blending things from other communities, and just generally don't understand what's happening. It would be foolish for us to continue to move in this posture. If we want to win, and we should because it's the right thing to do, the city needs to openly embrace and collaborate.

And time. Thank you very much. Moving on to May Gray, please. Also state your name and whether you live in city limits or not.

Hi, I'm May Gray and I live in Carbondale. I also represent the Garfield County Democrats, but today I come to you as a citizen. I have found that there are far more things that unite us than divide us, and tonight I believe Glenwood Springs has an opportunity to prove that. This community has spent months asking questions, showing up, listening, researching, and demanding accountability, and tonight this decision rests with you. We recognize that one city council vote, one, will not end this process. The legal questions could take years to resolve, but what you do tonight could mark the beginning of something much larger. Communities across Colorado are watching, and I believe across the county, we, everyone is watching too. And because the question before us reaches far beyond ICE, doesn't it? The question is whether a community has the right to enforce its own laws equally, whether a federal agency must follow the same land use requirements we expect our residents and our businesses to do, whether power exempts someone from accountability. And tonight you have an opportunity to answer that question. This has never been about politics for many of us. It has been about accountability, transparency, and the belief that every person deserves to be treated with dignity. This is what I'm asking of you to leave. Be the city council that other Colorado communities will look at for when they wonder whether they have the courage to do and the authority to stand up for their own laws. Be the leaders who remind people that local government still matters. Be the community that demonstrates that standing up for something powerful does not require abandoning the rule of law. It requires believing in it. There will always be reasons to be afraid to being first. There will always be someone saying the fight is too difficult, that the opponent is too powerful, or the consequences are too uncertain. But every meaningful change begins somewhere. Why not here? Why not in Glenwood Springs? Why can't this small mountain community become an example that gives another town in Colorado the courage to stand up? and then another until communities across the country understand exactly what they have the voice to do too. You have the opportunity tonight to be those leaders, not just for the people sitting in this room who have been sitting in this room time and time again, not just for Glenwood Springs, but potentially for communities throughout Colorado and ultimately the nation. So tonight I'm asking each of you very clearly, vote to uphold the revocation of ICE's permit, stand behind our laws, stand behind the people you represent, and show Colorado what courageous local leadership looks like, because it looks like you. Because there are far more things that unite us than divide us. And tonight, one of those things should be the simple belief that no one is above the law and every human being deserves dignity, equality, and kindness.

Sally Barton? please state your name and whether you live in city limits or not.

Hi, I'm Sally Bouton and I don't live in city limits. I'm going to pick up where Erin left off. If we want to win, and we should because it's the right thing to do, the city needs to openly embrace and collaborate with the incredible network of local residents researching and documenting these violations. I'm not sure how exactly that's supposed to work, community oversight boards or what, but to treat this gift from the community as anything other than an incredibly valuable resource is a squandered gift. We applaud people who volunteer their time and expertise and efforts in all sorts of community projects. I genuinely don't understand the hostility that has existed here. Why CORA fees aren't being returned or waived. Obviously this was of great community importance and impact and frankly should be litigation costs at this point, not a financial burden placed on concerned community members. This is an opportunity to do the right thing and recalibrate the room. We are not each other's enemies, and our energy is much better spent in collaboration. You have so much more support than just the presence in this room. I hope that the Council votes to enforce local laws equally against private businesses, and that we come up with a meaningful path toward collaboration between the community and local government moving forward. For the media here tonight, the citizens have been doing this research. The city would have ignored this issue. I implore you to do some deeper investigative work around this. Consult with attorneys experienced in federal litigation and see if their opinions align with what you've heard tonight. Dive into what I-3 detention facilities require for life safety of detained individuals, and then compare those requirements with what the city has produced as evidence the unit meets those requirements. examine the evidence like we have stop taking the city's word on these things this is about equal enforcement this is about fairness this is about treating a private landlord who is defying city zoning laws the way you would treat any other private landlord who is doing so having a federal tenant doesn't make the private landlord immune to local laws if the city had issued a notice of violation and begun enforcement after may 5th as you normally would have in any other case you would have racked up over ninety thousand dollars in fines by now Your community is behind you if you make the right decision tonight. If you don't, we will continue to be in front of you, evening after evening, meeting after meeting, until the people who are violating our community code and our community values are held to account. Thank you.

Thank you. Grace Boyd Smith.

Did you say Grace?

Yes, I did. I probably said your last name wrong.

Yeah, everyone does. Hi, my name is Grace Vaught-Smith. I live in Glenwood and I teach high school math. I don't know much about zoning laws, so I'm going to talk to you about how I grade Algebra 1. If a student shows their understanding on a test, they get an A. If a student makes a few mistakes, they get a B. You've been to school, you know how it works. Well, I have this student who has a really angry and reactive parent. I'm scared that he's going to call me and yell at me. Or maybe he's going to call my principal and ask me to get fired, claiming that I'm not doing my job. He's done it to other teachers. Well, this parent's kid just got an F on the test. He doesn't understand quadratics, which fair. Do I give him an A? because I'm afraid of his parent? No, that's not fair to my other students. I owe them a fair application of grades, no matter the backlash. In that same way, ICE has earned an F on compliance, and they deserve that grade to be enforced.

Thank you. Rudy Haynes, please state your name and whether you live in city limits for the right.

I might have been exposed to COVID, so I'm wearing a mask, as usual. My name is Judy Haynes. I'm a Glenwood Springs resident. Thank you. And I've been here multiple times. I'm going to read a quick quote. Said to Mr. President on the morning of his inauguration in a Washington cathedral by Bishop Mary Ann Booty. Have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away. help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands. We need to find compassion and welcome them here. She wrote a book I highly recommend. we learn to be brave it's really good animal path if anybody wants to read it i'll pass it over um so we've been doing this since um so since 2004 and 2005 i um that building has had violations we have overlooked those violations we issued a a special use permit despite the fact that they had no fire department approval of their emergency plan this has been going on and on and on we have ignored that Now we have a situation where they're continuing to violate and we have not started the clock even on the landlord. We were supposed to have given him written notification and at that point started the $1,000 a day. We have not done that. Tell me when we go to court, what record are we gonna show that we've done anything up until this point to enforce that? And why are we going to drag the guy in court when we haven't even, told him and find him and done anything lower that we should have done. Look, you guys were on a pathway. Maybe I can see that pathway straight ahead. There's a bear in a cave off that pathway. It's like, I'm gonna go and drag that bear in January out of his cage and choke the heck out of it until he wakes up. And I realize, oh, I didn't have to wake that bear up. He wasn't in my way. That's what happens when we talk about the federal government. It is not germane. If you could show me the statute that says we have to inform the tenant, or we have to sue the tenant, we don't. We don't have a statute like that. We notify the tenant, but we need to sanction the guy. We already would have made 90 grand. That's gonna go for legal fees. Why are we allowed to do that? Why have we spent all this time talking about the federal government when they have nothing to do with this? They have rules and regulations, but so do we. And as long as they're not invoked and dragged in like the bear minding its own business, we have nothing to fear. The landlord may run into some problems. That's not my problem. That's not your problem. That's a landlord's problem. And we have to make it here.

Thank you. All right. Ellen Friedman. Please also state your name and whether you live in city limits or not.

Hi, I'm Ellen Friedman. I was before you in June. I do not live in the city limits. But as I said in June, I do spend a lot of time, money, have relationships, friendships. and have worked over my 32 years in this valley at times in Glenwood Springs. I care deeply about this place. It's the heart of our valley. It's the heart of our region. We are all paying attention to this, whether we live in Glenwood or not. And so many of us here in this room, but also, and I don't know if you can hear them in the overflow room, are here to support you. We understand this is a difficult decision for many of you. We're here to support you, to encourage you, to be brave, to follow your P&Z commission that has revoked the special use permit, to follow Carl, the city attorney who is recommending that you go to state court to sue JG Housing Solutions. We are in solidarity with you. Please take action. This is the moment. Thank you.

Thank you. Alden Schindler. Please state your name and whether you live in city limits or not.

Hi, Auden Schumler-Bassall. I'm a patron and fan of Glenwood Springs. John Potter, You know there's there's a ton of really positive stuff going on tonight, and this is one of the cooler town council meetings i've ever been to. John Potter, The public showed up and asked you to take action you're doing that. John Potter, Thank you for that Carl and your legal team, thank you for the brain damage you endured you dug in deeply on a complex issue and you came up with an excellent recommendation. John Potter, For the group and all these people are here, including myself. Instead of being home at cocktail hour or cooking food with their daughter, because they're people of humanistic faith religious faith. Their citizens who don't want to be responsible for inflicting harm or death on other people. So, and that's what we've seen happening with ice in American communities so I'm thanking you for what you've done tonight, and I'm asking you to take action this evening. Thank you.

Thank you, Debbie Braille, Debbie. Well, please state your name, and whether you live in city limits or not.

My name is Debbie Brule. I do not live in Glenwood. I live in Carbondale. Thank you all for being here. Thank you for being open to our input. So across the nation, ICE is snatching people off the streets and putting them in concentration camps. It's now come to light that ICE agents have received bounty payments of $22,000 per child for each immigrant child they yank out of their homes and take away. I don't want City of Glenwood-Springs to be contributing in any way to that process, and I know none of you do either. None of us on our own can stop what's going on with ICE, but it's up to all of us to do our small piece. That piece that we are asking of you today is simply to not back away from your responsibilities of enforcing your own codes against a landlord who has a tenant that's out of compliance. The number one lesson from Timothy Snyder, a world renowned expert on fighting authoritarianism is do not obey in advance. Basically what that means is we shouldn't anticipate the reaction of the current repressive government and decide not to do anything because we think they're so powerful. The Trump regime cannot silence all of us. What they're making on is that we will silence ourselves. They can't control what each of us will do. They're hoping that each of us will decide of our own accord not to take any actions against them. But staying silent, not taking actions is actually serving this regime. So I hope you don't decide in advance that there's nothing you can do because the tenant that this landlord is renting to is ICE. And as we all know, ICE is breaking all sorts of laws and doing whatever the heck they want. We're counting on you to do your piece in this situation. We're counting on you to enforce the code violation against this landlord in the same way that you would enforce against any landlord who is out of compliance. Thank you.

Thank you.

And Jess Hall.

My name is just all I am not a I don't live within Glenwood Springs. I live in Newcastle. I am a licensed contractor in Glenwood Springs. I'm going to start by saying that I'm not going to pretend that what is doing or what our government is doing here under the guise of immigration enforcement is in any way acceptable or appropriate. And what we have here is an opportunity as a community to come together, I believe that everybody in this room is very interested in us as a community, having a strong community and the same community. and And I'm going to ask you to vote to enforce enforce the code because right now we have got people in our community, trying to tear it apart. They're taking our friends and our neighbors. And our co workers and it's not acceptable. We have an illegal operation going on here planning and zoning is found that and it's up to you guys to go ahead and move forward with enforcement and show that we all stand here together as a community. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Conner Gleason. Mr. Conner.

Mr. Conner Gleason, I live here in Glenwood. I am a born and raised resident here in the Roaring Fork Valley, and frankly, I'm embarrassed that we are having this conversation at all right now. As far as I understand it, people of this valley stated very clearly that we don't want this facility here. And it hasn't been enforced for reasons that are beyond my understanding. I think that we are a valley that prides itself on its multiculturalism. I think we are a valley that prides itself on it's integration of people who are from all over the goddamn place um and the fact that this is a conversation that we are having right now the fact that we are allowing this facility to exist within our valley frankly to me is something that i don't want to stand behind it's an embarrassment to me and frankly it should be an embarrassment to this community thank you

Ray Whorl.

Hi, everybody. I'm Ray Whorl from Carbondale. I'll make this short as I can. The likelihood looks bad, the money looks costly, and the supremacy clause looks like it can go against us as a city. However, no action, silence, doing nothing and feeling defeated is exactly how violators continue to violate our code and damage our city. Please do anything and all actions towards taking against the landlord to the state and federal level potentially. You heard it from our attorney tonight that he would have fun with this. I really hope you have fun with this. Um, at this point we need to be viewed as the city that went against all odds for our city and our community for the supremacy clause. If ice and or the federal government, we're doing a core duty. Um, they would have shown evidence of appealing that or caring about showing up for the. of revocation vote earlier in the year. In 18 of the 36 months, I've moved cities, gotten engaged, seen friends have babies who are now toddlers and children. So let's not use time or money as an excuse to not move forward with these actions as both factors will move forward with or without us. Tonight, we've heard from our community and our community members how disappointed they are in the city council. And I hope that voting to enforce the code and sue this violator

will prevent you from the disappointment and ultimately losing your job potentially I don't know but that's it thank you so much thanks okay so this concludes the names on the list but I understand there's probably some people here that have not had a chance to sign up before we go online anybody in this room that'd like to come forward Let's start with, are you going to go together or one at a time? Just you. Okay. Is that your name, or do you live in city limits?

I'm Sagan. I live in carbon now, and I believe you need to enforce the planning and zoning commissions decision to revoke Isis special special use permit. The conditions in their building are inhumane and illegal. It's your job as the Glenwood City Council to enforce the law. It shouldn't matter if it's ice or anyone else. Laws shouldn't just apply to regular people. They apply to everyone or no one. They had their chance to appeal your decision and they didn't. Holding people in that building is not a core function of ICE and they will still be able to detain people. They will just have to move them to Grand Junction or Denver. It doesn't matter if you win or lose the lawsuit. The lawsuit I hope you choose to pursue. The laws were broken and it's your job to try to enforce them. If you choose to side with the people of Glenwood and the larger Roaring Fork Valley, we will be on your side. If you do not, we will be back here night after night. There will be more protests. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Well, let's finish up the front row. Please come forward. State your name, whether you live in city limits or not.

