City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Today is February 3rd, 2026. This is the Durango City Hall Council meeting. Could we have roll call, please? Thank you, Mayor. Councelor Lawyer. Hey, I'm here. Councelor Gonzalez. Councelor Koso here, Mayor Prom Woodruff here, and Mayor Yazy here. And the next item is the reading of the indigenous land acknowledgement.

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

And may we have an introduction of the translator.

Hi, good evening. My name is Lee Torres and I am here along with my colleague Sam Guzman and we are here from the community language cooperative. So, and we want to thank you for your commitment to language justice so that everyone can participate in the language of their heart. If you are joining us on teams tonight, please go to the more menu and select the language you wish to listen to in tonight's meeting. And we can go ahead and start. And under item three, we have opening remarks by mayor and councel if there are any. No problem. Um, it also doesn't look like we have any presentations or proclamations. Item five is the city manager updates, which there are no items. And under committee, board, and liaison reports, um, unless council had any reports, it looks like there's no items. Okay, thank you. Um, so the next item on the agenda is public comment on items under consideration of adoption. If we could have the recording. Public comment is encouraged on agenda items set for consideration and a vote by the council tonight. Public comments on items not set for consideration by the council come later in the meeting. Please begin your comments by stating the agenda items set for a vote you intend to speak on, your full name, and if you are a resident of the city of Durango. Make your comments directly to the council. Do not expect a response from the council or staff. Comments are

limited to 3 minutes per person unless modified by the council. Unused time is not transferable to other speakers. Comments must be specific to the item you identified when you began your comments. Profanity, hate speech, personally derogatory remarks, speech unrelated to the item you identified, or other speech that is disruptive to the meeting will be ruled out of order by the chair, and any remaining time will be forfeited by the speaker. Exceeding the time limit infringes on the rights of others and is out of order. Only a majority vote of the council can modify time limits. Please note, you must sign up prior to the mayor calling the item on the agenda. Signing up after the item is called will result in your name not being called to speak.

Thank you. And there are four individuals who signed up to speak under item 12.1 which is continued from the January 21st city council meeting. And that one's an ordinance for text amendments to the city of Durango code of ordinances, chapter 27, the land use and development code regarding elimination of parcel area minimums for accessory dwelling units. And the first person signed up to speak in person is Chris Paulson, which I guess is EN3 in your uh land use and development code. And I would urge you to basically table this whole um uh proposed amendment concerning ADUs indefinitely. I feel there has not been enough time for the community to learn what has been happened since in 2014. The community worked very closely with the planning department with Greg Hulk and Vicky Vandergrift and the mayor and the council to come up with something that was acceptable both to the people that wanted to put in ADUs and also to the neighborhood. But that hasn't happened. And when we look back on it now, we see that that basically that agreement has been dismantled bit by bit by bit. And that's what's happening again here today. When you take away um the minimum lot requirements for EN2 and EN3, which is basically the minimum lot uh resolutions were really a large part of those agreements. So I feel that's really unfortunate. And then I also find extremely unfortunate that I just learned like within the last day or two that the planning department has come

out with new figures showing there there are many more lots that will fall under this uh provision than were initially put out to the public. So that's again a d uh an issue due process in terms of notice and opportunity to comment. essentially the public has not been forewarned that this there are many more lots that are going to be uh under this proposal than than were initially put out to the public. So um and also the what's come up is also this issue of enforcement. Uh we find that those at least 70 lots are out there where people have put in that they have wanted to do ADUs but didn't come forward with the finish up the process. The fees are over $7,000 from the information that I've uh seen seen produced for the council. 7,000 times 70 that's a lot of money. It's far more than the 177,000 that we were worried about with the ethics complaint. So I think that along also along with the fact that uh we aren't tracing whether or not these initial ADUs are still owner occupied which they are required to be and whether or not they have um signed up for the um every two years they're supposed to to do this to to reregister. So there's a lot of issues out there and obviously I'm coming to the end of my time and I could I've got several more issues. the public has not been informed uh at all about what's going on here and I think the whole thing should be tabled. Thank you. And the next individual who had signed up to speak on this item is Libby Culver. Hi, my name is Libby Culver and I live at 837 East Thirdrd Avenue and I'm a member of the board of the Boulevard Neighborhood Association and that

