Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Time being 6:14, I call to order the city of Gwood Springs City Council meeting, November 20th, 2025. This is our regular meeting. um for the end of November. Welcome everyone. Good evening. And Ryan, would you please take a roll call? Mayor Dame here. Mayor Prom Zalinski, Councelor Townsley, Councelor Schmall, Councelor Wymer here, councelor Shaker, councelor Smith, we have a quorum. Thank you, Ryan. Uh, agenda changes and I was informed that we are eliminating the executive session.

Yes. So, item 19 is scratched off the agenda for tonight. You like that?

Uh, any uh council conflicts of interest for tonight? See none, we'll move on. Item four, citizens appearing before council um for items that are not on the agenda. Also see none. Move on to council announcements. Any announcements? We'll start with uh Mayor Prom Sinski, please. I had the um honor to attend um the Colorado Water Conservation Board meeting down in Denver um representing Glenwood Springs and uh speak on behalf of the Shishon Water Rights Acquisition and I'm happy to report that they unanimously approved um supporting that uh with a pretty extensive uh collaborative process between the the major entities. And uh I I think Carl, do you want to kind of add to that history?

Um yeah. So I I I was going to do this on my report, but I'll do it now. Um I just wanted to first start by saying thank you to probably the 10 prior councils before you guys because in 2003 or 2004, we were asked by the river district to participate in the negotiation of the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement uh on behalf of the Middle River. Really? Um Rifle also joined us in that. Um that agreement was signed in 2014. A component of that was to make the Shosonyi water rights permanent. Uh so over then the next 10 years we began negotiating with uh public service and um Andy Mueller, former partner of mine, uh took over the role as a general manager for the the river district a few years ago and really pushed this forward. And I have to say uh huge thanks to to he and his team. uh Peter Fleming on the legal side and and all of those folks, they did an amazing job pushing this forward and um the the acquisition is really of the water right and then a donation of that water right to the Colorado Water Conservation Board as an instream flow right um with co-management responsibility reserved to the to the Western Slope as well. Um, that was really the core of yesterday's hearing was talking through how important and that's what Mayor Prom Zalinsky testified on as well as other elected officials from up and down the Colorado River was the importance of co-management of this water right and its important importance to the western slope. Um, and that our investments um you know a total of about $5.2 $2 million is coming from the entities in Garfield County, two million from the city of Glenwood Springs, three million from Garfield County, and the in the balance from other jurisdictions within the county. This is a monumental first step. We still have to go to water court for that change of use for that water right. Um,

and I also want to note that um, councelor Smith was there as well and was working the room ahead of Mayor Promin and I getting there and I very much appreciate him being there. At one point they asked um, for the West Slope to stand up to show their numbers and probably twothirds of the room or threequarters of the room was from the western slope. Probably 80 people stood up that were there had made the time from the Utah border to the headarters up in Summit and Grand County. Um, so anyway, I wanted to say thank you to everybody that has invol been involved because over those 20 or 22 or 24 years, we've been engaged in this process to protect the Colorado River. Every single council has supported that uh has pushed it forward and I know that it landed on the last council and this council to write one of the largest checks um that you will write while you're sitting on council more than likely and for something that is just incredibly important to the community. incredibly important to the western slope. So, I want to thank you guys. I want to thank all of your predecessors and it is just, you know, it was a huge victory for the western slope um for the Colorado River and frankly for the state of Colorado. So, anyway, I really appreciate it. Thanks, guys.

Thank you for the information. Anything to add? No, I just I just wanted to highlight that. Okay. Excellent. Thank you for all that. Uh any other announcements, Councelor Smith? just to I assume that it was because councelor Sinsky spoke that they approved it in the

um Historic Preservation Commission um at their last meeting discussed and then later discovered um details about the the historic hardware along the railroad corridor that parallels the river trail within Glenwood Springs. commission wanted to get that stuff just in case it might be prove useful. Uh turned out raft had hauled it to Carbondale or somewhere maybe to West Glennwood because it was getting vandalized. Um there was an exchange of letters with Emry's great help and um and Rafta is responding. We we were able to confirm at the RAFTA board meeting last week that they got the the request from from the commission and so they're teaming up to get that stuff back. Um planning Planning and Zoning Commission had a what to me struck me as kind of a remarkable meeting earlier in the week. Um whereas we we know that they're very conscientious about checking the code and and reviewing plans and posing stipulations and kind of working in boxes. They had a whole meeting uh facilitated by by staff Watkins and Trent to uh just think and imagine and talk about housing in particular. There was a whole meeting talking about housing innovations for Glennwood Springs. I I sat in on it just to just to learn and it was really impressive. So, I think uh similar conversations overlapping with the workforce housing advisory board is going to start to bring some tangible um proposals um to for the council to consider. So, that that was fun. Um on November 11th, 111 at approximately 111 in the morning, uh several of us attended a lunchon at the community center for Veterans Day. Uh, city staff apparently has long by long

tradition invited all city employees who are military veterans to show up for a free meal and some of us were there to have some pretty pretty remarkable and enjoyable uh conversations and learned a lot and it was nice to to be in on that and thanks especially to Sarah who was here for organizing all the details of that. Thank you. Thank you. And just real quick to follow up on the counselor sitting in on the PNZ meeting. Um since there was no active land use application that was perfectly fine, but I did get permission first. Thank you. Once we have a land use, I'd like to let you know that we shouldn't do that.

But if it was just a work session, I think that's perfectly copacetic. So, uh just a reminder. All good. Any other announcements? Okay, we'll see none. Thank you, Councelor Smith. We'll move on to the consent agenda. And I am entertaining a motion to move that forward. And we got the mayor prominski. I would like to move that we approve the cassette agenda. Thank you. We have a motion to approve. Council shar.

I second the motion and a second. Any discussion on the consent? I would just like to u express appreciation for Christopher Sherro to continue um serving on the bail board. Thank you for mentioning that. Uh any other discussion? See none. All in favor say I. I. I. And those opposed?

We'll see none. Thank you. Uh moving on to action and or presentations. And uh from what I see, we have a a whole bunch of housekeeping items. So, uh, let's see if we can, uh, get this knocked out tonight in a decent amount of time. So, I'm going to start with Watkins for the, uh, combine of the housing commission and the, I can't say it, workforce housing financial advisory board. Sure. WFAB. That's it. WFAB. WFAB. WHFAB. It all works. That's right.

Anyway, thank you all, council. Um, I don't have any presentation for you all tonight. I think what I want to say is pretty much just in the packet. It's a continuation of uh informal discussion you all had on August 7th when there's a joint work session with WHFAB. Um so housing commission has been really valuable to the city. Um and I want to make sure that that we know that um you know combining it with WHAB doesn't reduce their importance. Uh it's just kind of an efficiency thing that we see and it's also the appropriate time to do it. So, the ordinance that I've drafted for you guys would um add all the powers and duties that are currently assigned in the code from housing commission to WHFAB. And that's kind of all we're doing.

Sounds great. Thank you. Thanks for that. Any questions? I have a quick question. Is there any open seats once we combine? Um yeah. Well, we're not when we're combining, we're not putting the members on them. that's going to be a separate item that that there'll be um there'll be interviews and then you guys will have to appoint them. Um so currently on WHAB there is one open seat and then one seat available for a high school student specifically and then three alternate positions available. Okay. Because um well the reason I'm asking is I I I knew a couple of people that applied to the housing commission. They were told not to apply because we're most likely going to combine the boards.

Yep. So if they're interested in joining the new board, I can encourage them to do that again. Absolutely. Okay. Excellent. Great. Any other questions? When Mayor Prom Solinsky, would you like to talk? When um when does that board meet because they didn't meet at the same time. So what would be the new time? Um they meet the WHFAB meets uh the second Tuesday of the month 4:15 here. Okay. Yeah. Yes. Here in city council chambers.

In the chambers. Okay. Excellent. Anything else? No, that was it. Any other questions? No, it's an ordinance. Uh anybody from the public? See none. Close the public portion. Uh bring it back to us entertaining a motion in item seven ordinance 2025-30. Council Shack. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, regarding ordinance 2025-30 amending title 20 to combine the housing commission workforce housing financial advisory board. I move that we accept the recommendation and do the combination. Excellent. Motion to approve. Looking for a second. Oh, councelor Townsley. Second.

Thank you. Motion to second to approve. Any discussion on council's end? We see none. It's an ordinal ordinance. I'll call for the question. We'll do it electronically.

It passes 70. Thank you, Ryan. Uh, item 8, ordinance 202536, code amendment regarding restaurant drive-thru use in the re zone district. And that's Emry tonight.