My name is Ben. I live in Carbondale. It's not the City Council's responsibility to solve the logistical problems that ICE created for themselves by losing their special use permit by repeatedly failing to comply with the law. They've done this repeatedly for the last 20 years. They've signaled that they plan to continue violating the law. And it's already gone. It's already happened. Their permit's been revoked. Nobody is here tonight because we think that this Council has the ability or responsibility to figure out everything ice might do when you vote whether or not to uphold your responsibility to enforce our own laws. One of the counselors brought up keeping detainees in vans for extended period. ICE can do that already if that's even legal. I am pretty sure it's not, but they're doing illegal things right now. That's why we're here talking about it. But if they're going to do that, they're going to do that. That's not our problem. Insofar as they can, they can do it anyway. You don't decline the opportunities that you have to resist abuses of power just because you're unsure if that one act of resistance will be enough on its own to end all future abuses. You take that step because failing to do so guarantees those abuses will continue. The supremacy clause protects ice from being held to account by this body, maybe, but when a property owner chooses to rent to a tenant, they know is violating the law. Then they become complicit in those violations and you have the opportunity to hold them to account, thank you.

and please.

hi Council. My name is stephanie Stanfield i'm a Glenwood springs residents and I have been since 1974 i've seen lots of changes in our valley i've been active on the airport board. On and off throughout the years i've been in charge of a special election, and so I have a working idea of how things work. My thought tonight is you don't reward bad behavior. Our city, our people, our council, our policeman, our fire chief, even our attorney has been shown vast amounts of disrespect by a tenant who refuses to acknowledge their bad behavior. My biggest concern, again, listening to financial reports and other things throughout the years is that if we don't act with a tenant that is in violation and is known to be in violation and a death happens, how severe are those consequences financially, emotionally, and legally for our community? I would strongly encourage the council to consider what everyone has said here tonight because we show up as concerned citizens. But I also listened to Mr. Hanlon and I've listened to him many times throughout the years, sometimes courageously, sometimes contentiously, sometimes collaboratively. The point is, we are at high risk as a city, in my opinion, if we do not enforce our laws and discourage bad behavior.

Thank you.

Okay, anybody else in this room, please? Let's go first. Yeah, that's fine. No, no, it's all good. State your name and whether you live in city limits.

My name is Eden Steele and I do not live in city limits. And I just wanted to pose a question that I would maybe pose if I were you guys sitting up there. And that is, I just wonder if in the situations where the supremacy clause is so clear that the federal government has taken up this area of immigration, was it a similar situation where ICE agreed to abide by a certain limitation and then they violated that limitation And in doing so, they've put the health and safety of people in danger. And so I wonder if those other cases are just mirror-like zone. This doesn't fit our zoning situation. So we're saying no. And we could distinguish it on the grounds that this is something that ICE agreed to. They signed a document, they applied for a permit on this ground and they violated it. And in doing so, they put the health and safety of our neighbors and friends in grave danger. So just a thought I had. Thank you.

Thank you. And please come forward.

Amy Housman, I am a Glenwood Springs resident. I have been for eleven years. I've been in the Valley on and off since one thousand nine hundred and eighty-nine. I do believe this issue affects the whole area, I guess, because the holding facility has been used not just for residents of Glenwood Springs. So it affects everybody. I just wanted to kind of bring it back to some of the issues that Carl brought up. I understand, although having an ice facility in Glenwood, I find horrific. I do not think that's necessarily the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the violation of the zoning, the continued violation of the zoning, the inaction on the landlord's part, as well as the tenant's part to address that. And that's what the city should focus on, and so, if there were any other organization any other business that was in violation, if you were to not go after them, I guess, and pursue either compliance or eviction I suppose. Do we set a precedent if we do not go after this tenant or this landlord because we think it will be too costly or too difficult or too hard to do to pursue? And then do we set a precedent where we can no longer enforce our zoning anywhere against any tenant or landlord because we've set that precedent? And that I find a real problem. So please act on your legal counsel's advice, I guess. I do think that the government probably assumes that we will not and that it will go away and they will be able to continue to operate this facility. And I do think that if we do pursue it, they may be surprised and maybe we'll win. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? I know I see you. Thank you. Please come forward. I'm going by section.

Hi, thank you. My name is Tammy, Tamara Nemo. I live in Carbondale, and I too know that what's happening down here does not just affect Glenwood. It affects our entire valley, and I'm just here to talk for the children. I'm super involved in the schools, and our children are deeply affected by the things that are going on um you know everything related to detention and immigration um especially if they do not have white skin um even if they are legally here even if they are citizens um so i'm just here to say um there is a right and a wrong way to do everything and Whether you're going to win or not, for the sake of the children let's do it the right way, so that they know that we are here for them and we can be an inspiration to them.

Thank you.

All right, last call for this room. See none Thank you just checking with brie brie you said the other room is clear. Pretty sure you want to check one more time. Let's give her a second to go look at that.

There you go.

That's called. I'm not handing out beers or anything like that, though. I think I think we're good. OK, we're clear. Let's go to online and let's start with noon.

All right, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Oh, wonderful. Thank you. Hi, my name is Claire Noon, and I am a lifelong resident of Glenwood Springs. This matter ahead of you and in front of you is a matter of governance and sovereign authority of our municipality. The city attorney has given you guidance on federal litigation, and the guidance is not incorrect, but enforcement of municipal code does not only mean enforcing land use code through federal litigation. While we don't have time to get into a civics lesson, in addition to land use code, Glenwood Springs has authority to exercise its building and fire code. I'm speaking tonight to make the Council aware of a parallel path to enforcement that is in your agenda packet. On April 4th, I filed a written, signed written complaint with Community Development Director Trent Hyatt that triggered the commencement of this complaint path. It alleges violations of the building code and does not address anything regarding the special use permit, the federal identity of the tenant, or the such. For the last seven months, you know, I have been reviewing every single record potential that we could get from the city on this matter and asking questions, trying to seek alignment, what's going on. And with every resolution that there is, there's far more questions that remain unresolved. So this filing of the complaint brings to light a lot of those and asks for investigation and communication of the findings there. Every obligation runs to the owner, not the tenant. The city's authority is a century old well settled exercise of the police power under its home rule charter of the Colorado Constitution. which is untouched and uncontested by federal law. So since enforcement runs to the private owner under a non-discriminatory code applied in the same way to every building in the city, it forecloses preemption Supremacy Clause defenses, federally, sorry, Supremacy Clause is a defense that is raised by the party that belongs to the party asserting it. And it is foreclosed by any of the, you know, this before any matter is raised. If, however, the city does decide to file suit against a federal agency, in this matter, that before anything could be determined, it would need to be shown the record of equal and neutral enforcement of the code and exercise of all other avenues available to it, complete exhaustion of remedies. So just for clarity.

Thank you. And moving on to Jeff Ackerman, please. He's on the bottom. I don't see it. It's behind OK. Are you coming Jeff for you?

Yes I am. Can you hear me?

Yes we can.

Good evening, I'm Jeff Ackerman from Fort Collins. First I want to thank you for coming as far as you have. You are giving hope to myself and many, many others across this state and the entire nation. Tonight you are making an important decision, maybe the most important decision of your lives. This decision will either strengthen and spread that hope and potentially end the illegal violence ravaging our nation, or it will snuff out that hope. As a Christian, I urge you, I pray, I pray you are filled with compassion and courage as you make this decision and urge you take guidance from Jesus, especially the golden rule found in Luke 631, do to others as you would have them do to you. Matthew 7, 12. So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law and the prophets. Would you want to be put into a detention center where you are forced to sleep on the concrete floor with dozens of others, no showers, forced to eat rotten, moldy, maggot-ridden food? ICE's own records show 70% of their victims have no criminal record. As an innocent person, would you want your due process rights denied, never to be charged with any crime or given an opportunity to defend yourself? Would you want to be separated from your family? I beg you, please don't turn your back on the most vulnerable when you are the only hope they have. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much for your comments. And if I see no other hand going up online, we're gonna call it that. Okay, great. Let's close the public portion of this hearing for tonight. Thank you all for being here. We heard you all. Even the ones that didn't speak. I'm glad you came. You're always welcome in these chambers. And thank you for all your comments. Really appreciate um bringing it back to council for either additional questions to staff or a motion and uh let's see here this is item seven uh on the uh special use permit and certificate occupancy status for 100 midland avenue and councillor schachter please um thank you i have a question i'd be glad to follow it with a motion but i have a question uh council or perhaps trent um regardless of

the motion that's about to be made and subsequent action, could you please inform us about our ability in municipal court under code 070 to ask the court to impose daily fines on the landlord?

John Potter, You know, from my standpoint, let me back up the code will require criminal court require that I be able to prove the date of the violation and the ongoing violation. John Potter, Okay. I looked at that pretty carefully and thinking about what to recommend here what tools to pull out of the tool bag. And while I do think that that is would be effective for the July 24 that I I can rely on those records for I, you know, the continuing violation piece. Probably not so much. And let me back up to I think I need to John Potter, So from my standpoint, really, and maybe the title of the agenda item wasn't as good as it could have been as we were trying to think about how to frame this up. John Potter, Special use permit is not really an open question at all. And so it's, can I prove a violation of zoning. John Potter, Which is really what I'm looking at and talking about with you guys, which we have at least that July 24 date that we could do that. John Potter, So I'm going to go ahead and So I think I could probably successfully serve the landowner on that one date and asked for in the code says up to $1,000 a day that I could ask for from the judge. I think what I'm really looking for is a permanent solution. And I think that's what you're looking for. And I think that's what the public is looking for. In terms of my recommendation to move forward, probably in state court. And utilize that those records to establish that there is a clear and ongoing and potential for future violations. Where I can't respectively look at fines if I can't prove that there's somebody in there underneath the criminal context beyond reasonable doubt. Right. So that that changes just kind of what I'm trying to do. So I could ask for $1,000 I guess I would think that we're more effective if we look for a more permanent solution. I think the defense in both of those cases winds up in the same place. And while I think Claire got A lot of the law right. I think that there is actually some specific federal law around building kids local zoning codes, things like that and and compliance. That will just have to fight our way through

Dave Kuntz, So would that need to would that preclude I would that preclude a separate action under our code, you know municipal court it given that date.

Dave Kuntz, yeah no it would not and it's something that certainly we talked about you know whether we should do that or not um. Dave Kuntz, There again. Dave Kuntz, You know it's understand it's a separate issue it's a separate issue and certainly related. Dave Kuntz, But it's certainly separate but related and honestly we could do that it's kind of on my list of like you know Okay, what are the tools, depending on what you guys decide tonight that we have to work with, thank you, I know that was my question i'd be glad to entertain emotion.

Dave Kuntz, Please go all right. and if I need some help with the wording, Mr. Council, Mr. Mayor and Council, I would move to instruct Council to prepare legal enforcement action and related sanctions as well as injunctive relief against JG Housing Solutions at 100 Midland Avenue related to Units 110 and 210 for John Potter, Code and zoning and land use violations, based on the prior findings of pnc revocation of the special use permit and continued violations of land use code and violations and pursue that was so bad in state for us.

John Potter, Okay, excellent everybody understands the motion, I think we do and may approach them looking for a second yeah I second and a second.

okay um at this point any discussion on this who wants to go first councillor smith please i'm struggling with with instinct which which says if something bad is going on or something something in violation is going on go after the actual perpetrator So my instinct says go after the agency that is ignoring revocation, the agency that is operating under a non-existent special use permit. I struggle with that, I guess, on concept. I'm inclined to defer to strategic and technique advice from those more knowledgeable. Thank you.

Thank you, um, counselor. I mean, sorry, Mayor, please.

Thank you. I want to comment on something because, you know, for for. Months we have had rooms like this full of passionate people who plead with us to take action. And it feels like we're just sitting on our butts doing nothing. And I completely can understand that. But I will tell you, even as a landlord, I have a condo that I own in Newcastle and I had a tenant who was problematic. And the neighbor across the street had a ring camera and made claims. And I reached out to the police department in Newcastle and we needed evidence. And they would go out there and they didn't see the things that she said that they saw. The ring camera footage wasn't clear enough. And we had to wait till we had tangible evidence. And I'm just a private citizen. We're representing a government. We have to be above reproach. we had to wait until we had something that was tangible and actionable and defensible and so it felt like we were not listening and it felt like we weren't taking action and we were dying up here every week that we had to listen and so i just want to say that um just know that our intentions are to represent our community with integrity and in the best way possible with the tools that we have available to us. And so what felt like negligence was just trying to be purposeful, and that's all I've got.

Thank you. Council small, please.

Following Mayor Pro Tem's comments. I I agree, but I find my definition of courageous local leadership to be not wasting the taxpayers' money. And I've been told over and over again that this is a waste of money. I can support the motion to take action, but only to limits. I think we should follow Carl's advice, but I don't think we get an open checkbook for a futile effort. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Townsley.

I think I'd be, you know, that that probably really sets sums up my thoughts as well. We do have a responsibility as an elected body of Leno Springs. To look after our purse strings as much and I know it's a very emotional issue for a lot of people. The issue before us tonight is a use of land use code and I don't think we want to set a precedent for ignoring our land use codes. For that reason, I would, I would support. The limited motion that we have, but I would also say the same thing counselor small set is taking this to federal court and. Saying we're going to spend 500 to a 1Million dollars. And wait 3 years, I don't think that's doing our duty to the citizens of Glenwood Springs. some of which have come up tonight a lot of people have come up that are not citizens of Glenwood Springs so for that reason I would support it I do really wonder about whether we're solving a problem or just making the problem leave our community you know it worries me that somebody that's in a facility here is now going to be somewhere in a facility that may be a whole lot worse than where they are here I don't know that. A lot of people have come up here and said they know what the conditions are like in our facility. I don't. I've never seen them. I don't know what it's like in Aurora, Denver, or Texas, or Florida. But from what I've heard, it's way worse. So I worry that we're in our haste to do something that we all feel good about. We're making life worse for the people we're trying to help. Those are my comments.