represents East 3rd through Fifth Avenues and all the accompanying side streets from 2nd all the way to 15th. We are concerned about any amendment that relaxes rules pertaining to ADUs in this in our oldest and densest of city neighborhoods. There's a long-standing lack of adequate parking with few homes in the area having driveways coupled with downtown workers and patrons using the streets for parking. We already have many ADUs, duplexes, and short-term rentals. Eliminating the lot size requirement could exacerbate already concerning issues with infrastructure, parking, and quality of life. We also are concerned with the lack of enforcement for the current ADUs as we are aware of many that are not in compliance. I cannot speak to the suitability of this proposed amendment on other neighborhoods, but I believe it is not in the best interest of ours. Thank you. And the next individual that signed up to speak for this item is Sweetie Marberry. My name is Swie Marberry and I live at 2256 West 2nd Avenue. I support the changes in the ADU code because Durango is in a housing crisis for working people. I'm going to read a portion of Dick White's email in support of eliminating lot sizes. See, the number of ADUs built in the 11 years since implementation of the land use code has been minimal because prohibitive costs deter most people. As every city councelor quickly learns, infield development among is among the

new tools available to increase housing supply in the city. The alternative for most people is to leave Durango and then commute to work or shop, exacerbating congestion and parking issues, as well as increasing greenhouse gas emissions. We have escalating building costs. We all know that. But some people might choose to have a garage apartment in their backyard. And we know that the need is there. In fact, the city has offered fees reducing about $8,000 in fees if you would build an ADU and rent it to a working person. Um, I think the planning director has stated to city council that ADUs do not impact the infrastructure in neighborhoods. Uh people live in this town and it affords the opportunity to get around without driving, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and avoiding congestion. I understand some people are afraid of ADUs, but in the last 11 years, 10 ADUs per year have not wrecked anyone's neighborhood. I live next door to a duplex and an ADU for the last 50 years. I've had many working people live in my neighborhood and contribute to the kindness of the neighborhood. Parking issues, as Libby mentioned, we all know that the ADU, you have to park it on the property. It's not like they're going to park in the street. We have guidelines and those are wonderful guidelines that we initiated, but it's now time to update. Just like you get a new car every once in a while, it's time to update the code. I see that the planning commission uh has submitted a plan to reduce in EN2 the lot size from 7,000 to 6500 and in EN3 uh you drop it down from

7500 to 7,000 in EN1 it's still 5,000 square ft so anyone can build on in in the EN1 neighborhoods if they have a 5,000 foot lot. Thank you for your consideration in this matter and I believe that we've had lots of information in the newspaper uh in meetings and so I feel like we are wellversed in this issue. Thank you.

And the next person signed up to speak under 12.1 is Devon Mininger to write this out so I didn't get nervous and start talking to you about sea turtles or something. Um, my name is Devon Mininger. I'm a city of Durango resident and I'm here this evening to express support for eliminating the minimum lot size requirement for detached accessory dwelling units. Adus are a proven tool to increase housing options within our existing neighborhoods without the need to develop new land. Because they connect to existing services like water, sewer, and roads, they are fiscally responsible way to add housing without encouraging sprawl. This approach respects Durango's open spaces while bringing more housing choices closer to jobs, schools, transit, and services for our workforce, seniors, and young families. ADUs can be a bridge to staying in the community they work in and love. When people can live near where they work, we also reduce commuter traffic and long-term infrastructure strain. As a parent of two, and as I know some of you are as well, I'm concerned that if or hopefully when our kids want to come back to Durango, they're going to be completely priced out, especially with such large gaps in our entry level and middle market housing. Adus are a realistic and effective way to help address that for our recent graduates and young professionals. ADUs also provide flexibility and financial stability for homeowners. Rental income can help with mortgage payments, property maintenance, or caring for children or a aging parents. That stability helps make home home ownership more sustainable and keeps our locals here. I definitely understand the concerns about parking, traffic, and neighborhood character. Um, those are all very valid and deserve thoughtful regulation. Um, but removing a minimum lot size requirement does not remove design standards, setbacks, parking requirements, or safety rules. It simply removes a barrier barrier that limits housing options. I urge you to support removing the minimum lot size for ADUs. It's a practical step towards affordability. smart growth and stability for homeowners. With strong