Uh, so Emry Alex, community development. I'll be sharing my screen for presentation. Okay. Okay. So, here we go. Uh, so this item is a code text amendment uh for a uh potential change in the zoning table uh very specific in scope uh just regards one use uh being drive-through restaurants. Um so again topic for tonight uh this was went to the planning and zoning commission meeting on October 28th where they made a recommendation for approval. Um just as a reminder, any code amendment to title 70, which is all development code, um does go first to planning and zoning commission for recommendation and then to city council for final um review. And so again uh in code we have table of allowed uses which identifies uh many uses in the city and you can either have something be permitted by right and so that's where you see the P uh can be a special use which that goes under special review where planning and zoning commission would make a decision whether that use would be approved or not or it can be prohibited and that's where you see the blanks and so in this case uh you can see restaurant as a use is permitted and a lot uh zoning districts. And then we have a restaurant with the drive-thru called out a little special and that's actually not a buy right use anywhere in the city. It's always a special use um except for as identified here in the resort zoning district. Um so that's

what's being proposed tonight is just this small change right here would be to make the drive-through restaurant a special use permit like it is um in some other zoning districts around town. And then the main difference, you know, when is a restaurant a drive-through? Well, when it has a drive-thru or a walk up counter. Um, so a little bit different of a use is why it's separated. Um, so the resort zoning district, not a lot of properties in town are in the resort zoning district. It's fairly limited. Uh, so we have in total there's nine parcels in town. Uh, two of them being around 27th Street, uh, which those are both built out as residential. Um, also senior living, uh, Iron Mountain Hot Springs area and then the third area is in Glenwood Meadows. You see those parcels over there, some of which have been built out as hotels. some of which are vacant. As you probably may recall, there was a major site development plan which you all approved for a hotel on this parcel 8. Um, parcel 9 is currently vacant. The developer has proposed ideas for a drive-thru there. Um, but that's, uh, again, nothing's been approved. Um, so the criteria for text amendment to code, uh, findings in the staff report indicated recommendation for approval. We'll just go through these five quickly. Um so one is just that it's consistent with comprehensive plan and so you can see you know talking about Glennwood's role as a regional commercial center so having more available commercial uses for property obviously opens that up uh and then also just attract and retain different businesses. Um two doesn't conflict with other provisions of the code. Um so the resort zoning district already allows other drive-through uses for personal services and banks. So it's not like that's not a concept for other uses. Um, this one just happened to not be included. Uh, and then also the special use permit still allows for a case by case review. Um, so the idea with the special use is that there might be some effects from the use that need to be mitigated like noise, traffic, lighting, things like that. So adding it as a special use, the city doesn't lose its

ability to review kind of a case by case basis. It just allows that person to submit a special use permit. And then again, other commercial focused zoning districts already allow it as a special use. So it's kind of more in line with the similar zoning districts. Um three, necessary to address a demonstrated community need. Um so it could attract new restaurants to the community and then also just kind of that need for a diverse economic base. Uh four necessary to respond to substantial conditions um changes. So there's definitely been over if you think about um you know last 20 years kind of a change in fast food restaurants uh where you see more chains uh adding that concept whether it be kind of like a fast casual like a Chipotle or even a place that used to be more traditionally sit down like a Chili's or an Applebee's um which again um and then we don't lose that ability to review for location specific concerns. And then finally just that it's consistent with general purpose and intent on some of those things I covered about drive-throughs being allowed for other uses. Um so again, so planning and zoning commission had a recommendation for approval. Um coming to you for final review tonight.

Okay, excellent. Thank you, Emry. Uh back to council for questions. Council. So Emry, the special use permit designation still allows you the ability to evaluate the specific request in specific location. I'm especially reminded of your photograph there of an In-N-Out burger place. I've been to a number of them in Colorado that when they were fairly new and the traffic impact is incredible

regardless of the capacity of how many lanes and how many people. So it warrants special use consideration. Thank you. Any other questions? Councelor Townsley. Maybe I don't know comment question but And it probably doesn't have to pertain with approving this, but are we ahead of where we want to be signage wise? Just, you know, I remember when I looked through these the first time, are we ahead to we're not going to all of a sudden have somebody going, "Okay, we've got two big yellow arches here with with people putting in fast food restaurants and are we where we want to be?"

Sure. That's a good question. So, this a special use permit wouldn't address signage necessarily. that would be done with a sign permit which uh as far as signs go uh similar to zoning we also have sign districts throughout town uh which stipulate things like height, size, illumination. Um so that would be you know if there was a development coming in the special use permit would cover the use itself and then signage would be separately reviewed and permitted. Okay. I guess then my question is with with signage going back to signage are we where we want to be signage wise with are we happy with how those are we just letting people kind of come in and that's your traditional sign.

Yeah. So I would say so with those sign districts we've identified because definitely in Glenwood if you think you have the I7 corridor that has a different need for signage than maybe Grand or Highway 82. So that those sign districts, the regulations that go along with it generally are uh in tune with what the needs and compatibility of those areas. So what you see on I70 is different than what you would see um in Glenwood Meadows. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Councilor Sher,

thank you. I won't talk about sign code tonight. We Thank you for bringing it up. Um question looking at looking at the map and looking at our table of allowed use of allowed uses. I guess one of the questions and this isn't directly related but it's related in the resort zoning district one and two is that the correct zoning for that district given what's there number one and that's maybe a question for PNZ down the road given how it's evolved and and related to that another question would be hey if we approve special use I guess the question is can be Can PNZ deny or only put on conditions

with the special use permit? Yes, if that were to come back uh both they can. Okay. And so related to that one, I have a question just based on the map of the correct zoning of that particular area and also maybe another question down the road is why does M2 not have that special use? That you don't have to answer me now. It's just a question. Thank you. Well, the M2 is I mean M2 is your downtown core, so I think just downtown core. Well, then there's there also is the area in Glenwood Meadows as well and that's a little bit denser. So, thank you. Yeah.

Any other questions? I just I'm just curious to know h who initiated this, who how does how was this brought forward? So it came about um so this has been in code since our change in 2018 and it was also prior to that code change resort zoning district or the equivalent of it before didn't have drive-through uses. And so really what happened was is when this hotel development came through and staff we started having conversations about their desired concept. Then we realized that oh there's you know in the in the use table right

it's blank. And then when we looked at it and considered, well, how is this this zoning district is a highintensity commercial zoning district similar to CL, similar to mixed use, uh why is this not here? And so staff looked at it as a way of providing a little more flexibility. um it's not being done for that developer, but the fact that they have gone through that, expressed that interest, made us realize that there's kind of that lack of flexibility in our in our zoning because again, special use, it still has to be reviewed, but when it's a prohibited use, that conversation ends. It's not allowed. Right. So,

right, makes sense. Okay, great. Thank you. Uh if I see no more questions, I'll open it up to the public for public comment. Seeing none, we'll close the public portion, bring it back to council, and entertaining a motion in ordinance 2025-36. Code amendments regarding restaurant drive-thru use on the uh within the re zone district. Councelor Shak or let me get the right ordinance number here. Sorry, I apologize. Um yeah, Mr. Mayor, regarding uh ordinance 2025-36, um the restaurant drive-thru use and resort zoning district. I recommend approval of the staff recommendation.

Thank you. We have a motion to approve. Second. Uh Mayor Proinsky. Second.

Uh we have a motion and second to approve. Any more discussion on our side? We got councelor Smith. Thank you. I will oppose this motion uh based in the kind of both the practical and the points of principle uh related to traffic as councelor Schmal highlighted these can be readily become high traffic generators um we should be looking for ways to reduce even eliminate drive-th through commercial facilities not adding new opportunities for them I think that the staff has very conscientiously gone through the basic criteria um and found the the the references that that fulfill those criteria for making this recommendation and took that to PNZ and PNZ recommends it. Those considerations, those criteria did not include several city document references to traffic and pollution generations that come from a facility like this. the the city's climate action plan uh at action number T2.2.2 uh says to employ further enforcement of the city's vehicle idling policy. That's a little off the mark, but it kind of kind of sends the signal that we're we're a town that's trying to seek reduction in idling and the pollution that that comes with that. Uh it also does not consider the comprehensive plans transportation strategy regarding transportation demand management that the city should as it states in there um seek implement incentives and disincentives to support increasing the non-driving mode share for both local and regional trips within and to Glenwood Springs. It also does not consider the comp plan climate and

hazards strategy on carbon reduction which directs uh city activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And it doesn't consider the very active uh transportation demand management, transportation management organization process that we just heard about tonight where we are working hard to reduce car trips and car idling and car pollution for traffic reasons, for climate reasons, for local comfort reasons. Uh this is a small step, but it's another step the wrong direction on this measure. Thanks very much. Thank you, Councelor Smith. Councelor Wymer,

I just want to clarify that this and make sure that that everybody here understands what we're doing with this. Presently, drive-through restaurants are used by right? Nope. No. No. Special use review? No. In other zone districts, they're special use. Right now in this zone district it's not permitted but we're going from highity by right no use sorry we're going from not permitted to special use of use. Okay. Thank you. Thank you councelor Shakar.

I appreciate councelor Smith's perspective because generally we should probably not do anything to encourage vehicular support. I do anecdotally notice downtown what I think anecdotally is maybe one of our busiest takeout restaurants is only available on foot. Doesn't seem to diminish their business at all. Um the only special use is still can be vetoed by PNZ if I understand correctly. It won't come to council unless there's an appeal. Um, so I'm not sure about the decision process, but I think the the perspective about encouraging vehicular traffic is extremely important to consider. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more discussion? We still have a motion um in a second to approve. So if I see none, I'll call for the question. No. Councelor Townsley. Yes, Mayor Prom Zinsky. Yes, Mayor Dem. No, Councelor Wymer. Yes, Councelor Schmall. No, Councelor Smith. Yes, Council Sher. It passes 43. Thank you, Ryan. Moving on. Item nine, ordinance 2025-26, consideration of a code amendment uh application regarding fire and emergency services and police impact fees. That's Tren.

Good evening, mayor and council. If you give me just one second to pull up the presentation. Uh, while TR's pulling that up, just so you know, the next three items, um, you will see if you pass them, when they come back on second reading, you'll see fee schedules that go with all three of these, which is why you don't see them in the ordinances themselves. That way, we can change those fees more easily on an annual basis. Need help? Fees not that we're talking about, not what was in the presentation.

No, they would be what's in the presentation. Just in terms of mechanically, you'll have code changes that authorize the fees. Um, and then you'll have a fee resolution that reflects what you guys have talked about, but just adopting them that way. So, if we adopt this tonight, these are still in. Absolutely. This it's just a it's a timing issue that I usually do for you guys and that's kind of why I'm having this discussion is because we have two readings of an ordinance. So, I like to make sure that the ordinance passes authorizing the fees before we put on second reading of the ordinance and the fee resolution at the next meeting typically on the consent agenda.