All right. Thank you. And Councillor Smith, please.

Thank you for a second bite. There are very practical considerations going on here that have been eloquently expressed by city staff and just now by council members and by many people who spoke. Upholding of the rule, upholding of laws, being consistent. um i'd like to add and combine with that the sensitivity to to human needs and to human danger and to human humanity uh so in those two spirits i'd like to kind of add a rationale for this motion and that is the people on the planning and zoning commission who should not have been put in this pickle as volunteers on a city board and who in turn very thoroughly, very thoughtfully researched, thought through, discussed with each other and contemplated a recommendation. So among the many other reasons, a reason to support this motion is to support those people who got the ball rolling. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, I'll see none. That leaves me. So not much to add. I echo what I heard from my fellow councillors. I probably most align with Mayor Pro Tem Selinsky. Just want to let you know, just because we're City Council Chambers, sitting here not do anything it doesn't mean we're not doing anything. City Council Chambers, We just flat out had to wait for the right path forward and the path presented itself on July 24 with that incident that we have now reported and recorded and all that. City Council Chambers, I feel. somewhat comfortable moving forward with state court i'm not i have no appetite to in the federal government just so you know this is not where we should go with this this is a uh land use violation and uh mr hanlon has laid this out very very nicely for us to find a path to hopefully move in the right direction. Now, we did hear about the bear laying there, and I just hope the bear doesn't wake up from all this commotion. That's all I can say, because I am concerned, and this is our job. Protect your community. Just because we're getting rid of one problem doesn't mean we need to invoke another. And if the buses show up with ICE agents, well, then we made the wrong decisions. But I hope that's not the case. I hope the bear keeps snoozing. That's what I'm hoping for. So if I don't see any more comments with that, I will call for the question. Everybody's clear on what we're doing? Okay, excellent. Call for the question, Ryan.

Yes, Councilor Townsend. Yes, Mayor Perkins. Yes, Councilor Townsley. Yes, Mayor Pro Tem Zielinski. Yes, Mayor Dame. Yes, Councilor Weimar. No, Councilor Schmal. Yes, Councilor Smith. Yes, Councilor Schachter. It passes 6-1.

All right. Thank you, Ryan. With that, I ask you respectfully to leave the room. We have other things to take care of. So thank you for being here. Have a good night. Yeah. Also, take a five-minute recess. 10 will be back at quarter to 10. Mayor Mrakas, All the order the second half of the city of lemon springs Council meeting, it is still August 6. Mayor Mrakas, And we're jumping right into item eight for tonight, which is an appeal oh 0000 29 dash 2026 319 park drive short term rental. Mayor Mrakas, And it looks like emory is going to talk about it.

Cindy, I didn't realize that was you you're still in that thing. I'm sorry.

Okay.

All right. Emory Ellingson, Community Development. I'll be sharing my screen in just a second. And then also I have two additional items from the applicant that were submitted after packet cutoff. So I was going to give those to you.

Thank you.

So. Thank you.

Okay, so the item tonight is field 29, 2026 for 319 Park Drive. and the action item is consideration of an appeal of a Planning and Zoning Commission decision to affirm a staff decision regarding the enforcement of Section 703030E9F6 regarding the denial of the renewal of a short-term rental permit. Per code, staff does not make a recommendation and only includes the necessary facts to warrant the appeal, which would be provided by the applicant, and then the additional information in the staff report, as well as the two items in front of you That was received after packet cut off, and so the specific code being appealed reads as follows a permit holder who fails to collect lodging taxes on a short term rental during the permit period shall not be permitted to renew the permit for the next two year permit cycle. And then again, like we talked about the previous item a lot about the appeal process. Essentially, it goes up the chain. So an administrative decision can be appealed by planning and zoning commission. The planning and zoning commission decision can be killed to you, Council, and then any decision of Council goes on to courts like we just talked about. So that's where we are in the process. And so again, this went to planning and zoning commission. And then council may affirm planning and zoning commission's decision, reverse that decision in whole or in part, or modify the order requirement decision or determination, and may also attach conditions with approval. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, So that's one of the part of you tonight. And then again, this is what you would consider PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Back stated in the application requirements and intent to code compared to the decision that's being appealed evidence to how that's been applied in the past and then consistent with comprehensive plan. And so I'll just turn it over to the applicant.

Actually, before we do this, let's see if we have any questions. Back to Council. Thank you, Emery. Back to Council. Any questions to staff at this point? Sure, absolutely. We can do that. Mayor Pro Tem Solinsky, please.

Thank you. Okay, so Failure to collect taxes and failure to rent. Are those anonymous? Are they the same thing? Like, I think that's what I need to have some clarification on.

Sure. So staff's interpretation was collect was to rent in that instance. So nothing was collected, nothing was rented. So it was not allowed to rent it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Small, please. So if the appellant here had rented part of her STR to a relative for a half of a night and collected the dollars, and paid 15 cents in tax to the city, would her permit have expired?

It would have been renewed on condition that some amount of tax is remitted.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Smith.

Thank you. What is the larger context or the logic behind this particular rule?

Dave Kuntz, Sure, so the intent is essentially that if someone receives a permit that they're using it, and the main reason for that is with short term rental permits. Dave Kuntz, property that has a permit no other property within 250 feet can can have one as well, and so the idea is that someone's having a permit. Dave Kuntz, Technically they're taking an ability away from their neighbors to also have one, and so the idea is that essentially you're using it or losing it.

Dave Kuntz, So using it or losing it, but also, it sounds like. Dave Kuntz, If it if it ends up blockading somebody else more actively using a permit there's something wrong with that.

so the thing is we don't have any and we don't have any uh thresholds for how much tax someone needs to collect how often it needs to be rented uh the idea of the permit is it lets you rent a residential unit for a period of less than 30 days and so however i didn't ask my second question very very clearly i apologize um again back to the kind of the context of the purpose of this rule that you you need to rent it

um in order to uphold qualifications to renew it or to keep it um and and again that logic is as you said it keeps others within a specified perimeter from getting a permit and those others might use it more actively Dave Kuntz, So we have a preference for people who actually use it.

Dave Kuntz, Well that's just the requirement for a note, so I have a permit and I have a two year permit period and I never rent it and it's not used, you would not be able to renew it. Dave Kuntz, So, as far as like your neighbors anytime there's a permit anyone within 250 feet can also not hold a permit. Dave Kuntz, So whether or not you know, maybe someone else would use it more. it's not really relevant because you're not able to have one.

Thank you. That it? Yes.

Okay, very good. Councilor Meyer.

Ellery, if someone were issued or granted an STR permit on December 28th, right and three days later it's the end of the year would we have expected you know for that three three day period for that person to have rented out the place right yes so that would have been a requirement and so the thing is the permit period is two years long

And so it's not prorated. At any point when you come in, you have until the end of that period, which in this case was December 31st, 2025, to collect that. And again, it goes back to because this is a dynamic thing, and if I have a permit, no one else within 250 feet can have a permit. If I choose to apply on December 28th, that's kind of my choice. I could wait three more days. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And then, you know, I'd have the full two years to do it, but I could run the risk that in three days. My next door neighbor could do it. So that would be a choice. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, You would only leave yourself three days to rent it, but you could also wait three days.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Do you think most applicants have that PB, Harmon Zuckerman, That foresight.

I mean, I think I have a lot of different applicants. Sometimes people they'll buy a home specifically for short-term rental use, and they'll get their permit, and it'll be up on Airbnb within a week. Some people might be their primary residents, and maybe they're planning ahead for summer vacation, winter vacation. They'll get it. They won't rent it until then.

And then the requirement is some amount of tax. John Potter, is is submitted to the city right for the period it's not necessarily that it was rented or that that I I earned income off of an strs that I paid tax to the town.

John Potter, Correct so with a state that occurs, you charge the tax, which is the 5% accommodations it could also be that I just write a check to the town for some nominal amount, even though I didn't ever have a guest if you were misrepresenting it you'd still be remitting tax.

That would be misrepresentation. Correct. Okay.

But again, we don't require. So typically, most hosts will host on Airbnb or VRBO. That's the majority, probably 98% of who has a short-term rental. And so the way that works is those entities, VRBO and Airbnb, actually collect the tax on all the rentals, and they remit that to the city on a quarterly basis. We don't actually really have any examples like the one you said.

Like if it was just a private situation through a network. But you could do that.

You could say, I'm doing my own hosting, and this is my short-term rental business. So that's an option as well. We have a wide variety of opportunities. Okay.

Thank you. My name is Pro Tem Slinsky.

So I'm reading through this document that was given to us by the applicant and makes note of some medical challenges which are evidenced. Do we have a process for like, say you hold a permit and something unexpected happens? Is there a process to put like a pause or have some sort of an appeal for like some sort of, oops, some sort of, like special circumstances or anything like that? Or is this kind of like an anomaly, this is the first time it's come up?

This is the first time it's come up. We do not have for renewals necessarily an appeal or an extension process. We do have it for the original application. So when someone submits an application, they are supposed to finish it within six months, 180 days. An additional six months can be given a community director's decision to extend it further. So like at the application end, yes, it is there. On the renewal end, no. Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Bouncer Smith.

Thank you. I read through the materials that you submitted, plus the new material tonight. And much of the material you presented was kind of a record of planning and zoning's consideration. And they're typically very deliberate about, here are the factors to consider. And is it yes? Is it no? Be straightforward, usually. Was there any other subjective discussion among this planning zoning along the lines of what my colleagues have asked? It's odd that it's close to the end of the year. Personal circumstances, is there room for the consideration of those things? And did P&Z discuss any of those?

uh yeah so there was some discussion on the timing of that um relative to it is a voluntary thing to apply for a permit and so knowing that there is that two-year permit period you know let's say it's around thanksgiving you're thinking of applying for a permit you do know that you have a month you know you can't wait however you know then you're going to be looking at okay the risk are my neighbors going to get one and how comfortable you are with that risk versus having to maybe do a rental within a month

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? None. Thank you very much. Thanks. With the applicant care, the talk on your behalf. Oh, there you go. Perfect. That's why we have this thing. Please state your name and where you live in city limits.

My name is Cindy Savatos. I live at 319 Park Drive, and I have lived there for 41 years. I've lived in Glenwood Springs since 1978. When I learned that 322 Park Drive was being purchased by investors who intended to use the property exclusively as a short-term rental, I did become concerned. I understood the city's spacing requirements and that if they obtained a permit, it would prevent nearby properties, including mine, from obtaining one. after the city's regulations i decided to apply for the short-term rental myself at that time my property qualified and obtaining a permit would preserve my family's future ability to use our home as an occasional short-term rental rather than allowing a full-term rental To me, a full-time rental is a hotel or a motel. I completed the application. I paid all the required fees. I made improvements to my home, including new windows. There's 180 days period to get all that done. And during that time, I've had serious Medical conditions with my heel don't ever break your heel. Since July last year ago July 10. I have had. five surgeries two of which were very major five and five plus hours each and required several days um hospitalization and were really painful they've been non-weight bearing since last july um As you can imagine, it is very limited on what I can do I didn't know I was going to have this done when I applied for the permit I don't wish it on anybody. So preparing so.

The time that I had to.

get the house ready to get the permits done to get all my surgeries done in the middle of it and just deal with my life then um the permit was not granted to me until October 22nd I think which gave me 72 days to rent my house out to get get it advertised get it Situated for everything I can't even go down to my downstairs where the bedrooms are without a huge amount of work. More importantly, I wasn't overly concerned about, and I also knew that I was going to have to reapply by the end of by December 31 and I was okay with that.

um.