design standards and proper processes, ADUs allow Durango to add to housing while preserving what makes our community special. Thank you.

And then the next two folks who signed up uh for agenda related items are wanting to speak on item 12.2, two, which is an ordinance for text amendments to the city of Durango code of ordinances, chapter 27, the land use and development code regarding electric fences and mats and related definitions. The first individual is Monnique Deorgio, uh, who indicated she's online. Thank you. Monique, your mic is

Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

And can you show the camera or you don't have to, but it would be nice to see you all in person, but um thanks for allowing me to comment remotely. My name is Mon'nique Deorgio. I am co-owner of Tableto Farm Compost, which is located in the county. I'm not a Durango resident, but our office is actually at 1309 East Third A. Um, and our compost facility is in the county. I'm speaking on both items 12.2 and 12.3 today regarding electric fences and mats. Um, we're in a pretty unique situation at Tableto Farm Compost because our compost facility is the one and only facility in the state of Colorado that is completely surrounded by an electric fence. And I just wanted to take a moment to tell you the story around that fence. Um, it's about a 4 acre facility. 2 acres are surrounded by a live electric fence with the help of Bearsmart. Before that fence was installed, we had bears coming up from the Flora River, getting into our compost piles, picking up bags of compost and taking them down to their dens. This was happening for a couple years. We installed the fence and they started to come to the northwest corner of the fence and we actually have lots of interesting um video showing them trying to get in. After a couple months of not being able to get in, we started to see that decline and now I can say it's been over a year, if not more. Um, the bears are just ignoring the facility altogether. So, um, we have a very unique story to show that these fences are super super effective and efficient. Um, in addition to our experience, um, we know that electric fencing and mats are effective deterrence. Um, and they really do reduce human bear conflict. They've been proven safe for people in pets. Um, they're allowed in other Colorado communities. Um, and they're

being used elsewhere in the county. Um, they don't start fires and, uh, they can be installed using a permitting process. And so, I really thank you for supporting this, um, amendment to the city code, making our community safer for both residents and our Black Bear neighbors. happy to answer any questions about our experience if you would like.

The next individual signed up to speak on the same item uh is online and that's Sandia Atkinson. Your microphone's been unmuted. Okay. Can you hear me now?

Okay. I think there might be someone else who is uh unmuted with some background noise. Um, good evening, council. My name is Sundia Atkinson and I live in Bayfield and have been a longtime resident of Durango. I'm here tonight to speak on items 12.2 and 12.3 in support of allowing electric fencing and mats within city limits. For six years, I served as the professional facilitator for the Llata County Bear Working Group through my practice, Sage Brush. That group brought together city staff, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, law enforcement, Bearsmart Durango, the Southern New Tribe, and other partners to reduce human bear conflict across our community. Together, we tracked bear activity, responded to incidents, and led public education about securing trash, compost, fruit trees, and livestock. What we learned again and again is this. Education helps, but it isn't enough. The most effective way to prevent conflict is physical prevention. If bears can't access the food, they don't return. Like we just heard from Mon'nique, that protects people and it protects bears. The city's requirement for wildlife resistant trash containers has already proven this approach works. It has meaningfully reduced conflict. Electric fencing and mats are simply the next practical step. They are safe, temporary, affordable, and highly effective. They deliver a brief deterrent shock that teaches a bear to stay away with without harming the animal or posing risk to people or pets. And the need is very real. Last year alone, nearly 30% of all bear reports in Colorado came from Llata County. 30%. Residents reported over 750 trash related conflicts and 17 black bears were euthanized locally. Those numbers represent preventable outcomes. In my own neighborhood here in Bayfield,