Yeah. And I apologize, Councelor Townsley. Um, both were included in the packet, but yes, it would be at a subsequent meeting for the actual adoption of the fees that we would apply tonight. Uh the consideration would be to apply changes to the development code that would allow for us to apply those fees to to future development in the city. And uh can we change to the lectern? Oh, maybe

maybe I do need Let me just pull it back up.

And obviously, Chief Daryus is here tonight to to opine and and answer questions as well. He's obviously been working on this for for longer than I have. Uh, but this is planning file 5025. It's a code amendment regarding fire and emergency services and police impact fees. Um, like I was mentioning, a code amendment is required for this. So, we'll go through the applicable criteria for the approval of the code amendment. Uh, but this would be to update our existing fire and emergency services fees and to adopt a new police um impact fee here in the city. Um, I think it's pretty pretty obvious to most that development within our city increases both employment and population. And that increase in population increases the need for proportional increase in the services that are provided by various city departments. Tonight specifically, we're talking about fire and and police. Um, in Colorado and across the nation, impact fees are used to address funding shortfalls by by those type of services. In Colorado, we've been using impact fees since approximately the 1920s. Today, impact fees are governed by Senate Bill 15 as well as section 29 of title 29 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Um impact fees are a one-time fee that's applied to um developments to improve or to pay for the cost of facilities used to operate those those departments. Not for the actual operation of those departments. So it's not for personnel, it's for specifically it would be for equipment. It would be for buildings. It would be for building additions. Um the equipment that our police officers carry. Um but it's a one-time fee applied and that fee based on statute and Supreme Court um past decisions has to be proportional to the impact that is being developed. That's what we call the essential nexus. Um and again you have to have some type of a study that proves that. In this case,

BBC Consulting worked with the city to determine what are what are the equipment that we keep and what is it going to cost to either replace that equipment or to to apply these fees to the development of of future buildings and and and additions and other improvements that we would want for our equipment. uh back in July, you you heard a presentation based on this and then I think there was a the connection that yes, you know, we may want to consider these fees, but we would also have to apply them via the the code amendment. Currently, the city does apply fees to parkland, school land, fire emergency services, as well as public art. I'll go into this just a little bit later. Um but the approval criteria um you also heard this in the last presentation is outlined in section 7060 40C3D3. Starting with number one that's on cons consistency with the comprehensive plan and other city policies. Our 2023 comprehensive plan directly addresses fees um and the services provided by various departments and states that development should be responsible for that and they should respond to growth that occurs in the city. Um even one section of our code um 6.10 of the comprehensive plan says that we shall update our development codes to accommodate these um and also even in one instance mentions the need for a new fire substation in West Glenwood. two does not conflict with the Glenwood Springs Municipal Code. Again, very common in the state of Colorado, already applied and applicable here in the in the city for other types of fees. Um, and our code currently includes them as and well as well as other dedications that are required for new development. Three, a demonstrated community need. Pretty obvious that fire and police services are a need in our community. uh the need to update the cost of those for proportionality of development is also

necessary. Four, respond to substantial changes in condition and policy. Again, these increases in population employment limit the ability of our departments to provide services at the same level as more and more people come to live here or come to work here on a daily basis. And we all know that the cost of providing these these equipment and facilities also continues to increase. Five is generally consistent with the purpose and intent of this code. The purpose of the development code is is very much in line with the purpose of of government generally and that's to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Um as well as uh in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Um the intent specifically of of the development code is that it's based on on to address the impacts of various developments. Um, council may this evening approve approve with conditions, deny or continue the the consideration of the changes to the code. The planning and zoning commission considered the these changes and voted six to one to recommend approval to council. Um, they did raise some concerns. Um, some of those were the the future waiver of fees and there are certain instances like housing developments, things that we want to incentivize where we wave these fees and how would that occur? Would it occur in a similar manner? Um they also had questions about what the existing fees were uh compared to those that are being proposed. How these fees are calculated. Um and then what is the share of of the impacts related to um our residents versus our our our tourists and our guests or our city? How how are those calculated and determined? Staff ultimately um recommends approval of this change because it it complies with the applicable approval criteria. and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

All right, great. I can also pull up the study as well and then show you a little bit about how these things um are determined and applied. Okay, great. Thank you. Questions to staff at this point. We'll start with Council Shack.

Thank you again. Um one thing I wasn't clear, this should be simple. Would the fee the fee under retail and commercial is that where where are hotels and motel categorized? Are they commercial or Yes. So they're covered as well with this fee structure. Um when we if this gets approved, where do the BBC suggestions come in? Are those are those to be implemented by staff on on a determined basis or is it automatically taking all those suggestions? Do we know?

So there's there's two very important tables in in that. and I think I highlighted them in the staff report, but that's where the the uses are broken down. Um, that's how we would apply those fees to the future developments that come through the city. And then those fees would correspond with an actual fee table um related to those costs.

Well, there were also it seemed like some subject subjective implementation ideas as well. Are those still to be considered by your staff? For example, I ra I raised one question as one example. Do we really want to complicate our lives? And I I this is rhetorical with a credit situation that is way more complex, although they did recommend you have that. So I was just curious how their recommendations will will fit in with the ordinance. Yeah. And and um pling will not make any determination about the the the use of of those fees. Do you mean like some of the suggestions that were made? Not the use of the fees. My case was

they implement the whole plan like offsetting for doing certain things or what not. I you know I think at this point the way we crafted the ordinance was just straightforward implementation of the fees for now. I think that um those are policy questions that we may want to dig into down the line a little bit about you know waiverss or credits for doing certain things if they advance specific policies that the city council is looking to advance. That's typically how we do it with all the fees that we have. So we're not automatically blanket saying we'll implement it just as BBC says that'll be a Yeah. No, that'll be so the the nexus I understand and and that we'll get fees.

Yeah. No, so it's just it's a straightforward just those two tables. These are this is the formula we're going to use to implement it. Uh and then the fee structure is the one that would be contained in the resolution coming next time. And that's all we're doing, not all of the other stuff.

Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, councelor Townsley. A couple questions. One, and I some comments, too, but I'll try to save those to the comment section. So, when when we went through there and looking at it, they were talking about potential money that might come inbounds on these. And for the police, the police fees are they looked at uh 17 units of multif family, 17 units of single family. For the fire, it was 33 units of single family, and 33 units of multif family. Is that because we're taking into a bigger piece of land for fire? Correct.

And then so I guess my my question there is if if that's the case, are we taxing the people of Glenwood to cover fire protection and bring in more equipment for people outside the city limits? Do you want me to Well, I I I would just say that um the fees are calculated to to apply a certain value to existing development here in the city. Okay.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, so basically you're looking at total square footage. you're allocating a certain number of employees or persons per household to our existing facilities andor any improvements that we that we plan purchases future purchases. So we're not taxing any existing development at all impact impact fees taxes. probably shouldn't. Yeah, I was going to say and the the other people money

the other component of this is um you know there there will be have to be a parallel adoption of fees in the fire district remembering that we operate via IGA outside of the city boundaries on behalf of the um the rural fire protection district that we do as a unified um unified operation. And so that probably is what is reflected in the difference in numbers. But it's not that city residents are paying for fire protection outside um of city of the city boundary. I think they just did their calculations on number of potential units based on what would be occurring both in the city and out in the fire district as well.

Wouldn't all those impact fees if there was a development within the city that we were charging impact fees to be putting money in a pool to buy fire engines that would it it is but the fire district contributes to that pool. the impact fees that they will collect will contribute to that pool and so they pay over and I can't remember what the number is um and basically their entire budget goes to either um personnel or equipment uh that the city fire department operates on behalf of them. So I'm not I'm not against charging developers fees for impact fees. I just it should be fair.

Yeah. No. And I and I think that it it is fair because it's being it will be applied out in the district the same way as it's being applied inside the city limits. So those impact fees even though out so so if there's a development up for mile we're going to charge the same impact fees. Right. That's that well the fire district will adopt those not you but there will be a parallel adoption to get those in place. That's great.

Yes. So, and and just back to your your question, Summer, really in terms of the development code and and what we'll get involved with will pretty much be like the table that you see here, you know, we're just going to calculate these based on square footages or developments on an as per new development, you know, case by case basis. I just have one other question.

It from a question standpoint, uh, one of the PNZ commissioners, I think it was John H. and brought up a couple things that I thought were really important. One was the fact that almost 70% of the calls we get on the fire side are from EMS type calls and they're not actual fire calls. And so he was he was looking at, you know, we've got a a large tourist economy and a lot of those calls are going to support tourists. Would it not make more sense to have lodging go into a multif family pay structure or something closer to that versus going into retail? Thoughts on that? It's a great question. Um, you know, I think and actually you can you can add as as many categories to this and break up the uses, you know, as as you desire. Um, I I think probably this is a simplification of of understanding each and use, you know, on a a weekly basis, I'll tell you, you know, we have conversations in my department about what's fair and equitable to charge to a a redevelopment, let's say, of an existing of an existing facility here in town. Um, you know, and and does do we charge that, you know, the water and fee um the water and sewer fee for a gym um versus a school versus a retail space. Um, so you really can get into examining those uses more, but I think this is a generalization. Would it be better? Yes. Um, I think maybe the the cost to better understand all of those specific details probably is maybe not worth the value that you that you get or the return that you get for those. I I would wonder just you know and I don't know how you look at a hotel like is it a living unit with each room but like he said there's three employees versus a whole bunch of people that are going to require services.