i wasn't overly concerned about because every month um i did file my tax report forms and i filed for zero dollars because it just said i had to collect taxes didn't say i have to rent i had to actually have a person staying in my house said i had to collect taxes therefore i didn't collect any money i didn't have anybody staying there so i didn't collect any taxes so i filed zero tax every month and nobody questioned it just said good to go you know file your next month i'm still filing through amounts um so in february february 5th 2026 when i received my um The denial of my renewal I truly was shocked and confused as to why I was denied, because I have been filing my tax returns. And I mean, I have read that ordinance over and over, up and down and sideways, and it just reads that to me. You have to have someone there to collect a tax from. It doesn't say I had to have someone in the house spending the night and then I could collect. Now, someone would have mentioned that to me maybe in December, like you said, I could have my sister come and stay and I would have charged her out the nose and I had to pay you guys some taxes and I'd been OK. But I didn't know that. So I still felt like I was doing everything I needed to do. Apparently in December, December 9th, Emory did send me an email that stated a little more clearly that I was supposed to have someone staying there. I honestly don't remember seeing that. I'm sure I did read it, but I read it the same way I had been reading everything else. You know, it's one of those things, if you keep doing it over and over again, eventually... You're just an idiot. And even... Even if I had understood that requirement at that time, that was only 20 days to the end of the month. And I'm still sporting all kinds of hardware. Honestly, they were talking amputation. I wasn't talking that, but the doctors were. And my brain was in a lot of other places, but I still felt like I filed my taxes and I filed for my renewal. The subsequent amendments suggest that the clarification was necessary because the original language was not as unambiguous as the city now argues. So why are we having to change it if it was correct? Well, apparently I'm the only one since 2015, 2019 when it was written, I'm the only one who's ever questioned it. I guess you're just lucky I just question it I just I didn't question it at all I it read to me, you didn't have to have anyone there you just have to collect taxes and I would have if it said, you have to have someone there. And I know that having this permit is a value to my property. And it would provide my husband, I may be going somewhere for the winter again we haven't gone anywhere. Well, I haven't gone anywhere for quite a long time, but it would help us offset the expenses to go along with that. And I just think that, The South Park, which is where Park Drive is listed, it's a nice, desirable neighborhood for families. It's almost affordable, if you can say that. Around me is our families. I think there's 10 little kids. And to watch them play on the sidewalks in the evenings or on the weekends with their families, it really just is, it's special, I think. I don't think there's a lot of neighborhoods that you still do that. And so I think that my intent was really to preserve that opportunity for families. And I intend on living in that house, God, I don't know, 71, I'm hoping another good 20 years. And I know I did apply for that permit right away, knowing it was a stop gap. and to give myself a little bit of time to think about what I was doing. And it was an eye-opener what I, but I fully intended on going through with it. I've spent a lot of money on doing this and was fully intending on doing it again. So there were a lot of allegations made and, you know, by, PB, Lupita D Montoya, The owners of 322 and i'm not going there, but because this is just about the code and the way the code was written, not by you guys, but you have the opportunity now to make changes on that or and to. PB, Lupita D Montoya, reverse the denial that PNC put on us. And so i'm asking you to do to do that, and that my permit you know what valid for 72 days. and That's kind of a short time to get anything done. And I would like you know. Maybe give me another year to say let's see if she can figure out how to rent it to somebody and collect some taxes. So that's really what I'm asking you guys for. Nothing, I don't think overly complicated. It's just how it was written and how I interpreted it. And a lot of people I know, they interpreted it the same way I do. doesn't say you have to have a head heads on beds to collect that tax it just says i'm supposed to collect tax well i didn't have anybody to collect so zero and that's what i have all right thank you any questions to the applicant let's start with council smith um my questions are back to staff that's fine yeah that's no no that's fine um

The staff memo has presented two, actually three sample motions or sample possible actions by City Council. Dave Kuntz, Can you tell us a bit more about the effects of those one seems pretty obvious, and that is uphold the planning and zoning decision which has one effect of this particular address or this particular owner cannot apply again for two years. Dave Kuntz, Right reading that one right.

Correct.

If the City Council were to, as this other option suggests, simply reverse the planning and zoning decision, which I guess, in effect, would renew the permit?

Dave Kuntz, Correct. So the decision to affirm would keep things as they are with the permit was denied the decision to reverse would result in the permit being renewed for the 2026 2027 permit period. And again, same requirements that hold true collect taxes during that period.

So again, Dave Kuntz, Things go into your chunks or there is a two year hiatus or two year Dave Kuntz, Affirmation and then in two years to be reviewed again. And was there anything in mind in this third option, which is to amend? Were there versions of that that P&Z considered?

No, they didn't really discuss amending the decision at all.

Thank you. Council Townsend.

To the applicant, did you ever list it on Airbnb or any of the websites or anything like that? I did not.

Karen Hollweg, I did not have. Karen Hollweg, When I you know the app the permit was given to me in October. Karen Hollweg, I really did not have time to do it. Karen Hollweg, I would have, but I also knew I had. Time. John Potter, Thank you, Council small.

John Potter, First staff emery do you think that the language. Is going to change with whatever other revisions PNZ thinks is necessary for the way the code is written now.

Yeah, and so that was, um, it was brought about by this appeal and, you know, we all try to be proactive when things come up and responsive. And so, yeah, planning and zoning commission, their recommendation was to add language, uh, basically utilize and collect was their recommendation. Uh, and that code amendment is not here in front of you tonight because planning and zoning commission, um, wanted to hear some more about short term rentals and maybe make some possible other changes. So yes, additional language like utilize and collect in that section.

Thank you. Any other questions? Henry, when we have applicants for short-term rentals, we give out a care package with information, right?

Generally a guide, yes.

Where there's building codes in it, what you got to look for, all that kind of stuff. And somewhere in there, it does say that you have to collect and pay taxes. Correct. John Potter, So that was all known before the process even started. John Potter, Yes, one would think so okay great Thank you. John Potter, Mayor pro tem silence.

Karen Hollweg, Is the word collect in there.

John Potter, In the actual guide i'd have to look.

John Potter, Whatever you had on screen. John Potter, i'm almost certain is the page of that writing in the packet okay.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Any other questions to anyone? Yeah, we will. Okay. So thank you both for your time here. Anybody from the public like to come forward? Aren't you part of the applicant statement? Okay, I'll give you 3 minutes then. Thank you.

I think the code provision is very clear. It says. Who fails to collect lodging taxes? That means to get it from somebody you rent it to. And it does not say. That you have to rent it. In fact, staff is. Author to memo, which memo went to. P&Z to change that language to say what they believe it should have said, to utilize and collect. And if that's changed, we'll follow that obligation. But it doesn't say that. We relied on the language of the code, which I think is very clear. It says collect taxes. And at the time it was adopted in 2019, I don't think the intent was to say you had to rent it, Obviously, because it didn't say that. But if you look at the ordinance, it's not in that ordinance either. And so what we're asking for is a reversal of the denial. Or if the board is inclined to put some conditions on a renewal, we're happy to look at a shorter time period that she has to rent it and comply. That's the only section in the code that appears for renewal. There's no other requirements in the code. And we believe that we've complied and asked for the board to find some.

Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Anybody else from the public like to come forward? Please state your name and whether you live in city limits or not. You have three minutes.

My name is James McGuire. I live in Carbondale. I am one of the owners of 322 Park Drive. We respectfully ask you to deny the appeal concerning 319 Park Drive, uphold the city staff's decision, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's 4-2 vote, and allow our application for 322 Park Drive to proceed. this case comes down to one clear requirement in the city's short-term rental ordinance the code states a permanent holder who fails to collect lodging taxes on short-term rental during the permanent period shall not be permitted to renew the permit for the next two-year permit cycle the important words are shall not be permitted to renew the The facts are undisputed. The property at 319 Park Drive was never rented as a short-term rental. No paying guests stayed there. No lodging taxes were collected, and $0 in lodging taxes were remitted. She has repeatedly told us, others, and the PNZ that she has no intention to rent the house. It's only being used as a weapon against us. The appellant argues that she complied because she filed sales tax reports returns reporting zero activity, but filing a zero dollar return satisfies a reporting obligation. It does not satisfy the separate renewal requirement to collect lodging taxes during the permit period. Accurately reporting zero activity does not turn zero activity into compliance with the renewal standard. This was also not a new interpretation created specifically for 319 Park Drive. City staff previously applied the same rule to permits for 400 Pinion Street, 1071 Park West, 1640 Lincolnwood Drive. In those cases, the city determined that applicants who had not rented and remitted lodging taxes were ineligible to renew. The same rules should apply here. The ordinance does not contain a medical hardship exception and creating one in this individual appeal would result in different treatments from that received by prior permit holders. The issue is especially important because STR permits are limited and subject to a 250 foot spacing restriction. An unused permit does not affect only the permit holder. It allows the permit to be used as a weapon against their neighbors, which is happening here. My partners and I relied on City's decisions and instructions. After staff determined that 319 Park Drive was ineligible for renewal, the City reactivated our application and directed us to continue through inspections, and we paid over $5,000 for new windows. We are prepared to operate lawfully, pass inspections, collect and remit lodging taxes and comply with all requirements. This is a request for consistent treatment of the code. City staff applied the code, Planning and Zoning reviewed the evidence and affirmed that decision by a four to two vote. The appellant admits the central fact, they don't rent out their house and no lodging taxes were collected. We respectfully ask council to uphold the city's established standard, deny the appeal, affirm the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision And allow the application for 322 to proceed and time.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Anybody else from the public.

Please my name is John lip. I live on higher lane in Glenwood Springs. Me and my wife live there in Glenwood Springs with our two little boys, ages four and one. Together with our partner James, we're small business owners, and we love Glenwood Springs. Tourism is the heartbeat of our town, and we take a deep pride in supplying top-tier lodging to visitors who drive our economy. When local businesses thrive, Glenwood Springs thrives. We keep our operations strictly local, hiring Glenwood cleaners, landscapers, and other contractors, including investing $5,000 immediately in local trades to bring our property on Park Drive into full egress compliance. We stand here tonight firmly on the side of the city, on the side of our municipal code. This appeal is not a neighborly disagreement. It's a question of whether our city's rules actually matter. Our city staff applied the code correctly when they denied renewal. The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the facts and voted forward to protect the integrity of that code. We are here to support that decision. The city created short-term rental permits as a privilege for active commercial operators who contribute to our lodging tax base. Holding a capped permit reporting $0 in revenue and admitting on the record that the intent was simply to hoard the permit isn't compliance it's directly undermines the city's goals. When someone holds a ghost permit, the city loses critical tax revenue. Local vendors lose work. Compliant local families who are ready to generate revenue for Glenwood are blocked. We urge council to stand with your staff, uphold the planning and zoning commission's 42 vote, and protect the integrity of Glenwood's municipal code. Thank you for your leadership and service to our community.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Mr. Mayor, you may ask.

We can try that. Let's see if we can get there.

Hi there. Can you hear me?

Hi, are you Carly?

I am.

Okay, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Carly Stillman. I'm John Lipp's wife. I'm sorry I'm at home with our kids. But I just wanted to comment on it. When we bought the house at 322 Park Drive and found out that Cindy had obtained the permit, I actually went over there and spoke with her in person to kind of ask, like, yo, hey, what's going on? Like, were you doing this in spite of us? Did you not want us to get the permit? And she told me to my face, like, I got this permit because I don't want a short-term rental across the street from me. so she told me right away then i was really interested to read the letter saying she actually got this in good faith and her and her husband plan on renting it at some point which kind of brings me to my next point that if she truly did want to rent this there's also another permit called an accessory tourist unit permit that she can obtain still if she does truly want to rent the apartment or the house so that's another option out there that she could pursue um it doesn't have to be this short-term rental permit because this short-term rental permit solely blocks us so i just wanted to put that out there um that's all all right thank you any other comments

Okay, we'll see none. I'll bring it back to Council. We're on Item 8, Appeal 00029-2026, Park Drive Short-Term Rental Permit, I guess. Entertaining a motion. Councillor Townsend?

I would move to uphold P&Z's ruling on this for the way they put it out and affirm their decision.

All right, thank you. And I'm looking for a second. Councillor Smith. No. Mayor Pro Tem Selinsky?

Yeah, I'll second.

And a second. A motion and a second?

I'd like to make a comment.

Right, hang on. Well, as PNZ said, I think that's probably pretty good. Okay, motion and a second to uphold, to affirm PNZ's decision. Any comments? And yes, you can stay on. Why don't you start?

All right, I'm gonna start. So I read through this. I asked the questions for clarifying to me. It says to collect the taxes. Could we say it a little bit more clearly? Maybe, but it's not. It says to collect taxes to collect lodging taxes. I don't care about the intent if you I I don't have any issue with that. i really think that we just need to keep this very clearly based in facts which is following our ordinances it seems to be the theme of the evening but um you know why you got the permit that really isn't relevant it's not germane to the issue um you know i think that

we need to set a standard of expectation and you know that's what i think this uh motion does okay thank you councillor schachter please yeah i it's unfortunate that the applicant got caught up in a variety of issues but looking at the code it is clear not only that they collect and pay But the beginning of the code is clear about the purpose to generate lodging tax, revenue for the applicants, housing diversity, encouraged tourism, all those things that this entitled. And the very carefully thought out and very early defenses that Glen will put on about that 250 buffer was also designed to protect the neighborhood. and has done so, it wasn't the intent for applicants to protect the neighborhood by not renting. So for that reason, albeit it's the fact that the code needs to be amended is always, I guess, a good thing and unfortunate for the applicant for additional clarity, but it seems that the code is clear to me, so I would also support the motion.

All right. Thank you. Councillor Townsley, please.

I would agree with both of you on that, especially since we had somebody that bought a house for, I believe, over a 1,000,000 dollars when I looked it up based on a set of rules. to change those rules after somebody spent that kind of money on something. I would agree that it's going to change the neighborhood. I used to live right across the street from that house, so I know how it would affect the neighborhood. I've lived across the street from short-term rentals, and I know how it affects the neighborhood. On the other hand, it's pretty straightforward. It's cut and dry. We made a vote earlier tonight that was based on enforcing our code. I think we shouldn't switch horses in the middle of the stream.

All right. Thank you, Councillor Smith.

Because in part because of what we just went through as a community and as as a council last hour, the arguments of being strictly adherent to code provisions are are compelling. another feature of our discussion in the last hour was sensitivity to unique needs and a compassionate approach to unusual circumstances. It strikes me that in this instance, ironically, the very next minutes, uh we have a a permit that was in place for a countable number of days due to a curiosity what seems like a curiosity in the original code um and the fact that planning and zoning didn't do deed vote to uphold the denial they did so on a split vote and they could and they simultaneously acknowledge some lack of clarity in the rules and the need to take further action on that. With all of those unknowns or those oddities or those variables that still are in play, it seems very reasonable to me to give the current permit holder a second round to cure the permit to have more than 72 days to prove it up and to put it to use as intended. So I'll vote against this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Schmal.