a bear broke into our compost bin last fall. After Bears Smart helped install electric fencing, the problem stopped immediately. There are no further conflicts, escalation, or harm, and the children and dogs in our community were safer now than they were before. Other Colorado communities already allow these tools, and thousands of fences are safely in use countywide. I respectfully encourage Durango City Council to pass this ordinance. Thank you for your time and your leadership in keeping both our community and Black Bear safe. And mayor and council, um those were the remaining people who signed up for public comment. However, one individual had signed up after the deadline, which was Karen McManis. Uh for your consideration,

I move to allow Karen to speak for public comment for three minutes. I'll second. Yes.

Sorry.

Good evening. My name is Karen Mcmanis. I thank you for your service. I'm uh wanting to make comments regarding the proposal to loosen the ADU requirements. Um I live in downtown Durango. Um I know that the current staffing and budgets uh apparently don't allow for appropriate thorough regulating uh and oversight of the current ADUs. So, it concerns me that um even more could be considered without first getting a grip on what we have now as far as re-registration and everything. Um and it and I read somewhere that it was a proposal of 119 addition which would basically double the known ADUs in the in two and three. Um, we have an aging infrastructure. I know that personally. And um, until that's addressed, it's hard to fathom um, adding more stress to our infrastructure. And I guess a question that I would have is what are the current and proposed requirements for off- streetet parking both for the house the primary home and the proposed and the current ADUs because when we uh built our house we were required to have two off- streetet parking spots. And frankly, it's a good thing and my neighbors were too. And it's a good thing be we do because there's no parking on the street. There

are um I think unauthorized um rentals that they take up all the space. So I I what are the requirements for these um places? So also regarding I believe in affordable housing for the Durango area. I truly do. But I don't know that the in town area is what we need. And as far as affordable, I've just recently had some projects and I don't know how affordable it could be given the current construction costs. So, thank you very much for your consideration and have a nice evening.

Thank you. And that's all the public comment. Uh so moving on to item 8 which is the consent agenda. We have 8.1.1 which is approval of the meeting minutes from the January 21st 2026 city council regular meeting. Under 8.2 Two, final reading of ordinances. We have an ordinance amending the Durango Code of Ordinances, Chapter 24, Traffic and Vehicles, Article 3, Parking Administration and Regulation, by adopting section 24-82, parking violations fine schedule. Under 8.3, adoption of resolutions by consent. We have 8.3.1, which is a resolution authorizing an application for the Department of Local Affairs Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Fund Program. Uh there are no items under other approval of other administrative items. Uh no requests for public hearing. Under 8.6, introduction of ordinances, we have 8.6.1, 6.1 which is an ordinance for text amendments to the city of Durango code of ordinances chapter 27 the land use and development code in response to the Colorado wildfire resil resiliency code we have excuse oh and then no items under uh request for excused absences

does anybody want to pull any items I'll make a motion to approve the consent Agenda second. You may place your votes on your device.

Why does Oh, I definitely did not stay. I didn't think Kos brings up a good point. The motion passes. All in favor, Gilda Yazi, Jessica Lawyer, Dave Woodruff. Kip Koso, Shirley Gonzalez. The motion passes. All in favor, Gilda Yazi, Jessica Lawyer, Dave Wood.

Kip Koso, Shirley Gonzalez. I cleared it and it stopped it. Thank you. All right. So, um let's see here. So, there are no items under public hearings. Uh there are no items under resolutions. And so, for section 12, consideration of ordinances. The first item is 12.1. And this is continued from the January 21st city council meeting. And it's an ordinance for text amendments to the city of Durango code of ordinances, chapter 27, the land use and development code regarding elimination of parcel area minimums for accessory dwelling units.