I I I don't know. I'm just throwing the question out there and and I I I will say that you know our our current study um is is based on evaluating other kind of peer communities that are that are in the tourism economy. So, um, I, you know, I can't say to what level, but I assume that that plays into the number for the the non-residential developments to some degree to what I will be able to explain. Okay. Everything I'll hold the rest of the comments.

All right. Thank you, Councelor Small. So to be sure I'm clear, we're we're being asked to approve the methodology of of uh assessing impact fees without knowing what the fees are going to be. I believe they were in the staff report and those fees are the same ones that you got in the work session that we talked about. I just broke them into two pieces because there again we set those fees by resolution at the second reading of the ordinance

and there is those fees are outlined and and I combined both the ordinance and the resolution councelor. Okay, if you wanted to see what those fees are and then what what is maybe I missed it. What what is the process for exempting those fees or waving those fees then? uh any any any um applicant or developer can always come to council to to wave those fees uh to make a request to wave those fees. Yeah. So there's there's always some administrative relief from the application of these fees if someone feels that they're being applied unfairly.

But ultimately you guys have to make that decision on the fee wave as council. It doesn't happen at staff level. We have, you know, for for our water and sewer fees, um, you know, ju just just to let you know, you know, we do have, um, some programs that allow for averaging those out over over a year period to pay those incrementally. Um, you know, we do split fees, the higherend fees, water and sewer fees from, you know, building permits or the issuance of a building permit to the end of the of the of the CO certificate of occupancy for that. So, we split some of the fees up and the payment and the times are due, but yeah, really only this body has the ability to to wave those. In some instances, you've had priority um type development that you've reduce those fees. Um accessory building units as an example of that.

Thank you. Any other questions? I'd just like a little clarification. Um at at this point we do have a fire impact fee, right? That's correct. So this is really So is is this replacing the fire impact fee and become more of a public safety fee? Yeah, it is. So this is a little bit of being a drafting geek and trying not have to change too many things of the code, right?

Um we are repealing and replacing the section of the code um that is fire and emergency services impact fees. we are adding in there the lease impact fee as an emergency service. Um so all of that that was in the code is being stripped out and replaced with what you have in your packet. Part of the reason for um keeping the name the same the nomenclature the same fire and emergency services impact P is so that we don't have to go through and change all of the cross references across the code that uses it. So so so okay. So now under But there's still two separate fees because how would you apply? How would you know what goes to where?

Yeah, it is two separate fees or two separate components of the fire and emergency services impact fees. You pay it. It just lives in the same code. It just lives in the same place. Okay, got it. That makes way more sense now. Council Townsley, and just to clarify that the current fee for residential is 1,600 ballpark somewhere in there or for for fire. Exactly. And there is a one for police. Okay, that's so that that fee uh you know that fee is is approximately doubling. Um but 20 years old

but exactly um that fee has not been updated in my time uh associated with the city for over a decade. I don't know that Carl was when I asked. So and then of course the police fee would be a new fee. All right. Great. Thank you. Any other questions? All right, we'll see none. Thank you, Trent. Open it up to to the public. Any public input on this?

See none. Close the public portion. Bring it back to us. Entertaining a motion in ordinance 202526. Uh consideration of a code amendment uh application regarding fire and emergency services and police impact fees. Mayor Prom Sinsky, please. I would like to make a motion to um approve consideration of ordinance 2025-26 which is an application regarding fire anyway the fire and police impact fees. Thank you. Yes, we got it. Perfect. Council I would like clarification on the motion.

Okay. to approve ordinance whatever the number. Yes. Yes. Yes. To approve ordinance 2025-26 as written.

Very good. I second motion and a second. Any discussion? Council Townsley. So, and again, correct me if if I'm wrong on any of these numbers, but I just I'm curious because you said you're looking at doubling it from like 1,600 to 3200, but did I misread that to where that would be for a house up to like 2,000 square foot and then up to a 3,000 foot house, we're going to almost triple it? A 4 to 4,000, it's going to go up to 8,500. And for a 4,000 foot house, it's going to go up to over 12,000. Yeah, it it does go up with size with with the size of the home because it assumes that it's a higher cost to provide that service for for that home.

I I my thought is that if you have somebody building a 4,000 foot house versus 2,000 foot house, we haven't increased the cost from 3,200 to $12,000, especially all in one chunk this quickly in time. Doing it all in one piece. I'm for collecting as many impact fees as we can. more on the commercial multif family side, but I think I just don't think that's anywhere close to being right as far as taking that number and going, "Okay, just because I I build my house, is the developer going to go somebody doesn't know this and they buy plans for a 4,100 foot house that or 4,12 foot square house and all of a sudden they've got a $12,000 impact fee versus their neighbor that bought a 2,000 foot house or built one on the same lot next door is at 3,200." I think that's we need to go back to the table on that and relook at those before we approve this.

Okay. Thank you. Counc my understanding and I I think that's a great point Dave with bringing your expertise to the table. We can approve this ordinance but not the fee schedule at this point and take that into consideration for the second reading. Yeah, absolutely. And and that would kind of be my suggestion is that I think I think those are valid points and and worthy to dig into. Like I said, we we were just trying to get everything on the same schedule so that if you did adopt it on second reading, you'd be looking at the fee schedule at the same time. You mentioned you hang on. I'm sorry. Hang on. U and No, it's fine. Just

you can always pull it off the consent agenda and and and if this is something you guys want to discuss, we'll just put it on the regular agenda. Yeah. Because consent agenda it's going to go with Okay. Here's what we had on there and it's going to go on. So, I would I would ask that if we do move this forward today that we don't put on the consent agenda. Perfect. Got it. Thank you, Councelor Small.

Um, before we vote, I I'd like to suggest that this really does warrant further consideration of the details before before adopting. Maybe we continue it to another meeting. Okay, thank you. And councelor Smith,

earlier um we had some clarification that normally these fee schedules aren't presented at this stage and and Trent actually apologized for putting it in. Quite the contrary, I think for these very reasons, it was very helpful to have that in there. So, thank you for including it even if it wasn't required. Thank you, Mayor Proen Silinski. Yeah, I think um I I concur. I think that go ahead and let's not put this on consent to address, you know, the concern that you both have. Um but my motion was not to approve the ordinance. It was to approve consideration. And so that's where we're at.

Not not to the fees. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly it. That's why I'm saying like all the detail would be fleshed out with the next second reading as we were directed. Right. So we I'm moved to approve the enhanced fee structure which recognizes the situation that we have impacts to development that haven't been addressed over the years and we're trying to rectify that based on staff recommendation and then what those fees will be we would like to discuss at or at second reading. Right. Council Town,

I I I concur. I think that's a good way to go about it, but I'd also ask staff to maybe retake a look at it over the next couple weeks before that second reading and maybe address a couple of these things and go, okay, is there a way that we can look at this and maybe tweak these that staff is happy with it, we still get the impact dollars that we're looking to get out of it. And that we also, you know, look at, you know, are there categories, you know, if we if we build a huge hotel or we get two or three more huge hotels, we're really getting a big impact from that that I think they should be picking up a little bit more of the uh of the bill for. So hopefully staff could maybe relook at that when we come back, have some other recommendations for us.

Yeah. And and if I may, um, so when we do these nexus studies, they usually set what the what the maximum is that we that the whoever conducts the study believes that the relationship between the service and the fee would be. And so what I always advise council is that that typically sets your ceiling. It doesn't set your floor. And so really councils oftentimes will set fees lower than what is the the maximum recommended by the nexus study. So, what I'd suggest is is that, you know, we're looking at maximums or or what was suggested. Anything below that is completely defensible from my standpoint.

Okay. Thank you, Councelor Small. Um, I I I agree with the impact fees. I think they're important and I think we should be trying to get uh the appropriate remuneration for the impacts incurred and Um, but the the fee study that's in here now is part of the study. It's not necessarily what we're going to have those fees be. Right.

Again, it I think it sets the ceiling for you, not the floor. Because so under Colorado just so under Colorado law as well as um Supreme Court US Supreme Court president when we do impact fees we have to have a rational nexus between the amount of the fee and the service being provided that the fee is paying for. And so that's why when we do these nexus studies they're designed to set what would be the maximum that you can hold that relationship to. So, like I would not recommend that you take the fee that's in there and say, you know what, we're going to increase it 20% on hotels and drop it 20% on residential. I'm fine with you dropping it 20% on residential. I just can't defend the increase over what the nexus study says would be appropriate for a particular use category, if that makes sense.

That was that was part of the issue. So, so for us now, this is part of the public record and uh I I still maintain that probably it would be better to continue this until we have more time to consider consider these fees because it's going to end up sounding arbitrary whenever we decide not to go with what these fees are, right? It's we've got the maximum that and and what the study says we we can we have the rational nexus. Anything other than that that we do is going to be subject to being somewhat arbitrary.

As long as it's below the maximum, it's a decision that has been defended and is defensible. If you go above the max that is set, then yes, that would be something that we could we would I would have a difficult time defending that fee being set above that. If you choose for political reasons or otherwise to meet policy objectives to lower it below what that fee is set at, you're more than able to do that. All the Nexus study requires of us is that we is that we know what the maximum is that we can charge and that there's a relationship to that. It doesn't obligate us to charge that maximum. But the theoretical is that we we we wave part for for one type of development and we wave more parts for another type of development and we we we go lower on the fees for a certain kind of development and and it ends up it ends up being somewhat arbitrary. it it would I would suggest that what you're really doing there is deciding that um say for instance if you lowered the fees for um you know uh ADUs or multif family residential because you wanted to encourage housing of a particular type that policy goal is perfectly defensible for why you lowered that fee to that place would I suggest that you just go hey my friends all live in single family residences we should lower that because they're complaining That may not be a great policy objective, but I think you can probably find a way to tie your decision-m to good policy that you're trying to promote within the city, whatever that happens to be. Right? That's what you guys do with almost every decision you make on fees. Um, oftentimes is you are making policy choices about how to encourage particular things or discourage particular things on a policy basis, right?