Yeah, I'm really torn. The thing that comes to my mind, though, is that the responsibility for clarity lies with the author. And the author usually is absolutely certain that what they're saying, what they're writing is clear, because they know what they need. I've been in the business of coming up with other interpretations of what someone thought was entirely clear, as has been pointed out here. I'm turning in my tax reports. It says I have to turn in my tax reports. I personally have a hard time coming to the conclusion that it didn't mean I had to collect taxes. I think it was clear. But I can see where it can be interpreted another way. I issue that caution to all of our spec writers and code writers. and especially in our construction contract language um it's a tough one for me too but i to me it's clear what the what the code was meant for i don't agree with what the code was meant for but it's clear that to me what it was meant for and private property rights If the neighbor bought it with the intention of renting it to begin with and thought they would be able to, that's their property right. So reluctantly, I think I have to support the motion.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, we'll see none. Given the fact that we actually did not reissue permits for other properties that have not collected taxes, As as the public comments said, and I wanted to verify with with emory that that's actually the case, but I think it is those 3 other or 4 other instances. And the fact that when I was not part of that decision making, I had to recuse myself for obvious reasons. But the reason we did put the collect taxes in years ago is to prevent ghost permits and is to prevent or to preclude other people from obtaining a permit. So it's very clear to me if it says you got to collect taxes, that means you got to rent it and you got to pay the taxes. I do this every quarter, so I'm fully aware of the language and fully aware of the process. And for that, I have to support this, and we're upholding the code. No, I saw Carl nodding, so I know we're good.

Yeah, I'm sorry. That is absolutely correct that there have been other permits not Rene'd. Because of zero. Because of the failure.

Because of the failure to collect. Okay. And so with that, I will call for the question.

Yes, Council Townsley. Yes, Mayor Pro Tem Slensky. Yes, Mayor Dame. Yes, Council Weimer. Yes, Councilor Schmoll. No, Councilor Smith. Yes, Councilor Schachter. It passes 6-1.

All right. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you all for being here and have a good night. Moving on to item nine, resolution 202618, supporting H.R. 9826. And it looks like Carl is going to kick that one off.

I just wanted to do something that was fun for a change.

Is this it? This is it.

No, what you have in front of you is a great example of when a local issue really becomes a bipartisan issue and Super excited about the fact that Congressman heard and our senators Hickenlooper and Bennett have joined forces and each introduced in their respective chambers, the hot springs Protection Act that would protect the Which would prevent the future development of the mine site. That is, as you know, unusual in today's environment that you would have cross pollination both between the Senate and the House and between different parties. Like I said, it's, you know, I think it really reflects how this is a unifying issue for the community. So what you have in front of you is a resolution supporting those respective acts as they appear in both houses. And then three thank you letters, one to each one of the congressional delegations. I would also like to just say a couple of special thanks to the to the mayor and the mayor pretend it's their hard work. With those other elected officials in the congressional delegation that really makes a difference. And I would also like to thank Richard Peterson Kramer out of my office, who has done a ton of the work behind the scenes on with our, our help from Steve Peterson, who works with us out in DC so with that i'm happy to answer questions it's all fairly short I think it's all fairly straightforward and we're asking you adopt the resolution and the letters of support happy to answer questions all right, thank you questions to staff.

See none great let's see if anybody from the public, like the comment. Is that your name and whether you live in the city not.

Good evening. I'm Heather McGregor. I live at 63 County Road, one thousand and sixty. I'm the Vice President of the Board of the Glenwood Spring Citizens Alliance, and for the past eight years we've stood in opposition to the expansion of the limestone mine. We represent nearly three thousand individuals, both locals and visitors from across the country. and more than 300 businesses and organizations we serve as a voice for the community a watchdog for what's going on with the quarry and as a source of information for anyone who wants to know about what's happening with mine so we have a website at loveglenwood.org Now from the beginning of this fight, the city of Glenwood Springs has also used its talent and resources to oppose the mine expansion. We see the city as a very important ally and we thank you for all your efforts. So there's two important things that are happening right now. Rocky Mountain Industrial shut down that mining operation a year and a half ago, but they're not giving up. As Carl mentioned, the company is seeking a new mining plan of operations from the Bureau of Land Management. They want to expand the mine to 56 acres. That's three times the current permitted size. And that would enable the company to mine upslope about 500 vertical feet. BLM is conducting a technical review of the application right now. And once that review is complete, they'll open it up for a public process and we'll be ready to respond when that happens. But the second important thing is that our members of Congress, Congressman Jeff Heard and Senator Bennett and Senator Hickenlooper have joined our efforts publicly. Two weeks ago, they introduced the bipartisan Glenwood Hot Springs Protection Act. And this federal legislation, if passed by Congress, would stop BLM from approving the expansion. To have our congressmen and our senators stand up for Glenwood Springs to protect our community, our Hot Springs resources, and our economy is a really big deal. So the resolution before you tonight endorses the Glenwood hot springs protection act and urges Congress to pass it your vote tonight is an important continuation of our united Community wide opposition to the mine expansion so together, we can say.

don't mind let's phrase.

Thank you.

John Potter, Thank you, I would just also and i'm sorry i'm a little tired and I was remiss and not thinking heather in particular and Glenwood springs alliance. John Potter, it's been a it's been a really nice renewal of that relationship in the last few months we've been working a lot together and it's been fantastic and they do a tremendous tremendous job helping and leading so.

all right excellent thank you for that just mr mayor real quick yeah in the category of credit where credit is due i have watched this whole thing play out and i have to say that uh carl and richard painted a little bit of a masterpiece here this was very strategic it was very thoughtful it was very well executed so good job you guys

All right. Thank you. Any more credits? No?

I just want to say, Steve, the way Steve did this was just masterful.

I think, yeah, okay. Full circle.

All right.

Any more public comment? I see none. Close the public portion. Bring it back to council. Entertaining a motion in Resolution 2026-18, supporting H.R. 9, 8, 2, 6, Council Townsley.

I move to support approve resolution or approve to support the resolution. 2, 0, 2, 6 dash 1, 8, 40 for the Hr. 9, 8, 2, 6.

That's right. Thank you. We have a motion to approve Mayor Pro Tem. Selinsky.

I get to say my very enthusiastic second and an enthusiastic second.

That means we have a motion in a second.

do you want to say something still or you're good okay thanks ryan you want to say something okay mayor okay back to back in comments so yeah i am protestant now the motion is second i do just want to say also a huge thank you to the moment spring citizen alliance um you know when you're an elected you have a voice um but when you are a member of the community and you stand up and you give your time and energy that's really powerful and so you know i want to really double down on the recognition that you and jeff peterson and all of your you know cohorts within that group um and just really recognize what a monumental consistent task you have taken on and so thank you okay thank you counselor small

Dave Kuntz, yeah I I tend to be a kind of a technical guy and i've been following this since since 2019 you know and i've yet to i've yet to see any of the evidence. Dave Kuntz, backing up the threat to the hot springs water flow, I understand the concern. Dave Kuntz, But I encourage you to come up with some. significant geotechnical information that can be propagated along with the rest of the information that you have. Maybe it exists and I haven't seen it, but until I see some evidence of that, I see a lot more hysterics than I do science. My recommendation. Thanks.

All right. Any other comments? We'll see none. The motion is to approve. I'll call for the question. Maybe you're not such a technical guy after all.

It passes 7-0.

All right. Thank you. Thanks, Ryan. Thank you, everybody, for being here. Thank you for moving this forward. Project updates.

Do you need me, Archie? Probably.

Three minutes, Ryan. So I just need less than an hour. So you should be in good shape.

Well, they're getting ready. Carl, could you remind me? Can we go past 10?

Yeah, you can't go past 11.

But we could if we will. So how is this? The new item cannot be started.

No, 10 o'clock isn't your planning commission. 11 o'clock is your curfew on council. And it has to be you.

OK. All right, guys, let's do this. Let's get this done.

You got to wait. All right. Good evening, Council for project update. So this is hopefully a celebration on anything else. So some of the same maps actually got a little bit different maps for you guys. I'm really advancing mapping technology here. So blue are done. Red are still in construction. These are current projects. I have some other Photos to show, but so far as of now, soccer field road has been completed. The 5th street mill and overlay has been completed. The 7th street sidewalk has been completed. And 9th street mill and overlay and some drainage improvements has been completed. The highway 6 and 24 shared use path is still in the waning phases. Um, but mostly completed. I actually have some slides of the before and after some of the others, but I'll go into some of the details of what else we have to do. Um, still active projects as we speak right now. So coach is still going on in 19th street. And we just kicked off the Cooper parking garage repairs. And then later this fall, we will be doing some stormwater improvements over in front of the hotel, Colorado. I'll go in a little bit of details to some of these, but this will mostly be relatively quickly to kind of show what we had before and what we have now. Before we do that, though, I do want to talk real quick about some of the ideas that we have for 2027. Matt Langhorst gave you a preview during work session. Just to kind of reiterate this going left to right, right now we are doing some design work on Mitchell Creek for some improved drainage and culvert design. The Wolfson Road in Midland Roundabout has been completed. The design has been completed, so we're looking for funding and likely going to try to go out for instruction next year. Same thing with Blake Avenue Phase 3. This says 14th Street, but it is from 13th Street south to North Highland Drive and then North Highland west to Grand Avenue, including a little spur of Cooper Avenue. Um, in design right now was the Glenwood Park, um, redesign of that neighborhood. We're looking to have that done at the end of this year. We'll have some public meetings coming up probably in September. Have a conversation with the neighborhood. I'm still under, um, design. We have the South Grand pedestrian improvement projects. That's from the Cardiff Bridge South to the end of the. cemetery uh and then for an rfp for design next year will be the cowden um eighth midland seventh street you know neighborhood in in connections is matt sort of described during during work session so that's kind of a snapshot of what we're gonna be doing next year um mill and overlays and some asphalt paving will also happen but um these are sort of the major projects So what we have done here, Soccerfield Road. So on the right hand side is before and after. And just recall, there was no sidewalk connecting the school to some of the bus stops and six and twenty four turned out to be a really great project. So I'll kind of go through these relatively quickly for you guys, but pretty stark changes from before and after. So, highway 6 and 24, again, this project's not quite complete. Most of the scope is done. The remaining scope is to erect the new light poles and then underground the electric on those poles right now. Comcast has some other telecommunication lines that also have to be undergrounded. So that's the main scope left plus some final punch list items to complete. But again, a pretty different view from before and after. I have a couple of photos just to kind of show you what it looks like. So it turned out to be a really, really successful project overall. Over here at 7th Street, again, there was no sidewalk. We're making that sidewalk connection from the downtown core to the 7th Street parking lot on towards Two Rivers Park. Um, so 9th street, this is looking down the hill. This roadway was pretty dilapidated. Um, so brand new road, um, surface and some other drainage improvements to help that neighborhood out. Uh, again, 9th street looking back up. Um, again, this is 1 of our worst rated roads in our, our traffic or road assessments. So, um, kind of knocking off some of the, the poor roads with a lot of potholes. Fifth Street here in North Glenwood. Again, this is kind of a temporary solution to get us through probably four or five, six years until we get to that neighborhood for a redesign. But again, this road was in really poor condition and this really helps to, again, get the neighborhood through the next four or five years. So touched on Ninth Street, 19th Street, excuse me. We are a little bit behind because we found a bunch of random stuff in the ground. An example, the picture on the left is not a standard design. That is four, well, that is three stormwater pipes coming together and one pipe leaving. This is not how you're supposed to do neither design nor construction, where you just put pipes together and you pour a bunch of concrete on top.

But it worked. Seems like it worked out.

That's a fair comment. It has worked-ish. The photo on the right is right in front of the intersection of Grand and 19th. So we found multiple abandoned utilities that we didn't know until you investigate. We basically dug up the entire intersection. We've been joking that we might as well have just gone in there with a giant grater and just ripped the whole darn road up and started from anew. We've solved it and figured it out. It's just taking a little bit longer. I think there is some opportunities to get back on schedule, but we're slightly behind, but making really good progress. So 19th Street, I don't know exactly when the deadline is or the finish date is, but right now we have the sanitary sewer almost all the way up to Blake and most of the storm sewer is in. So we're starting actually to form up some concrete. So we'll start to kind of get out of the ground, so to speak, here in the next couple of weeks. So Coach Miller, as you recall, Coach Miller has a very tight deadline. School opens up August 19th, August 20th is when first day of school. So these are just some photos actually just of the last couple of days. Asphalt's coming in next week. So we're making some good progress. We're working through some of the details and the bugs with the contractor. So we're going to have some tough conversations with them to make sure we all understand what's going on if we need to get more people out there. Contractor still says we're on schedule, so we're going to take their word for it at this point, and we'll see what we can't do. Again, I think it's going to be a great project at the end of the day. Again, when the black stuff goes down, it's a huge milestone and a big step to getting completed. Kind of last slide here. Matt alluded to this earlier. So over here at exit 116 in the roundabout, we're doing a little bit of work. Really what that is is a lot of vegetation management. There's a lot of overgrown vegetation over there from the Grand Avenue Bridge project that they're cleaning up. And then these pictures here on the screen, there were some medians that for some reason had half brick and then half just dirt. And the part that is dirt is growing weeds. So what we're going to do is we're going to come in here and pour some concrete to really cap it and sort of prevent that odd look, so to speak. There's a lot of, it wasn't just this, let's call this beautification. There's a lot of other important things to be done. Again, the vegetation management really important for sight lines and site triangles. So this is kind of, as we're in there doing one task, we said, you know what, let's try to do whatever we can to kind of clean it up. So it's this, and there's some curb and gutter that's been damaged over the years that we're going to fix. And with that, that is the end of the project update so far. So happy to take any questions from you guys.

Well, that was quick. I was expecting more, but that was great. Thank you, Ryan.

I have another series of slides going in-depth on technical details.

No, we're good. Thank you. Any questions to Ryan? Councillor Smith.

Thank you. Ryan, a new one on my consciousness is Old South Grand. What's envisioned for that?

This is the South Grand. You mentioned the shared use pathway, the pedestrian pathway that I mentioned.

The one out to the cemetery.