Bring that down to my size. Good evening, council. Uh Jamie Lo, the community development director. Um we're here again to talk about the accessory dwelling units. Um this is supported by our innovative housing and economic development strategic plan goal um by providing housing solutions to support a multi-generational and mixed income community. So I wanted to provide um some background as to how we got here tonight. Um you've seen this item several times before. Um it started back on August the 5th in 2025 where um city council voted to request uh staff to prepare an ordinance that would remove the lot minimum lot size requirements for accessory dwelling units in the EN1 2 and three zones. So in subsequent to that um on your August 19th meeting council did vote to send these request the request of change to the community development commission for their review and recommendation. So the community development commission reviewed it on September 29th. They did um include a recommendation of approval with some changed conditions and I'll go over that in a later slide. Um then we progress pro progressed back to city council um and upon discussion during your first consideration on o October 21st there was concerns you wanted some additional information so it was tabled until we had a study session in January 2026. Um so at the study session we presented some background uh the information that was requested by council and now these in council initiated amendments are back before you again for consideration. Um so I'll briefly go over a little bit of background some of the same slides you've seen before um with condensed information. So um ADUs are accessory dwelling units. They can be integrated to the existing home or um they can be attach detached from the home. So the photo on the left is a completely detached um ADU and then the middle photo we have an ADU that's over something like a detached garage and on the right we have one that's integrated or attached to the home.

Um so over the years um this was um initiated in 2014 like you've heard from the public. Um and there have been several amendments over the years. Um it did start out in just our EN1 and EN2 zones and over the years it expanded to other zones. Um we also had other incremental um updates to the regulations including um partial area limitations, parking and design standards as well as allowing what we call an established neighborhood alternative compliant compliance or we call ENAC um which is an administrative variance. Um briefly wanted to touch on what our current regulations are. So right now parcels that are developed with a duplex can't have an ADU. Um, if you have an ADU, it must be owner occupied, which means the owner can either live in the ADU or they can live in the primary house. There's a limit of one ADU on the parcel. Size is limited 550 ft. Um, they do still have to meet design standards. Our our setbacks, our heights, our floor area ratio, our lot coverage, things like that. Um, as for parking, um, there is one additional space required. So, the house will require two spaces, the ADU requires a third space. there is an exemption in there that allows the one extra space for the ADU to be on uh street under certain circumstances. Um construction of an ADU may trigger a need for public improvements along the property. Um they cannot be rented for short term which means uh they cannot be rented for less than 30 days. Um all all uh EDUs may be eligible for our ENAC, our administrative variance if needed and they all will have be required to go through our limited use permit review by staff. There is public notice to the neighbors but it is an administrative process. So let's take a look at the table um where uh EDUs are allowed and the red box is the area of of concern for the text amendments. Um right now you see there are uh parcel area limitations for the EN1 2 and three zones for detached

ADUs. Um the proposal um requested by council was to eliminate those and just have that box say allowed like you see on some of the other boxes. Um there was also one other small change I wanted to note that um there's currently a table note on there that says um that um not all parcels can accommodate an ADU based on the required design standards. that was moved out of the table and put into the actual text of the code so it's more prominent for people to see. All right. So I want to note that this slide was added to your um packet and presentation yesterday. Um so this is new information. Um is to reflect some more accurate data. Um I'll go over that a little bit uh later in one of the other slides. So this map these maps illustrate the potential impact on eliminating the lot size requirement. The um gez the lighter color you see is um where ADUs are currently allowed. I will note there is an error on the EN1 zone. Everything south of college should be light blue. I just noticed that. So sorry about that. Um so everything that's currently at the lighter of the three colors is where ADUs are allowed. The darker colored parcels with the exception in South College are where um eliminating the lot size would now allow an ADU. Um it's going to impact clo a little bit over 500 parcels. That doesn't mean we're going to have 500 ADUs. Um they're still going to have to meet our design standards. Um and all of these parcels are already allowed to have an integrated ADU. This just gives the property owner a choice. Um if they can meet the design standards, they will then have a choice between attached or detached. And one note again, we average about 10 applications per year on this. So the review criteria for text amendments is on your screen. It's gone more detail in in the staff report, but staff did go through um the reviewed