Thank you, councelor Shaker. Um, question and comment. If we were to choose hypothetically to level or reduce some of the fees on single family as we've discussed, is there an obligation to reduce it proportionally? If I heard you correctly, there may not be if it is in pursuit of a policy and below the max. We don't have to do the same thing for commercial or other categories. No, I Exactly. As long as you're pursuing a policy that you believe is important and you have a a basis for it, I'm totally good with it.

And the next question would be of Steve. Given given councelor Small's concern and the qu the ordinance versus the schedule, could we not postpone it but put it on a workshop before the next meeting to discuss the proposed fees?

Yeah, thank you. So, if I hear you right, uh, councelor Small, you're feeling like these fees are arbitrary, and we could maybe never make them perfect, but we can make them less arbitrary, which is what we'd be trying to do over the next week. And I think staff can do that and bring something back to you guys considering the input that you've had here. It would help me if you would either come in and talk to us or send us your ideas. Um, just so we understand where everybody's coming from, not just the two of you, but but everybody. Council Townsley.

So, you brought up a good question from the legal side of it. We're putting caps on it, but not floors. So, if we're going to try to take some of that money and not lose the impact fee that we need for our police department, our fire departments, are we by voting for this tonight, are we going, okay, the fees that we've established for commercial, retail, the other pieces of this, are we capping those out when we vote yes tonight? No,

you're not capping them out when you vote yes tonight. What you are saying when we look at those fees, when we combine the two pieces, right? Like this is the authorization and then you adopt the fees. Your Nexus study told you what the maximum fees are. So there again, you I I understand what you're saying is that the methodology, if we're going to go back and change all of the methodology, we would probably need to look at a new nexus study, I guess, is is part of the answer to your question because if you are looking to collect a specific total amount there, again, I'm good with you lowering the fees below what the Nexus study says, but pushing them higher is a problem.

So I'm not I don't think that's my question. It doesn't it doesn't feel like it. So my question is they came up with a number and said this this is the impact I think it was 24 million or something like that and they we need to divide this number up amongst retail single family multif family we need to divide it up somewhere so they divided it up in a particular way that I I personally don't think is is really right but do we leave ourselves some from freeway do we have to go get a whole new study just because we disagree with how he said you should divide this up or can staff make a recommendation and we can come back and say let's as long as we don't exceed that total number you know if it's a pie chart it's broken down into a lot of pieces as long as we say here's the max number we don't break that up we just want to change how we break it up are we still free to go do that I

I think to a limited extent I think where we run into problems is when we've dug into yeah we have this total number but then as we divide that up that's really what the nexus study is doing is saying okay a hotel generates this much of an impact right it and so I I guess I'd have to go back and look at the study in more detail to fully answer your question. Um I I I think it is potentially difficult for us um to kind of start tweaking the methodology to come up with different numbers that there again push them up in different use categories beyond what that study said they um the the demand of that use category is if you will. Did that make sense?

Let me ask Let me ask a question to the chief. Chief, if if we build a new hotel and it's got 500 rooms in it and Ryan goes out and builds himself a 4,000 foot house in Park East, you got that right. Where what's how are you going to you know, where do you think the calls are going to go? Yeah, I mean, anecdotally, of course, they're going to go to the larger property. I think quite a bit or I'm sorry, quite a bit. Well, I there's no way for me to to speculate, but I would assume so. I think what's one of the missing parts is something you said much earlier, not maybe necessarily part to what you're talking about right here, is

uh with respect to and no disrespect to the planning and zoning commissioner's comments about hotel and serving tourism, what he did not bring up, and I think his number was 63% of our calls are emergency medical service calls, which is probably right about there. I don't I don't know what I have in front of me. What was not considered is the amount of calls of ser for service that we're taking out in the county the to the rural fire district for example at four mile ski ranch or someone's home out in that rural district. So that offsets the number of calls that we're taking specifically with tourism. So, I would suggest off the top of my head that that might not be exactly accurate where we're serving a larger number of uh visitors as opposed to local residents um visitors to the four mile ranch or up at the up at the uh the adventure park or somewhere like that because we do cover such a marger area outside the city proper.

Okay. So, you're saying you you think that we are not covering a lot more? I I would assume that we are covering more. We are absolutely right. But to his point that and I think you it sounds like you adopted his suggestion that we're serving the tourism population. So they we should impose some kind of special hotel fee or something like that because of the amount of the volume of tourists we have visiting our hotels. partially true because what I don't think was being considered was the amount of service we're providing outside the city limits in our total volume of calls which include the county all the way out into unincorporated areas like four mile ski sunlight ski area which would make my comments even more poignant I think I I I don't know that I'd agree with that

you good councelor Smith

thank you I think I actually what is a question and it's not in totally out of order because now we're talking about numbers and potential changing of numbers or rearranging of numbers. Um, if I read the material right, whatever these collections turn out to be, they can be used only for capital, only for equipment, not for operations, not for salaries and such. That's that's disappointing because we need more funding for that too. But does that does the the allowable list of expenditures include a new fire station in West Glenwood Springs? Good. Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other discussion? No. Then um all I all I'm going to add is that um I think of going into too much detail. I think we just have to understand that what we're approving tonight is or or what we're thinking about approving tonight is is that whether we want higher fees or additional fees or not. Um there's a process in place and I like what she said not putting it on the consent agenda. I think that makes complete sense so we have a chance of of actually discussing it and let uh staff go through it. But the the question tonight is simply do we want to add an impact fee uh based on police services? That's it. and the the rest comes later and and I can guarantee you it will come later. So, we will have plenty of time to discuss this. So, um if there's no more discussion, I'll call for the question to approve uh this audience.

It passes 70. Thank you, Ryan. Between between now and the next meeting, I'll certainly look into some of the questions and specifics that you had. see if we can get some clarification on that. Well, and I think that we had some really uh valid comments tonight about the the who who should pay more. And I think that's that's a very good approach of how we should handle this. Absolutely. And I I would really like to hear from you guys um whatever your ideas might be so that we can understand them and be as ready as we can for two weeks from today. Okay, great. Thank you. Excellent. And if you ever want to sit around in a pine about sign allocations in town, we can do that, too. Summer probably want to join us. Let's not do that. We will not do that

with a blowtorrch. A sledgehammer. Uh item 10 tonight, ordinance 2025 31 emergency medical services call fees.

Okay. Thank you. This is setting up for another uh conversation regarding uh some fees related to some medical to um some transport costs. We annually set fees for transport for we haven't done it in a couple of years, but we need to update u fees for transport calls for our um emergency services. One of the situations we've run into fairly regularly, and the chief can speak to this, is we have living facilities uh calling us out and then doing non-transport calls. And we're winding up kind of providing their on-site medical services for them uh via our ambulance going out, taking care of a problem that they should be staffed for, and then them saying, "Oh, we don't want to transport." In which case, we don't get paid for that trip. Um, so one of the things a change in the ordinance is uh to define non-transport calls and also living facilities that this would apply to. And then you'll see some fairly hefty fees coming in on what transport and non-transport calls um are going to look like. So this is just authorizing us to to assess those and really this is one of those things that has been an increased I mean over the last year it's become one of the along with those the alarm calls that we're going to talk about next that we talked about in the work session a huge source of frustration for our crews.

Yeah. Do you have anything to add? Thank you sir. Thank you.

Uh so to quantify this a little bit one one facility in particular is taking up 6% of our entire response call without one location. So we are there I'd say easy without data again getting in front of me I'd say without question once every single day and sometimes two and three times per day at this one particular facility. Recently we got a call there because one of the patients had they need their nails clipped. We're committing a fire crew from an entire from two stations of the three that we have to respond to that call because it's dispatch is a medical emergency. you get there. Our professional paramedics assess that and that is not something that the two fire stations need to be responding to in my opinion and it's costing the city an exorbitant amount of money and it's tying up those crews taking them out of service

from other potential emergency like we talked about with the alarm fees earlier. So to give you a little bit of perspective on why this is coming forward the 6% really the community is really subsidizing that one particular facility u by by taxes that they're paying for these services. All right. Thank you chief. Yes sir. Uh, Mayor Prom Slinski, so I have a question for you. Um, what could be the unintended consequences of this? Like, we're having an abuse with a certain population. Are you having non-transport calls in other populations?

Generally, we do have those. Those are called against medical advice. Somebody signs a form, we give them the idea, this is what we think is going on, and then they can make that decision. So, we're not really focused on those. Those happen all the time. But when we have these care facilities, I think is the terminology, um, two of them in particular, where they have a lot of times trained professionals there and they're being paid a lot of money to host these patients committing a crew and then it's and what I what I didn't mention um, which is also important is those the the nail uh, case. So if we had transport those those kinds of I won't say innocuous, but those kinds of calls low-level calls are impacting the emergency services inside the emergency department as well. as you know they have limited space there and so are the city's medical director Dr. Sabrina Adams even opined about the impacts of the emergency department. So, generally speaking, coming to your home or downtown, not necessarily a problem. It's these two specific places that are taking up that six and 7% call volume that I'm talking about.