Yeah. So the idea is from the Cardiff Bridge to the old Cardiff Bridge, then south to the south end of the cemetery. Rafta has a park and ride. The idea there is to create a pedestrian and a bike path, essentially a multi-use path to connect the old Cardiff Bridge to the Rio Grande Trail through that Rafta parking lot.

thank you um you started your almost the first word you said in your presentation was celebration um time for one 11 years in the making the highway 6 and 24 shared use path glenwood springs original separated path from 50 years ago uh is is an accomplishment worth a worth an event I really strongly encourage the city to hold a full-fledged grand opening ribbon cuttings dignitaries volunteers kind of celebration as recognition of all that thought and design and redesign and work that went into what's turning out I think very confident to be a very good successful connection of two key parts of town back knitted together again

Yeah, certainly agreeing. We are having discussions on having a ribbon cutting and a grand opening on that. So look forward to that in the coming weeks and months to have something like that.

um last meeting three weeks ago um colleague Schachter suggested that we we knew our commitment to highlighting the streets and infrastructure attacks on these projects and I'd hardly concur um whether they're in whatever form you can imagine signs at the work site, signs that stay up after it reopens to remind people how they helped pay for this through their vote in the election. I would put notes into the cone zone. This is closed for this kind of work. And oh, by the way, this work is being done because of your recent infrastructure tax. Anything you do to reward people and to remind people the tangible benefits of having renewed and expanded that tax, I think is good PR, but it's also good to help people feel like they're part of their community.

Next, the next councilor article will be . since we got it just like free directly to that. The next counselor article that we're putting out will thank the public for that and highlight the projects.

Another way to do it in addition to the others. Thanks very much. And finally, on a project that has been finished and celebrated on the sixth Street realignment, beautification, multiple tiered transportation corridor between the roundabout and the hotel. Mayor Mrakas, Are we still waiting for bicycle racks to arrive, so they can be installed or did we forget them or. Mayor Mrakas, There are no bicycle parking racks in that entire length and it seems there or in North landing.

Mayor Mrakas, Yes, so leave our transportation engineer is working to get bike racks put into the North landing park, as we speak, so that hopefully that's going to happen here the near the near term.

Mayor Mrakas, And near any of the shops.

So we're planning on putting them in the park itself, you know we're kind of limited to where we can put them that to be within the right of way. And we have limited space outside of North landing itself that's that's the current plan is to be able to provide bikes bike racks at the park itself thanks very much.

Thank you any other questions okay we'll see none Thank you Ryan have a good night. Dave Kuntz, Moving on to item 11 in a governmental agreement and IGA with Roaring Fork Transit Authority. That would be RAFTA. Dave Kuntz, Carl, again, happy times again?

Yeah, I think so. It depends on how you look at it, I guess. What you have before you is an IGA with RAFTA Dave Kuntz, addressing their participation in our crossing of their rail corridor as part of the South Bridge project. This is something that's been in the works for a long time. RAFTA passed this last month, at the end of last month, just because of the weird sequencing on meetings. We're a lot farther away from it. Really, I think three, maybe two or three big items to kind of identify in here. One is their funding commitment of $4 million to the project that's timed with the construction contract and then drawing that down as construction proceeds. Um two is sort of their ongoing participation as um you know in the project as as we look at our you know as we go through it as it's going on um they wanted to be involved in that. Um third is this also um allows for a joint application to the PUC John Potter, It's easy to forget sometimes because it's been a trail for so long that it's actually a rail banked rail corridor that that that trail is on and that's why John Potter, It's kind of a pro forma application to the PC for to acknowledge the crossing and the work that's being done. And then last is in paragraph 10 of the agreement. Just sort of acknowledging that status as a rail bank corridor, and that you know there are certain obligations around that. While we don't view it as likely that that would ever lose that status. It's something in every agreement with rafted that we do, or any of the governments do. There is an acknowledgement of the rail banking status. so with that i um i will confess richard did most of the work on this um and it's been a busy week i'll do my best to answer all the questions uh i will tell you this has been uh banged around for about 18 months um before it wound up on rafta's desk to to get approved and and on yours so a lot of staff time on both sides to try to get it to something that was worthable for everybody okay thank you questions the carl counselor from all

I presume that the underpass under RAFTA is not designed for train loading.

It's not. One of the things that we have worked with wrapped on over the years is how their rail attorney would describe it as kind of bronze, silver, and gold standards of how they address rail banking. This is one of those that should the rail line ever be reactivated, which would mean somebody would have to come in and put in rails and do the whole thing, that would have to be addressed at that time. it's a pretty remote possibility for the most part um but that is kind of how we're how we're queuing up to deal with that and similar to how we have dealt with eighth street is a great example of a very similar approach to that same issue uh with that cut in the rail line there for our our road to go through so it's further is the is the new underpass there at uh 27 and in the same thing they did for themselves the same kind of approach that but that that structure is not designed to reloading you know it said yeah it's a similar situation for them on that design that it's not anticipated but everybody acknowledges that if it had to be reactivated that would have to be addressed at that time and that whichever governments in charge of it would be willing to do that.

John Potter, Okay, any other questions. John Potter, Just real quick. Does this, does this have anything to do with the possible bus service on that quarter.

No, no, no, this is purely about our crossing as John Potter, You know, you come from the bridge cross cross. That's it across that to the to the John Potter, Connection there on the highway. Okay, thank you.

The thing that does. Right. Okay, great. Thank you. If I see no more questions, anybody from the public have any comments on this? We see none. I'll bring it back to us here to the dais. Item 11 and IGA with Rafta entertaining a motion. Mayor Pro Tem Solinsky, please.

I'd like to move to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Roaring Fork Transportation Authority between them and the City of Glenwood Springs.

Excellent. Looking for a second. Councillor Reimer?

Enthusiastically second. And a very happy second.

Any comments? Seeing none, I'll call for the question. The motion is to approve.

No, Councilor Townsley. Yes, Mayor Pro Tem Zielinski. Yes, Mayor Daim. Yes, Councilor Weinheimer. Yes, Councilor Schmal. No, Councilor Smith. Yes, Councilor Schachter. It passes 5-2.

All right. Thank you, Ryan. Moving into Item 12, Award Request for Proposal RFP 2026-18P, Community Center Climbing. Tim, you're going to lead that one off.

All right. That's good. Thank you, Ryan.

Make some noise.

Right. yeah.

good evening mayor and council my name is tim bergman i serve as the director of operations and acting director of parks and rec this evening we will talk about the replacement for the climbing wall Anyway, uh, in, uh, July of 2024, uh, the parks and rec department did a, an inspection. Um, of the climbing wall, which is routine every 2 years recommended for all climbing walls to do this. Um, the key points that came out of that, uh, inspection were to stop use of anchor number 5. so if you're looking at the wall, it's the farthest right. Uh, route, uh, to climb. So we did that. Um. And then the big 1, it is likely that this wall has a max lifespan of 3 to 5 years. And plans for replacement should likely be made. Um, so there's a lot of concerns around the integrity of the structure. There's cracking, uh, separating from the wall and, um, the foam, uh, is showing through through the concrete. So we'll go through some of these. um so on the left is from the inspection report on the right our pictures staff took and measured a few days ago so you can see the separation of where the wall is separating from the wall is leaning forward so that's grown by a quarter inch to a half inch based on where the safety report did so you see where they marked with the sharpie we went back and measured those so it continues to grow further out um this is the anchor uh at the top of the fifth uh wall so this is one of the reason or the fifth route so that's why that was closed cracks everywhere um this crack where the red dot is this one here is new since the inspection report staff monitors these daily to see how far they grow where they grow if there's really a big cause for concern of shutting further parts of the wall down So this is last slide. So this is the current wall. This is the construction documents. This is what is behind the wall. So that steel structure, that steel frame is there. And then from there, what they did is built a solid structure out of that. So using foam and then a mesh to mold and shape it. And then they covered it in concrete to give it the look and feel that it has. It is 25 years old. It's continued cracking and separating. About 73 or 3073 of the bolt holes handholds where you put the handholds in to climb up are unusable. So that's about 30% of them. So route changes or updates aren't really feasible anymore. I did put some user statistics there. So we do use it for a lot of programming. So the summer club for the kids there, we have 40 kids in that they rotate through it throughout the day. Year to date this year, we've had a little over halfway through 4,000 climbers, which is up a little bit from last year. Last year, 25 usage. We had 6,073 climbers plus 249 adaptive climbers. So adaptive climbers, we teach and help folks who have mobility issues or who are disabled to be able to climb and use our wall. It's one of our programming areas. We also do learn to climb lessons. The high school has a climbing club and then the Yampa High School utilizes the climbing wall for their fitness classes when they come over. Dave Kuntz, In your packet you will see the rfp the bid response that we recommend to move forward with that's Eldorado we did receive two bids the other better came in at a higher cost than Eldorado and they also did not include the cost of demolition and removal of the old wall. I think that's it any questions.

Dave Kuntz, All right, excellent Thank you TIM questions the staff.

Councillor Smith thank you seriously a quarter of a million dollars is I I have no reference point in personal experience so is that just to be expected in this industry or in this kind of facility

I think it is a fair expectation part of the rfp requested for demolition and removal of the old wall that is $50,000. I'm sure that staff can figure out how to do it. Would also come with a cost as well.

10k a year.

Dave Kuntz, And we we've also reached out to so the company that built this wall here this one monolithic they're no longer in business and no longer build these types of walls but we've reached out across the state there's an associate climbing association. Dave Kuntz, For other areas that still that have a wall similar to this, like a solid build wall everybody else is in a similar boat they're either decommissioning or closing their walls were replacing them.

Thank you.

and i will note it wasn't it isn't a it is a capital project approved capital project for the 2026 budget i know that the um amount is over by about 26 000 from the rfp there is a contingency in the capital projects fund for when things go over and council approves that okay thank you council small

Tim, you have a timeframe when, if we approve this tonight, when this will start?

Yes, at the end of the month, we do our annual week-long closure. That's the goal to start this and do a lot of the big dirty gross work, ripping it down, pulling it out. We anticipate there will be still some construction and installation after we reopen, but that should be minimal.

Dave Kuntz, And your preferred contractors on board with that schedule right now.

Dave Kuntz, They understand the tight timeline and i've been waiting for approval and for the contract to be issued.

Dave Kuntz, Which means no they're not necessarily on board with that.

Dave Kuntz, It was put in the rfp the ideal timeline and expected to be started and worked on during the closure.

um after looking at it today i'm more concerned than i was uh the last time i looked at it i thought it was just a bolt hole issue that the last time i looked at it but that that leaning on the top portion of that is concerning and the cracking that's following that leaning over the top um Dave Kuntz, Is your inspector that looked at it in 2024 is he just the wall inspector is he a structural engineer.

Dave Kuntz, So he's a certified climbing wall instructor and then we also have a professional service agreement with sgm with one of their structural engineers so once this opens up there they're going to be right there, looking at it as well and examining and helping guide the construction process.

this i don't understand i'm suggesting that somebody a structural engineer ought to look at it now and and give his blessing to keeping it open until the new wall goes in okay counselor smith thank you um you you helpfully mentioned that this is a capital project because it's expensive um

and we also discussed periodically over the last year budget time and otherwise about various deferred maintenance or capital needs the Parks and Recreation Department. Are there foregone opportunities that this is elbowing aside? What are we not doing by doing this? And how did you decide this is the first priority?

I think through the budget process last year, Rod and staff, Dave Kuntz, they're facing what we're facing today of if this isn't addressed, then we need to close the climbing wall, so we lose that amenity at the Community Center.

Dave Kuntz, Any other things that they were not doing that. Dave Kuntz, we're competing for that kind of top spot.

Dave Kuntz, In terms of safety issues I don't think.

Dave Kuntz, A viewers or capital in general sure.

Yes, I mean, you could pick irrigation at any one of the parks fully redoing that irrigation. You could pick fully renovating the pool. Well, that wouldn't even cover it. But there are other areas. But as we've looked through our deferred maintenance and capital projects, you know, these are amenities and things that come up that pose safety hazards kind of come to the top of the list.

Mayor Mrakas, And parks and rec permission is on board.

Yes, we. Mayor Mrakas, Last night we met with them, we did a tour with wall with counter counselor townsley there's they're still in favor of replacing the wall.

Thanks very much. Thank you any other questions. Mayor Mrakas, Okay we'll see none Thank you TIM anybody from the public. Like to voice their opinion on this. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to council, entertaining a motion in item, what was it, 12? The award request for proposal for the new community center climbing. Mayor Pro Temselinski.

I would like to move to approve the award request for proposal 2026-18P, community center climbing wall.

Thank you. We have a motion to approve. Looking for a second. Councilor Townsley? Seconded. And a 2nd, thank you. Any comments. Counselor Townsley for.

Counselor Smith, you know, 1 of the. When I first saw that, I also looked at that. I got a quarter million dollars for a climbing wall. This seems kind of crazy, but in going over there and looking at it, one comes for smaller brought up. Is there a way to repair it instead? And so that was a question that we had, and we looked at it. I've gotten to inspect it twice now. It needs to go. It's not probably repairable. I think they've done a good job of that. And then the use of it was is probably way more than I would have thought it was. Initially, it was kind of cool when we were over there today. They had a kids program in there. I got to talk to the gal that runs the adaptive climbing program. We're the only one on the western slope that has one of those. Uh, we have people that come in that are developmentally disabled or slow or whatnot that are are using it. And it's a really, you know, it's kind of gives them something physical to be able to do. So it really does serve a purpose that probably a lot of our other things that parks and rec don't so. I would, I might have, you know, had some hesitancy to this with the initial piece of here's a big cost, but in looking at what we have as a resource, looking how it's getting used, looking probably at another 24, 25 years out of a new one on it, I would definitely support it.