Yeah. And just just so you know, we're defining those um using state statute. This is we're not the only place that has been faced with this problem. Living facilities, that's why we have a new definition that we're adding to the code, what a living facility is. And it's basically an assisted living residence licensed uh top rate under CRS 2527105 or a nursing home licensed under 253101. And so we're very specific about it. That's why I asked for clarification and maybe I misread it. I I saw two categories. One was a non-transport call and the other was living facilities. And I wanted to make sure that I understood the distinction that there wasn't going to be maybe perhaps

No. And and if you look at the um section B down below. So, we needed a definition for non-transport call because we hadn't had that before. Um, council by resolution shall set fees for EMS, including but not limited to all transport calls, which we do have a cost that we associate with that. Um, and for living facility non-transport calls on an annual basis. So, we're not we're only authorizing setting them for these living facilities right now on non-transport calls. Got it. Okay. Thank you, Fifth. Thank you, councelor Small

Chief. Six 6% um there's a what I've seen of the when the calls are made, there's a procedure that everybody has to go through that the EMS guys got the checklist they have to go through evaluating the patient and and that gives them the answer as to what they have to do. So, so the call takes a certain amount of time regardless, right? Just for all of that evaluation stuff. Do you know any idea what that average time is? I don't that I don't and I don't know if we would have data that would allow me to provide you any kind of response to that. uh we just take a look at the general types of calls and I mean I could break them down whether it's cardiac care you know uh serious trauma what whatever that might I can break it down that level but to get into the granular pieces about how long it takes for a patient evaluation and honestly there are times when it's basically a graband go because a person is in immediate they're they're in imminent death is is kind of at their doorstep we just grab them and go and then but I don't think we anybody would argue that's a very serious type of call so we're not going to take the time to go through that checklist. Um, and I'd like to add that when we are in those situations where we're evaluating that patient, we do have communication with the hospital and the physician there say, "Hey, this is kind of what we're facing. Uh, do you have anything additional for us to evaluate above and beyond what the paramedic level of the service can provide?" Did I answer your question?

Um, generally, yeah. And I'm thinking about I'm again thinking about the fees that we ought to be charging regardless of who it is whether it's whether it's a false alarm or a real alarm.

I think we're troubled just kind of in some of the general language where we're going to these facilities again that people are paying to be there and the expectation is they're going to have some level of medical care available to them. And I don't want to say that anybody's being lazy or anything, but to call a fire department for calls like I've de and certainly they're not all about hangails or whatever, right? But generally speaking, we get there and you know, do we really need to commit crews to this kind of thing? And that's where that frustration comes in. And I think again, the taxpayers of this community are subsidizing those responses and as I have a responsibility to really trying to try to mitigate that through processes like this to really provide fair service across the board to everybody else.

Thank you, Council Shack. Thank you. Just uh clarification, if the ordinance is passed tonight, how and when will the fee schedule be determined? Uh you'll see the fee schedule on second reading the next time. Excellent. Thank you, Councelor Wymer. Chief, thanks. I know it's an out an outlier, but the hangail thing. So So when this person called 911, right? What was the reason? get do you know what the reason was given? It's been a little bit. Uh but so the answer the short answer is no. Um I certainly have that and I will have it for you.

Well, I'm curious if the if the if the person said I'm dying, you know, I'm dying. Come help me. And we showed up and they're like, you know, I just need a hang. Right. Right. Is is that is is that is that is that is that a not a crime but is that is that is that wrong to say that I'm dying over here and then I show up and you know certainly and I think in this particular case and what we've seen I have not seen that happen where someone misrepresents what their need for service are. Thank you. Yeah. other than our transient population do that sometime because it's cold. So they want to get into the ER. So they'll come in and say, "Oh, I have chest." Or they're trying to avoid going to jail, right?

So on their way over there, they say, "Oh, I'm having a heart attack." And we get, you know, that kind of thing. But in this these scenarios we're talking about here, I think what happens is that the patient calls their uh I don't want to say nurse, they don't always have a nurse there, but their care provider at this facility. Okay? And uh I need an ambulance. What's the problem? Well, I have some pain in my hand is just typically how that works. Those calls to 911 are facilitated by the management or the people in charge of that patient's care at that facility. The patient does not generally call us directly. Okay. So theoretically, the hangail thing would have come from the front desk. Correct. Yes, sir. Okay. And and again, I can get you that specific. Well, I'm just like how these things you always just wonder about root causes and changes of behaviors and those sorts of things, you know. Sure.

Okay. Thank you, Coun Mayor Prom Solinsky. Yeah. So I think that basically answered my question but I just wanted to confirm um these calls I was wondering if the calls originate from staff or are they originating from residents. My understanding that they generally come from staff because the patient is asking for some kind of service and they don't have the ability to provide it or they again I don't I'm cautious saying lazy. I don't know what another term might be that's better for that but uh slothful I guess you know they're just it's easier just to call 911 and bring a crew over there to deal with that problem. Got it. You think small hole is better? I was wondering that too. Yeah, it's either way. It's good.

Well, we're going to So, so to kind of piggyback on the change of behavior if this this is a not an ongoing problem, but a relatively new situation. No, no, it's it's been ongoing for quite a long time. It seems to have So, we've had conversations with one of these facilities in particular. They have frequent overturn uh turnover in their management team and it seems to correct itself for a little while but then we're right back to the same problem. And so as this is becoming cyclical and really still committing our crews all the time every single day to this one finally we we reached out to our legal team and said hey we need to find a better solution to make this workable for everybody.

So then my other question is um if the fee is assessed who pays the fee? Does it go to the client to the resident or does it go to the facility? I'll leave that to Mr. Yeah, I was going to say we're directing that fee to the facility. Okay. You know, how they handle that. I mean, that that was a point of I I have to say that we've had a number of conversations recognizing um that they could push that fee off on the patient. Um we just we can't control that. But our goal is to try to change the facility's behavior so that we're not effectively becoming their nursing staff. Got it. Um, but I, you know, there's no guarantee about how they're going to handle that, um, on the back end, but we're trying.

Thank you. All right. Excellent. No more questions. Open it to the public. No one here. We'll close the public portion, bring it back to us. Uh, and entertaining a motion in item 10, ordinance 202531, emergency medical service call fees. Councelor Shaker. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. regarding which ordinance am I on? Sorry, 2021.

2025. Sorry, I just lost my place. 31. Uh, regarding fees. Um, where am I? Apologize. I wasn't is ready. Uh, 31 regarding the emergency medical service call fees. I move we approve the ordinance. Thank you. And mayor prom Solinski. Second. Motion to second to approve. for any discussion. See none, I'll call for the question.

It passes unanimous. Thank you, Ryan. Item 11, ordinance 202532, excessive alarms. Yeah, hopefully this one can be short. Uh you guys had a work session on this earlier. This is just the authorizing legislation there. Again, you'll see we got some input from you guys what you want to see the fees set at. Uh we'll bring that back on second reading uh with the fee resolution as well. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Any questions? See none, open it up to the public. Anybody here from the public on item 11? See none, close public portion. Bring it back to us. Entertaining a motion in ordinance 202532 excessive alarms. Mayor Prom Solinski.

I move to approve ordinance 2025-32 for excessive alarms. Motion approved. Looking for a second. Councelor Wymer second and a second. Any discussion of councel? See none. I'll call for the question. It's unanimous. It passes. Thank you, Ryan. Item 12, ordinance 2025-29, Centennial Park Alcohol Prohibition. Rod, good evening.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh tonight we have two ordinances in front of you both uh regarding Centennial Park. Uh the first is ordinance uh 202529 and it um should you consider adoption of it, it would um prohibit alcohol within the park. Uh we have open container in the other parks of the city. Uh we've had some challenges with uh safety and potentially nefarious activity. Uh you've had some discussion at a previous workshop about it. The uh parks and recreation commission has looked at it. Uh they voted unanimously to support a prohibition on alcohol in Centennial Park. And so uh staff would recommend adoption of ordinance um 2020 2025 29 prohibiting alcohol in Centennial Park.

Excellent. Thank you. Thanks for the info. Questions to staff. Councelor Shack. Thank you. Thank you, Rod. Um, I must realize I didn't realize there's so much open container allowed. I'll change my habits. But no, but maybe we can't do it tonight, but I would encourage you to take a look for the same reasons in proximity. Should we consider the same thing for North Landing? And has that been discussed with our commission? That that has not been discussed at this point. Uh but I would tell you that the commission is currently going through a review of parks and recreation uh rules and and uh policies and so I think that it could be addressed as a part of that process.

I would encourage that both for proximity and potential migration of open container. Thank you. Thank you. Uh councelor Small Rod. I have a I I have maybe it's I'm thinking through Carl's eyes, but I I have a hard time seeing how we prohibit in one park when we don't prohibit in other parks. I I have a real, for instance, why would it not be Bethl Plaza? Why would it not be North Landing? How how do we how do we justify that distinction without violating all of the other civil civil right problems that Carl would be concerned about?

Yeah, I on this one I'm not because um you're adopting specific regulations that relate to a particular problem in a particular park. Um as far as regulating behavior and not it's not a speech issue. It's not a first amendment issue. um the right to you know there is no constitutional right to necessarily possess alcohol in any particular place. Um so from that standpoint I'm comfortable with doing this. I will tell you the reason that the next ordinance is on um is because I needed a more specific definition of what that space was that we were prohibiting it on than what was currently in the code. But that was my only real concern with this one.

Thank you. Councelor Smith. I think by this point my original thought has essentially been covered by two other counselors, but I'll just reinforce it that um whether we're taking this opportunity to imagine other spaces that that need this same treatment or more specifically can we anticipate where this drinking society is likely to move next. Um, and if if not we don't have that information for the time for this time for this action, I think we should anticipate a possible need. And so I'm glad that the commission is starting to look at that. And I I join my other counselors in saying look at some additional spaces that this might be useful. Thanks,

Mayor Proton Sinsky. Yeah. So to continue the theme of this conversation, um you know, it's a fairly natural conclusion that they're going to just move up the street to Bethl Plaza and we can't prohibit alcohol in Bethl Plaza because that's already part of our model there. Um, so has there been any sort of a a eye to a policy like I was wondering like no outside alcohol beyond this point and some sort of dag? Is there something like that that we could adopt that would reduce the likelihood that we're just going to relocate our problem rather than solving our problem?