When you did your personal inspection, did you go to the microphone? Like, like, like. Smart aleck remark.

Okay.

I don't think I could have made it.

Excellent. Well, thank you for that. Any other comments?

Seeing none, I'll call for the question.

7-0, it passes.

Thank you. Thank you, Ryan. Item 13, fire department funding and consideration of a property tax increase on the November 26 ballot. Mr. Floyd.

thank you mr mayor i'm steve boyd your city manager um i don't think there's anything that we haven't talked about in here uh we wanted to go through this for the benefit of the public and anybody that's interested if there's any press that's interested but we um uh have been talking about a funding shortfall in our fire department for some time. So we wanted to talk about or give you an update on where we are now, what's going to be happening in the next couple of years, define exactly what the problem is, and then talk about solutions a little bit. So we've got a presentation, it'll probably take 15 minutes or so. And I wanted to ask finance director, Yvette Gustad, if she would start by just giving us a quick overview of how the fire department is funded right now, because it kind of gets cobbled together in several different ways.

Yvette Gustad, finance director. As we talked about before, we have multiple ways that we fund the fire and EMS equipment replacement fund and the general operating. And it's cobbled together, as you can see here, from multiple places, which is really not best practice. So we have a dedicated property tax that the city has that's for the fire department, and the rural fire also has a dedicated property tax. The funds that come into those two, into our general fund and into rural fire, are then transferred out completely into either fire equipment or the operations. And as you can see in the top bucket, in the fire equipment replacement fund, that comes partially from the general fund, partially from rural, and then from some impact fees. and then in the operating amount excuse me account is the rural fire subsidy the general property subsidy we transfer money in from the marijuana tax fund the tobacco tax fund and the then the general fund subsidizes about a million dollars and then we have fines for our fees for ambulances fees um that make up that other nine hundred and fifty thousand So in total, you can see there's like, sorry, $7.4 million for equipment and operations. So with that, Steve, oops, sorry. Sorry, wrong one. So the general fund last year was about a million and 0.3 deficit. And with that, about a million of that was due to the fire and EMS transfer. So that is not sustainable either for the general fund. So we're looking for ways that we can go ahead and in the long term fund the general fund and be able to fund the fire department completely. And with that i'll turn it back to Steve.

Okay. So the situation right now on the ground. What's happening is that there is more demand for fire and EMS personnel. A couple of reasons for that. There's more activity, hotter and drier, right? That's not a surprise to anybody. Our population is aging, and it's actually kind of a significant demographic trend. And what that means for fire is that there, on average, are more calls for a person of a higher age, it's a more complicated intake process, a more developed health history. You have to check for what medication interactions there might be. They're more likely to be transported. It just takes longer. It takes longer means that it costs more. We also have a standard of cover problem. It's still in draft form, but I think it's about done. I think it is probably done other than taking draft off of it. But what We are being told is we're, the recommendation is coming back that we need to add four fire EMS professionals right now. That would meet the minimum standard of cover. What NFPA wants, I mean, kind of the general standard is four people per shift. A lot of agencies can't afford that, so it's not uncommon at all to see three per shift. We have two right now, and we do need to make it to three, and that's what it would take to get there. So our whole demand curve, the whole thing has shifted. More demand means higher prices. And there's just no way of getting around that. You know, that's supply and demand 101. Right now, our firefighters, based on our last salary study, are paid competitively. They're not at the high end, but they're paid competitively. What's happening, though, is that all of the districts and departments around us have either recently passed in the last three or so years a sales tax or a property tax for their fire department, or both. The two that have not, I believe, are both going to be on the ballot in their districts in November this year. They're doing two things with that money, more people and right-sizing wages to stay competitive. Those are the districts that we compete for talent with right now. Right now we are not losing firefighters. And the reason for that is that the culture in our fire department is so strong. They like each other. They work well together. They want to be there. I mean, I go training with them and they work hard. They're having fun. It's a great place to be right now. That's today. I mean, you know, if you're significantly underpaid and you're on a staff that has fewer or a lower standard of cover, it's more dangerous for you. It's more work. You have to cover more shifts. It gets hard to go home and say, you know, I can go 30 miles up the road or whatever and be safer and make more money. And it's just sort of it's a tough thing. We're going to start losing people at some point if we don't deal with this. So. The problem is that we are underfunded by about $3.7 million in Fire EMS. $2 million is what's needed to bring us up to competitive pay and the proper standard of covered. That's just money we don't have right now. The other problem we have is that we're subsidizing the fire department by the tune of $1.7 million from the general fund and a little bit from the tobacco and marijuana fund. But from your perspective, the opportunity cost is the same. So we kind of look at that the same way. So people are going to say just prioritize differently. The problem with that is that in our general fund, we don't have anything that's not necessary, right? I mean, we have to have a court. We have to have a clerk. We're a pretty full-service community, so we have to have IT. We need HR. We need finance and other administration, police, streets, community development. Dave Kuntz, Engineering building inspection facilities parks all come out of our general fund people have said, you know just close the Community Center and you could find money there. Dave Kuntz, The Community Center anything that it doesn't generate is transferred from a and I it's not a burden on our. Dave Kuntz, General fund, the only optional. John Potter, Department in the general fund is speed cameras, I would say, and it pays for itself in fact it's a it's a net positive so it's not a burden on the general fund. John Potter, So it's easy to say you know just find the money somewhere else, I think you guys have seen our general from problems over time, and I think that you've seen how. John Potter, Hard we've scrubbed that and it's going to be very difficult to find a lot of money in there without very significant cuts. The other problem is that our general fund is salaries. I mean 70% as people. So if you're gonna cut cost in the general fund, that means people, and that is going to mean service cuts. We can talk about that as much as you guys would like. But as you know, we're already understaffed in a lot of places. Yvette said the general fund ran a deficit of 1.3 million last year. We're going to be underwater again this year. So that utilizes reserves, which is fine. That's why we have reserves and we know this is coming. So there's nothing to panic about. We still have okay reserves, but it's not sustainable. People have said, and we thought about, well, what if we keep the subsidy coming from tobacco and from marijuana, but we backfill the million dollars that's coming from the general fund itself. We could even throw some speed camera money in there. The problem with that, there's a couple problems, but the main problem with that is that those sources of revenue are designed to be declining over time. And that's why we put those in to modify a behavior. So we hope those goes down. We want those to go down. But at the end of the day, those dollars will still have to compete with the rest of our budget. I mean, there's no way around that. The model in Colorado is to fully fund your fire department and property or sales taxes. 80% of fire departments in Colorado are districts, which means by definition, they're fully funded. There are some that are subsidized by a general fund or other places. Those that are funded that way are trying to change the way that they're funded. This is not just us. I mean, this is happening to everybody around us. We are not in this alone. The other thing is, if we were smart, you know we'd be increasing reserves in the next few years. We need to get this city ready for what's coming, and a better target. We've got about 11,000,000 in general fund reserves. A better target 10 years from now is going to be closer to $20,000,000. So we really need to focus on putting some money in the bank when times are relatively good right now. So on the revenue side, We've talked about a tax increase. Everybody else is in the same boat. We think a property tax and not a sales tax is what's going to fit us best. Colorado, what was it, Division of Fire Prevention, I think, has a needs assessment that went out. And I think 79% of agencies said that they don't have the resources that they need right now. So again, we're not in this alone. So we turned around and we said, all right, if we're going to raise $3.7 million, we need to add 8.4 mills in the city, which would cost a taxpayer $525 per year per million dollars of home value. And in the district, we'd add 5.8 mills, which would cost a taxpayer in the district about $360 per year per mill in addition to what they're paying today. So we went into the polling because the question is, you know, is this going to pass right? So the polling came back probably about like you would expect. On the top of this graphic here, you see the city and on the bottom in the green is the district. So people were asked a couple of questions. The first ask was, would you pass a tax at this number of dollars to raise the full 3.7? And the result of that came back that 56% of voters said that they would vote to pass that. 9% were undecided and 35% said no. We also asked the question, okay, if you're not gonna pass that, would you pass a smaller tax and raise roughly half of that amount? And that came back, and it said, Well, 56% of people would pass it at the higher rate. So we're assuming they would say yes, and then 15% of remaining voters said they would either consider it or pass it. So set another way. If you don't vote for it at the big tax, you're 85% more likely to not vote for it at the smaller tax. John Potter, 56% in the city is within the standard error, the margin of error, but barely margin of error is about five and a half. Right? So that means that if you add five and a half to that fifty-six target, you're ninety-five percent sure that you're going to come in there somewhere. So this is vulnerable in the city. We don't know that it would pass Dave Kuntz, In the district, it looked a little bit better it came in at about 73% and it was same kind of characteristics, for the most part, but it has a much better chance in the district we don't worry so much about that. Okay. These questions were asked with no information. Your numbers generally go up as voters get more educated. They become more likely to pass a tax the more they know if it's a thoughtful ballot measure that goes on the ballot. At the same time, there are a lot of voters that will answer yes today. And then when they get their ballot in the mail, they're like, look at all of these damn taxes. And we're at the very end behind state, behind county. And enough is enough. So there are people that poll yes and vote no. That's why it's vulnerable. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, So we ran some numbers and we started thinking about alternatives i'm going to turn it back over to Yvette and she can tell you kind of here's where we are today and then here's what we pulled. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And then out of that and some discussions with the rural board and financial advisory board and others sort of a third option kind of presented itself so i'd like her just to go through those real quickly for you.

So as you can see where we are right now, this is what we're currently raising is the $4.7 million and the mills that are contributed to the rural fire and the city. So plan A was what we pulled, which was the 5.8 in the rural, 8.4 in the city, which overall would raise $8.4 million. which would then increase 362, again, per mil per year for rural and 525 per mil per million for the city. So in talking to Rural Fire and since their numbers came back a little bit, we thought, well, maybe we can just adjust this a little bit to make it a little more palatable. So what we had talked to them about was changing theirs to 6.1, which would then bring their totals to 381.25 per year, and then lowering the city's to 7.9, bringing it down to 493. that would give us 8.3. We'd be about $140,000 short of the total 3.7 that we need. So those were the plans. Again, Steve did some AI-ing. looking around at different things and tried to figure out a balance between the two, and this is kind of where we came down to. We talked to the rural fire, and they seemed very supportive. They're ready to put attacks on, and I think that they had decided they would probably agree to this one. Their meeting is next Tuesday. They kind of wanted to see how you guys were feeling about things, too, before they did their final vote. also talked to fab and they they voted unanimous unanimously to support this and again nobody gets on these boards to pass taxes right no that's not fun that's not what people want to do they asked a lot of questions we've done a lot of homework we've dug through this and again they both are very supportive of this so um with that i will from the final to steve

Okay, so that's really about it for the presentation. If we decide we're going to put something on the ballot, just to be clear, we're going to take a beating. You know from the same people that we take a beating from every time, and I understand it, you know I don't like taxes, either, and they're going to say prioritize better and they're going to say be more efficient manage the department better. they're going to say find the money in other places and they're going to say first thing you guys do when you have a financial problems go out to the voters and get more money we're going to hear all of that. I think that there is a case to be made to consider putting this on the ballot to see what voters say, right? I mean, at some point that is really the ultimate poll, right? And I think that our plan at that point would be to have a lot of open houses. We're planning to do two of them per week, all of September and all of October. And we'll do them at different stations. We'll do them in the morning. We'll do them in the evening. We'll do them on the weekends. And we want to encourage everybody to come and talk to us and look at it. And the people that are skeptical of it, I really would like them to come and see us. This is a different tax than our street tax. You know, plan B, if the street tax didn't pass, wasn't the end of the world, right? If we really start losing our firefighters, that becomes a crisis. And we need to be paying attention to that. So with that, I think I'm done talking. I will open it up to questions and see what comments and discussions you guys would like to have.

Thank you, Steve and Yvette. And we'll start with questions from Council Townsend.

So a couple of questions. One is, I read through the piece that you sent out, and then you've brought it up again tonight, the tobacco and the marijuana tax. One of the pieces that you put in there is that there's opportunity lost for not using those for something else. I pretty much think that opportunity and fire is much more important than anything else. But is there other things that you were thinking, okay, we would use these for this, or would you just say, we're going to go spend this somewhere else versus... John Pimentel, opening those up that are not continuing to use them.

No, I don't think we would just go spend those somewhere else. The concern that I would have is, you know, if you roll the clock forward three or four years, we may have a bigger problem in the police department than we have in the fire department, and it would be Council's prerogative to look at that and take those dollars and reroute them somewhere else. We earned about $900,000 in property, excuse me, in tobacco and marijuana tax. We transferred about 700 of that into the fire department. So I agree with what you're saying that right now, if we just said, let's keep that subsidy kind of coming in, that would be fine. And we would not prioritize those dollars over anything else. The other thing to consider is it is a declining revenue stream. It's not declining super quickly, but it is declining a little bit. So if we want to solve the problem, that's what we've brought forward here. I don't think it is. We've thought about just backfilling the million dollars and continuing the subsidies from tobacco and marijuana. And that's not an unreasonable option. If you guys want to consider that, we can certainly do that. We've given a lot of thought to it. I think that's a very fair question.

Is is that just continuing my question for a sec? Is that possible that if if if we put this ballot out there and we got it, let's say it was plan B, and we had a fair amount of money coming in to cover what we need to cover. Did we continue to use that money and put it into where it collects in our reserve account?

Also a great question right now we're subsidizing, and we never have a surplus in the fire department, right? So to your point, that means we can never build a fund balance in there. That is wrong. I mean, we need to build for the fire department a fund balance that they know is there, so they can plan over a 5 year period. So the answer to your question is yes.

Okay. And then the third thing that I was going to bring up, but you brought it up before I did is speed camera money and road safety. Is there a way to tie the 2 of those together where some of those funds, after paying the program for itself, could be used? I don't know how you tie it. Can we tie that back in?

Absolutely. You guys can use those funds however you want by state statute. We have a policy that you guys adopted because that's best practice. We would probably need to change that policy. But yes, you guys could change that policy and reroute those dollars into the fire department directly if you chose to do that. I will say everybody thinks that we're, you know, millionaires and rolling and speed cameras. It is a strong revenue stream for us, but we only collect about 41% of what we actually bill. So it's not as strong a revenue stream as people think it is. But yes, those dollars are yours to do with what you would like.

And I would assume those are going to decline too, but it seems as they decline, that might give us a place to build those reserves ahead of time. Yes, I agree with that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Smith.

Thank you. The original proposal or this new variation which is kind of shifting more to the rural would actually end up generating the full 3.7 needed?

Yes, but I'll qualify that by saying I'm not going to stand here and tell you that we'll never have to subsidize our fire department again. We may very well have to do that. I mean, you know, costs are going up quickly and our sales tax revenue does not keep up with what's happening in salaries and particularly in the fire and EMS world. So yes, is the answer with the qualification that you guys still may need to subsidize the fire department with other funds.

Thanks for that double answer, because that's kind of my second question. How long does this reprieve last?

We would probably put this on the ballot, I would think, for 20 years. In theory, this reprieve can make this work if our property taxes rise at the same level that inflation rises. We'd be fine. If we get to a point 10 years down the road or whatever that we would need to go back out, I think that's possible. I feel fairly confident, though, unless something really weird happens that this reprieve, as you call it, would last for the next 10 years. I wouldn't expect to be going out anytime soon to ask for more money.

The estimate of $525 per million dollars of property value is the result of this increase or that would be the total that somebody would be paying?

It would be the result of the increase.

How much are they already paying?

It would roughly double. So already paying about $550 or $560, I think.

Thanks. Yes. Brett KenCairn, Somewhere along the way, we saw that. Brett KenCairn, I think the number was roughly 60% of the calls or 60% of the responses, whichever the sanction that is is ambulances is different from hot fires that roughly right.

Brett KenCairn, Yes 6564.

Is it correspondingly 60% of the department's cost goes to ambulance or are fire responses more expensive or less expensive than ambulance responses?

EMS is more costly. They take more time. We have more calls. I think, is more costly. We don't do a lot of fire mitigation right now. Proactive mitigation. We do some because we've gotten some grants recently, so we've made some progress on that. So in theory, our fire portion of that, if you add that in, if we were able to kind of get that into the budget, that would even it out some.

Thank you. Fire feels like just a basic municipal service or district service. In other worlds, maybe larger communities, there are private ambulance services. How does that work? Is that just a contracting service or are there for-profit ambulance services that can, if we just quit providing ambulance by the city, would somebody step up?

B. in theory, that is possible. Yeah, i'll let you comment on this, because he knows more about it than I do. The last time we looked at that there was not a contractor that was interested in taking it, because we simply weren't big enough for them to generate enough revenue to cover their costs.

I like law enforcement. If that were to happen to our police department, the sheriff's office is obligated to come in and take over law enforcement and policing services. That is not the case in the medical world. So nobody's under any kind of statute that they have to come in. Those are for profit businesses. In my previous jurisdictions on the West Coast, they've some places have adopted that model. Some places out in the metro area have adopted that model. And they fall apart very quickly because they typically can't meet the response time demand. It's contract. They're not contractually obligated to. Then they end up getting into places. They need to pay the city fines because they can't meet those obligations. And because they're in for profit, they don't want to provide us with the necessary ambulances that we require here. So currently we have three. They might come in and say, we can do it for two or with two ambulances. And as you can imagine quickly. Now we're outsourcing that to either call in a neighboring jurisdiction. Or pay for that service from private vendor, another private vendor. So. lots of different studies that indicate that that is not at all an industry best practice or best practices for a municipality.

Thanks very much. Last question on a chart in the white paper, a chart on page 11, I believe, that kind of summarizes where the money would go. There's a little note that bubbles up Sorry, I thought I had it on the right page. Pardon me for the delay. That lists in the column what is being considered address an aging, outgrown facility. Are we contemplating some of the 3.7 million going to station number one?

Yes, there's some of that. Station number one's falling apart, right?

And we know that, but this money would do it?

Yes. When we collect this money, some of it goes into equipment, and that funds some of it goes into operations. Same thing with rural. Some of it comes to equipment, and some comes to operations. So yes, this increase in tax revenue would float both of those boats.

And actually float a new station. Or is that going to be some additional grant money?

That's not quite that easy. It would fund, I think, the land by the station. I mean, we've been saving up for it a little bit. Then we're looking at about a $20 million check we'd have to write for a fire station. That would take us going out and raising debt, probably against that asset. So we would use the dollars to go into the capital equipment fund to service that debt. So I think it's possible. I've run a lot of numbers on it and looked at a lot of different ways, but I feel pretty comfortable that at this level we could get both of those things done.

Thank you, because that strikes me as maybe another selling point to highlight in addition to better pay, better retention, better overall fiscal responsibility. a new building.

Yeah, we're gonna have to do something. I mean, that building is functionally in terms of persuading the voters.

That might be one part of the persuasion. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? How's the one?

Steve, with like plan A and plan B that you had kind of flashed up there earlier, it's about a 70-30 contribution mix, right? Does that line up with where we go, where the calls are as well?

Dave Kuntz, yeah I looked at that in a lot of different ways I looked at it by call volume I looked at it by distance of call and by call type and by. Dave Kuntz, I mean everything that I could think of and everything came back really pretty much in the same place, which is right around that 7030 so i'm pretty comfortable with that allocations, thank you.

Dave Kuntz, All right, thank you any other questions. Dave Kuntz, Okay, if I see none now last the public quick see if they have any questions. comments and online. I see nothing in the room. I see nothing. From what I understand is we don't need to take final action on this or anything. That's just informative. I guess the the real question is next next meeting. Yes. If we're going to put this on the ballot or not, from what I understand. And at that point, we're not allowed to talk about it anymore. Is that how it goes, Carl?

Yeah. Once you make that final decision, and I'll get a memo out to you that provides, since this is the first one the group has gone through on the Fair Campaign Practices Act, but essentially at that point, you no longer can sort of advocate around it, at least from the dais or with city equipment or your city email, that kind of thing. You'll have an opportunity if you want to, to do a resolution of support. That is the one thing as a body that you can do. And if you decide you want to do that, we're allowed to under the statute of staff to help you draft that. But that's the one act you can do. But yeah, pretty much the next meeting will be the end of it. And in terms of advocacy.

Right. Right. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks, Steve. Thanks.

Just to finish up a thought, you know, the idea of continuing to push money from tobacco and marijuana into the fire fund is something that we thought a lot about. And I think I remember right, the $493 goes to about $406 per year per million. If we went that route in the three hundred and twenty-five in the district, went for the three hundred and sixty-three, went down to about three hundred and twenty-five. So there is a little bit of savings there. The polling would suggest that it's not going to fail at three hundred and sixty-three, but pass at three hundred and twenty-five, and given the needs that we've got to build resources and and reserves in the general fund and all the other things that we've talked to. I owe you guys my best. This is the solution which is plan B. But I would be very happy to come back and present a plan C that does that and show you guys kind of what that looks like. I want to be able to say that we didn't ask for a penny more than we need.

Right.

So I think that's an incredible plan C. So what that would look like is probably us bringing back another presentation, a plan C, you guys would have a couple of things to choose from, and we would probably have to draft Carl both of those.

Yeah. We'd have it set up with a couple of different alternatives for you, which, honestly, we almost always end up doing, getting up to that last meeting, because you guys are dialing in language you like and what it looks like and the number you want. So we'd give you some options. Been there.

Yeah, Council towns.

I brought this up at one of our work sessions, but another piece that in reading some things the other day comes up in November. You're going to have probably the school district something as well. That's also when everybody's going to their work and getting their new bills for what their health insurance is going to cost next year, and that's going to be really significant. So I think You know, you talk about it like somebody may pull well now, and then all of a sudden they look at that, and they go there, and I just sign up at work, and my cost for my health insurance program went up 20%, 15%, whatever that's going to be, depending on their Hmo or whoever I think we should be very cognizant of of what's happening to people's personal budgets around this time frame.

100%. 100% agree. It's happening in other places. They're passing in other jurisdictions, not by a lot in a lot of cases, but they generally are passing in other places. And our polling firm did say, you're vulnerable in the city. We're pretty confident in the district. But if you're going to go, this is the time to go. That was their advice to us.

Those other costs are going to be pretty significant when somebody looks at going, do I really want to do this or not?

Thank you, council small.

And then, and then behind that is the plan for four to six more police officers. So. I got that dark financial cloud over my head all the time about where this is all going to come from.

This is real. It's absolutely real. We've got upward pressure on prices, meaning salaries, in a couple of different ways. We're moving along our demand curve, which pushes prices up, and the whole thing is shifting right now. This is real and it's not insignificant. I also think that if we're going to go with plan c and continue a subsidy from tobacco and marijuana and carl can correct me if i'm wrong on this but we might want to consider some kind of a resolution or an ordinance that says we will transfer the first 700 000 of tobacco and marijuana and speed camera money into fire that doesn't mean somebody else can't change it in the future but they would actually have to take You know, a legislative action to overturn the decision that you guys have made there. I don't think we would need to do that next meeting, Carl. But that's something that we might want to consider.

Yeah, regardless of what you decide to do. We'll probably we always like to have what we call an implementation ordinance. on in september ish so that the public knows exactly how it's going to look in code as that tax is implemented where it goes what it's you know a little bit fleshing out a little bit of details because as you know tax questions are pretty bare bones and oddly worded and so we like to have something a little more user friendly okay excellent anything else

No. Okay, great. Thank you.

Okay. So I want to make sure I'm clear on my direction.

Um, I think the direction is plan B and plan C. Okay. That's how I heard it. But don't correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you. Excellent. So, for the sake of time. I would love to skip council comments. Hold them for next. I think. Yeah, there you go. Aaron. We've talked enough. I'll hold them for next time, but I do want to go through city administration quick anything else. Just so we're updated.

Yeah, right. Um, I think that there's nothing on my list that is very important. We did, however, and seeing that Matt is still here, maybe I'll ask him to do this. I was going to give you guys a quick update on a little bit of an anomaly that we discovered in our water. department that we're looking into. It is happening to a number of customers, a fairly small number, but it's happening. So I thought Matt might want to give us an update on what that looks like. Two minutes.

Yeah, I won't bring up any names, but we did have a customer that had gone away for a month, came back, and their water bill was quite high still. They didn't realize that the meter that was within their home had stopped functioning. And when that happens, the finance department looks at it, says it's a zero read. We do some estimates and put a number to it until the meter is fixed. So it was an assumption basically moving forward. And since they were gone for an entire month, they shouldn't have used any water. They noticed the bill was different. So this is, you know, I'm aware of 26 of them at this point that we have from Wait, 26 of these that we have right now from one software program, if we're going out replacing them, those 26 have actually been noticed, noticed, noticed, and now threatened to have their water shut off because they won't return our phone calls to replace the meter. That's kind of their own issue. If you look at what finance can produce, it's significantly higher than that. And if you look at what our other software produces, it's somewhere in the middle. So we're meeting with finance on Monday to try to kind of figure out this situation of which one is right which meters need to be replaced which ones are the oldest um and obviously we have a hundreds of meters at this point that we have available to us and that's why we bought a whole bunch of meters was to start getting ahead of some of this um and some of the older meters that we know are gonna die here soon because the batteries die So just be aware that it is a situation that we are working with. It has been ongoing for a little while. We're trying to rectify it. We have a meeting on Monday to kind of get water and finance together to resolve the situation associated with it. At the end of the day, if we turn your water back on and the calculations that finances put together is too high or too low, you get a credit or you get a smaller bill, but it's better than being zero, zero, zero, zero. You owe us 27,000 gallons of water kind of thing. So it's a little bit of a fine balance, but just wanted you to know it does happen. And like I said, in some cases, people just won't return our phone calls. We can't get in their house to replace the meter. So it's kind of their own fault. In these other cases, it's us catching back up with dead batteries. And the joke was, we made the joke earlier is like, somebody in 20 years is going to hate me because they're all going to die at one time. And you have same day, and you have to try to keep back up with replace on. Right. Just be aware of it. Well, I'll do a little staff memo when we kind of come to decisions and clarify it a little bit. And we'll send it to Steve and he can send it to all of you. So if you have further questions, you can let us know.

All right. Sounds good. Thanks for letting us know. That's it for me. All right. Excellent. Carl. nothing this evening thanks excellent thank you correspondence nope nothing i'm also going to skip uh item 16 tonight i think it's too late for that so with that i'm entertaining a motion to adjourn council question question for chief okay yes sir have you given out any tickets for uh noise ordinance noise not that i'm working yes

hoping we can get some of those out someday.

Well, there's a lot that I would like to do for sure. But again, you know, we have, I know, you know, so yeah, absolutely. Um, on my personal time, my kids even talk about, you know, these guys, these loud motorcycles or these, uh, modified exhaust violations. It's very, very frustrating. Absolutely. So we're not in disagreement there.

Yeah, right. I live on Midland. I hear them anyway, entertaining emotion to adjourn. Please use the mics.

Uh, so move.

Please use the mics I just said. Thank you, Mayor Prokoczynski.

Move to adjourn.

And I need a second with the mic.

Second.

Okay. And with that, I'll ask for the question. One more button push. There we go.

Mitchell. Mitchell. Mitchell.

Mitchell wants to stay.