We've had some discussion on that and I think it's a little bit of a wait and see. In fact, some of the discussion was um some of these challenges may move further south uh like in the Axel Park area, right? Uh and we really won't know until we begin to if this is put in place, begin to enforce it and and all be playing whack-a-ole. Yeah, exactly. It very much could be. Okay. Well, as long as we all know what we're setting ourselves up for. Thank you, Council Townsley. I'm just curious and it may make no difference whatsoever. Do we need to do the designation of park ordinance first before we do this ordinance of

um the Centennial Park is listed currently in the code which is fine. I'm I'm fine with the order. Okay. Okay. Excellent. Any other questions? We we'll see none. Open it for the public. Anybody like to comment on item 12? See none. Close public portion. Bring it back to council. Entertaining a motion. Councelor Townsley in um ordinance uh 2025 Centennial Park Alcohol Prohibition. I move that ordinance 2025-29 Centennial Park Alcohol Prohibition be approved as is.

Thank you. We have a motion approved. Looking for a second. Councelor Sinsky in second. Motion a second to approve. Any discussion? See none. Call for the question. Yes, Councelor Townsley. Yes, Mayor Prom Zalinsky. Yes, Mayor Dame. Yes, Councelor Wymer. No, Councelor Schmall. Yes, Councelor Smith. Yes, Councelor Shakar. It passes 61.

Thank you, Ryan. Um, just a a quick thought of mine and and I'm not going to say anything that you haven't heard, but I would be in full favor of starting to think about uh proximity. um areas around Centennial Park of how we how we can get a handle on it before it maybe even starts to occurring. Um so um with that we'll move into uh uh item 13 ordinance 2025-35 designation of parks. Um again this is u as um Mr. Hanland said this really is a clarification to better define and identify Centennial Park parcel as parkland and uh then it could be subject to its own specific rules and regulations as adopted by code. So this is basically a house cleaning item to uh take care of the action that you just took to prohibit alcohol in a specific park, Centennial Park. Okay,

sounds great. Thank you. Any questions? I see none. Open it to the public. Anybody have any input on item 13? Nobody here. Close the public portion. Bring it back to council and obtaining a motion in 202535 designation of parks. Councelor Wymer. Move to approve ordinance 202535 as presented. Thank you. Motion to approve. Second. Uh Mayor Prom Sinsky. Second it. Also to approve. Any discussion on this one? See none, I'll call for the question.

It passes 70. Thank you, Ryan. Moving on. Item 14, ordinance 2025-33, fixing a certifying middle levy for uh G Glenwood improvement district. I bet. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor Council. Evette Gusta, finance director. What you have before you is just a a yearly house cleaning item um setting our mill levies. These numbers are not yet final. We haven't gotten final numbers from the county, but this was based off their preliminary numbers. So the first one, uh oh, I don't know which one's first one. G.

So for the G, this is just setting the mill levy to the maximum that we're allowed. This one was not um de or deallerized dabered. So that we do have limits on that. So right now that looks at 55233 would be that income at the mill levy of 1.82.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Just so you guys know, we do this every year. This is nothing nothing new. Um so anyway, any questions to uh staff at this point? We'll see none. Thank you, Evette. Um anybody from the public like to comment on item 14? See none. Close public portion. bring it back to council. Uh, entertaining a motion in ordinance 202533 fixing and certifying mill levy for GID. Mayor Prom Solinski, I move to approve ordinance 2025-33 fixing and certifying mill levy for general improvement district. Motion to approve. Looking for a second. Council Townsley second

and a second. All to approve. Any discussion on the middle levy? See none. Call for the question. It passes Zelway style section 07. Okay. Thank you, Ryan. Really? It took me a second. I'm like, what are you talking about? Item 15, ordinance 2025-34, fixing and certifying mill levy for the city. And I bet again, please.

Thank you. Um, again, this one is just for our general mill levy that we have. Um and again it's just setting the um mil levy for 2026 and at this time it's set at 6 point 8.625 for 3.18 $3.1 million. Okay. Thank you. Excellent. Any questions? Again housekeeping housekeeping item. See no question. Public any input on 15? No public. Close that portion. Bring it back to us and entertaining a motion. Item 15, ordinance 202534, uh, fixing and certifying mil levy for the city. Councelor Townsley,

I move that we approve ordinance 25-34, fixing and certifying mill levy for the city. As written, thank you. Motion to approve and a second by Mayor Prom Sinski. All in approval favors tonight. Uh, any discussion? We'll see none. Call for the question. Got to go through it. It passes unanimously. All right. Excellent. Thank you, council. Thank you, Evette. Council comments, start on the left tonight. Council Townsley, nothing. Council, nothing. Mayor Prom Solinski. Good. Good. Councilor Smith. Well, thank you. Council Shacker.

So, two things quickly. Um Diane Reynolds shared with me a fairly extremely readable book called A Walk around Around the Block. I was under the impression she shared it with everybody. Apparently not. I highly recommend it in ter and it's not about slow down in town necessarily, but gives a great simple explanation of the complexity of what cities are dealing with also some humor about pigeon squirrels, where our water comes from, sewer, etc. It's a great read for new council people and our public as well. It's called A Walk around Around the Block. Simple book. Secondly, you may be mentioning Are you mentioning the evaluation dates or am I?

Okay, never mind. That's all I have. Thank you. All right. Excellent. Thank you, Council Wymer. No, thank you.

Nothing. Um, back to me. Um, I got a a quick little thing. uh DDA meeting on Tuesday. Uh discussed lighting the trees with Christmas lights on 7th. Uh block Cooper to Blake and block Bethl Plaza to Colorado. And also lighting the trees on Sixth Street, the new the new improved beautiful Sixth Street. Right. Uh I've driven through it yesterday. There's a few trees that have already been lit. Uh and some of them are are lacking. They uh they got a bid for the oh god the Cooper Blake block and I think came out at six grand to do uh 10 trees. Um yeah I know it's it's quite a bit. So how the meeting went is first there was a discussion then there was like well why are we lighting the trees? We shouldn't blah blah blah. They denied it or I I it was a it was a um a tie. So it was a a motion failed. Then it was brought back up because with new information you have the right to do that and and a red discussion was opened and a longer discussion was had and then it passed unanimously that they should light the trees. So it was just a little bit of a confusion. I think they didn't know how and what and then and when. Anyway, they approved up to $15,000 out of their pocket, out of the DDA pocket to light the trees and ask the city to split that for another $15,000 out of city pocket. Um, so I'm trying to get a head knot of council to see if you guys are okay with moving forward for this beautifification project. um for certain I I don't have the exact count of how many trees we're going to light, but for this year before we do a lighting schematic plan or whatever you want to call it uh to light those trees.

So the DDA puts in 15 up to 15, we put in up to 15. Uh I would recommend that we take this money out of the tourism fund. Um, and you can correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that, but I think this is a an allowable use of those funds and I think it's it'd be a good thing. So, I'm in favor of it and if I can get uh some sort of a head nod, I think it'd be great if we could move forward with this. Mayor Proen Solinski. So, that was my question was where the money would come from if it'd be discretionary or um tourism. Yeah, those would be the two choices, discretionary or tourism. But I decide the most appropriate. I think it fits well within tourism and that's on our general fund. So Got it. Right. My head is nodding. I think Okay. Excellent.

Council Towns, you said you said that they needed 15,000 and we split that with them and then you said we'd each put 15. We need 30. Up to 30 is what we're approving. what the discussion we had we have a feeling and Ro just left but um it's going to come in somewhere around 20 to 20 and then we just split it in half so councelor Smith head shaking sideways okay he does not want lights okay so at that point I have to go to a vote because I want to know so any more discussion or should we just vote on uh supplying the money to have a motion in a second.

We didn't. That's I'm going to next. So, I think we have another question. We have another question. Councelor Schmal, I I was not at all clear as to how much we were talking about here, whether it was 1,500 or 15,000. So, I would encourage whoever makes the motion to be clear on the amount of money that we're talking about. Good point. I should have said 15. Didn't I say 15? Up to 15,000. Okay. You said a lot of things. There was a lot. Yeah, I probably I probably said it too fast and and and I was just happy that I remembered everything. So, let's put it that way. C Mayor Proen Solinski, do we have a motion? We're working on it.

I move to approve the expenditure of up to $15,000 out of the fund, the tourism fund to um light the two areas of town. Um one on Sixth Street and one on Cooper 7. Oh, seventh. It's seventh. Yeah, the whole street. Sorry. Sorry. Seventh Street. Okay, great. Motion to approve. Councelor Sharer, just a comment by our motion maker. Would it be appropriate to add that this would be subject to an equal match from the DDA? That's my understanding is how this all evolved. I think it would

then yes to to match the funds with the DDA up to $15,000. Thank you. Excellent. I'll second and a second. Motion second to approve the funding. Then I have a comment. And Council Town, I've got a quick question. I'm not sure if I'm understanding. I I understand part of it's for North Landing and Sixth Street and then Grand Avenue is kind of lit already, right? Correct. Yeah, that that's completely on us. That's on us. Yeah. And so what they're wanting to do is do Cooper from It's It's Seventh Street. From Cooper to Blake. Yeah. That's what I'm So the train station down by the train station.

Yep. And and and the hotel Maxwell Anderson. And then um since we're doing that side, they decided, well, shouldn't we do Bethl Plaza to Colorado too or as well in front of Slop and Hatch? Yeah. Okay. And that's we're looking at $30,000 to do that. No. And then the whole of Sixth Street. the whole of Sixth Street from from what is it? Pine to to come and go. You know, I'm in favor of Christmas lights and want to see them out there and whatnot. It seems pretty excessive. That's a lot of money for for Christmas lights, not counting Grand Avenue already. That's that people drive by and see all the time. So, is there anything that they would look at as a way to maybe

I don't know. It just seems like a lot of money for that. Well, I I just want to point out that Grand Avenue costs us $100,000 for two years. Exactly. So, we put that money in. So, Right. We're just We're just And the other thing I think that's important maybe to mention is that we uh councelor Wymer put it on the workshop agenda that we we will talk about decoration of the city and how do we come up with a general lighting plan and how we come up with who pays for what and when and how. Uh this is just this year and then we we will re-evaluate for next year. No, this is just for this year. Maybe I should have said that. Mayor Pro, you just check me out. Sure.

Thank you. Sure.

I just Okay, so I wanted to make a comment um based on the charm of our town. I think, you know, when I drive into Glowwood Springs in the fall time when it's dark, our town has never looked more charming or appealing. Um, there's a couple of things that I think come intrinsically from this that I think will really benefit those two areas. One of them is like it makes it much more walkable because it's more well lit. Um, I think we will have fewer people kind of lingering in spaces we don't want them to linger because it is more well lit. I think there are several reasons that we can benefit from doing this, not just because of the charm, but I think it actually will accomplish a few things that we want to accomplish, make it more appealing for both residents and visitors.

Thank you, Council Wymer. So, um I think it I'm I'm really torn on this one. I It is a lot of money. We're We're buying roses on Valentine's Day is what we're doing, right? Um and so this this came in literally Thursday. No, Tuesday. Tuesday. Yeah.

Um with this opportunity and you know getting lights strung on trees right now, you're paying a 3x or whatever premium than you would be, you know, any other time of year. So yes, it is expensive. Um the tourism fund is is ripe. Um, and uh, for this use, it's also pretty flush at the moment. Um, and and fits that really really well. Um, but we've got we've got to get our act together as a as a as a downtown, I'll say. Right. Yeah.

Um, what gets lighted, what what doesn't, who pays for it. We have trees that are private trees. We have trees that are city trees on private land. We have trees that are in the rightway. We have all, you know, all sorts of things. Um, and we've just got to we've got to come up with a comprehensive plan starting in January 1 essentially. Um, and I think it'll be cheaper in the longer run because we're going to have our act together. We're going to be thoughtful and and careful with with and just thoughtful how we spend this money or for 2025. Um, I will uh I will I will vote to support this.

Thank you. And and just another little tidbit, we're going to be owning the lights. The lights are going to be in our possession after this is done. So, they're high they're higher quality lights. So, hopefully hopefully uh Council Smith,

can you make this better? Councelor Smith u ditto to all of the middle portion of what councelor Wymer said so eloquently um not ditto to the I will support this and not ditto to we got the money so it's available but all those other cautions and considerations and reasons to be more thoughtful and and prepared than winging it like this. So, thank you for saying that more eloquently than I could have. And that's it.

Uh, Mayor Prom Silinski, the Grand Avenue lights that we have like once they're installed year round. Um, so then we're just doing repairs and maintenance on that basically. So that would this would be a similar situation where this is kind of an investment. Okay, that's what I thought. Yep. Council, are our permanent lights going to be in soon? I didn't hear any report on that. They were I was told they would be here in time for the hotel lighting, but I drove through there last night and they're not there yet.

My understanding is that they will be installed before the hotel lighting, but probably not very much before that. I think that's the plan right now. Installed and working. Well, that's the that's Yeah. Councilor Townsley, just quick question off what you said. Are we paying $100,000 for maintenance of our lights that we have out there? No. That's what it cost to install them the first time. First time you buy them and install them and it's super expensive the first time. And did Council Sinsky, did DD contribute half the first time or was it all city? They both on Grand Avenue. I think that that was all city. That was it was all city. whole city. Yeah. Okay. Oh, I thought

I thought it was I thought they mentioned Tuesday that the first time it was done, they purchased the lights and that's I thought but that was years ago. I Yeah, I I just thought I heard that. No, my understanding is that they did purchase some lights downtown. That didn't work out very well. We replaced those lights and I think the city did it at that time. Got it. I I you know what you are reminding I think that is correct. Okay. Excellent. I'll call for the question. Give me some lights, guys.

Everybody vote. Are we good? Okay. All right. No. No. Councelor Smith. No. Councelor Schmall. Yes. Councelor Townsley. Yes. Mayor Prom Zinsky. Yes. Mayor Dame. Yes. Councelor Wymer. Yes. Councelor Shaker. It passes. 52. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you for that. Took a little longer than I thought, but it's done. But now what? Yeah. Sorry. Would you have a comment? Maybe. Another. I have another. Yeah, I have a comment. Okay. Mayor Pki, please.

I'm sorry. It's been a long night. Uh Erin Reio emailed me earlier today about the Thompson divide and now that the government's moving back, they want an updated um quote that they can include in their book as they go. Um can I just say that we're still comfortable and then have she proposed a quote um that if I can find it, here it is. Um, Glenn Springs has consistently and unequivocally supported permanent protections for the Thompson Divide, most recently through another resolution reaffirming our strong commitment to protecting this landscape. The Thompson Divide is central to our community's outdoor heritage, economic vitality, and way of life. We welcome the Senate hearing on the core act as a critical step towards securing the divide's future. Are we comfortable with that?

Yes. Thank you. Do do we need to nod our heads? No, we just move forward. Okay, great. We're not going home. There's more. Oh, I see. Uh, city attorney call Hannah. I thought it was Steve. Well, I didn't put this together now, did I? Yeah, that's I It's usually Steve. I just called on you. Just go. Okay, I'll go. Well, that would be city manager now, Steve Boyd.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, it is annual review time coming up and you have three employees, city attorney, city manager, municipal court judge. Um, councelor Shar put together some uh reviews for each of those positions. So, if it's okay, I'm going to hand these to you guys and if you would each take one of each little stack here. And I think that councelor Shaker wanted to get these back by the 1 of December. December 2nd. I'll pick them up the third from your office and they are not digital. I'm too old to do that. Okay, fair. Anything else?

Uh just a couple of other quick things. We are doing I guess what they call a burn pile. We have uh grant money for fire mitigation and we're going to do this kind of by Lynwood Cemetery. Um, and it's going to be a fairly big burn. We're going to see a lot of smoke, right? Nothing to worry about. We're on top of it. We'll do everything we can to get out in front of it in the public. But just so you're aware, that's the first week in December. That's coming up. What are we burning? Shrubs. Oh, fuel. Plant material. Each had three of those. Are we, you know, I don't know. I mean, if it's probably subject to weather, but I think even if it's cold or there's some precipitation, they can still do it. rainy day. No.

Yeah, probably not. Do we have any responsibility to Well, if you talk, we need the month. Do we have any obligation to notify people about like air quality if there's a lot of smoke? Yeah. I mean, yes, I think we do. And that that is part of the messaging and we're going to start that messaging pretty soon. We really want to push that out.

Perfect. Thank you. Um, the only other thing I had is you guys may have seen this. We have had these things called First Amendment auditors showing up. We got a break for a couple years. It seems like they dress in all black. They have masks on. They, you know, take their cameras around and they video things. And we had somebody out here the other day and they were videoing the inside of every car in the parking lot. It's disconcerting, but it's not illegal. um they are hardest on our police department because they would love to see a police officer acted appropriately. Um so if you see those people and we've coached our staff on this um also just ignore them the best you can. Don't engage. Don't tell them to stop recording.

Sounds like it that might work to me. Yeah. Um they won't touch you, they won't hurt you. Uh, but they they are they can be a little bit scary. So, just a heads up on that. I think that's it for me. Okay. Thank you. To the attorneys. I I appreciate it. Um, it's not 7:30 and it's not 8:00. It's 8:05. I'm good. Okay. I missed all that. What did you say? Well, I said it's not 7:30. It's not 8 o'clock. It's 8:05. So, I'm golden for this evening. I tried really hard. That was it. Oh, that's what that whole thing back and forth.

I know. Yeah. No, it's uh the only other thing I would tell you is that we are going to do um an early executive session at the next meeting at 3:00. Um so that'll be come out as a special meeting because we have to call a meeting to have an executive session. Um so just keep that in mind when you see the regular agenda probably start at 4. Um but there's actually something starting at three and it's going to be about an hour long uh executive session. We have some things to go over uh related to permitting and some other stuff with South Bridge that I need to talk you guys through.

Okay, that I'm sorry. Go for it. Well, that'll be a hard one. We also have I think coming up an update from Habitat on the Confluence project and Glenwood Gardens coming back. So, there may be a couple of hard ones in two weeks. Okay, fair. That's right. You could also do it on the 18th. It's fine. C councelor Smith, any any questions or just thank you for the early executive session rather than late at night. Appreciate it. Okay, excellent. Any correspondence? No, but happy Thanksgiving everybody. I hope you uh have some great time with family and eat some turkey. Thank you, Ryan. Likewise. Same to you. Social event mayor prom Solinski.

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. Um, I would like to announce we are going to go to Tapato meeting refreshment. Thank you. Uh, entertaining a motion to adjourn. Centennial. Council Townsley. I move we adjourn. We have a motion to adjurnn. I need a second. Second. Okay. All in favor say I. Those opposed.