criterion and found the amendments do meet the applicable criteria. Um this is the community development commission recommendation. I wanted to point that out on their meeting on September 29th, um they did review this and um felt a modification to the conditions. They wanted the EN1 zone to stay as it was and they wanted to reduce the lot size and EN2 and 3 by 500 ft. The additional thing that they added was the note on the table number three was that parcels in the EN1 and EN2 zone would not be eligible to use our utilize our detached garage bonus. And that bonus allows people who have a detached garage and put an ADU above it to get a 450 ft um exemption in their floor area. ratio calculation. So it gives a little more more buildable um square footage on the property to be able to do that. So they wanted to eliminate the eligibility of that in the EN 102 zone. This is the other slide that is new. Um this was in your previous um presentation and I wanted to bring it to your attention that um it is different from what was there before. Um we found that the data that we used prior in our calculations was based on um county data and our parcel layer and our GIS. We have two opportunities to look at the square footage of lots. One is the counties and one is the cities. We had previously used the counties and theirs is based on recorded documents and very rounded numbers. Um and so to check for accuracy we used the city's data which is based on an actual measurement of the parcels and our data was more accurate. And so that's what we're you're going to see as the change versus last time where we saw there was only about 400 properties that would be added. Now you're going to see there's a little bit more than 500 properties that could potentially be added. Now I want to have a caveat on that is this data is just based on a lot size.

It does not reflect what's on the property. If they already have an ADU, if they already have a duplex, if they already have a vacation rental, those properties can't get another ADU. This is just showing you the grand scale of the number of properties that are out there and the number of properties that will now be added to that. That doesn't mean that they're all going to be eligible. And again, they're still going to have to meet the design standards. Okay. Um at the study session, um council did request that we uh include the stricter enforcement in this uh study session in this uh presentation. So, I wanted to update you on where we are with that. So, we have worked through the list of approved ADUs. Um, and I will tell you that there's 160, not 161, we found a duplicate. There's only 160. We also found that 48 or of those 160 or 30% had changed ownership. Um, and so, uh, we have also worked on drafting a letter to go out to the property owners with the actual owner affidavit and instructions on how to upload that into our open gov permitting software. Um, and we expect those to go out in the next couple of weeks to all 160 of those owners. Um, letting them know whether you're a new owner or a current owner, this needs to be signed, notorized, and recorded, and then uploaded to our open gov system. And once it's uploaded to our open gov system, the system will track the date. And so, we can set a trigger that 60 days prior to that date, you're going to send a letter to the owner and say, "Time to renew." That way, it takes the burden off of staff of trying to track that. We do have the ability in open gov to also uh run reports to make sure that we are getting those um in return as well. So we have a couple of options there that open gov is really going to help us with the tracking of this. Um we've also set a mechanism in place where our staff is going to check quarterly uh based on our approved um addresses for ADUs against new addresses in the system to see if there's any new

ownership um to make sure that we've gotten um affidavits from any new owners of property or properties that have changed hands. Um the last thing is um we are looking at an educational session on ADUs that'll cover our current regulations um existing ways to bring ones into compliance if there's still one uh units out there that don't have a permit and then also the the rebate program to help cover the cost of permitting. Um we are working with the community engagement specialist to schedule that as a future topic in one of our engaged Durango forums. And lastly, we've gotten several public comments in this. Um you've received a lot of those via email directly and through your previous packets. Um there are some comments uh supporting the amendments for providing additional housing opportunities um including multi-generational living as well as potential income sources to assist with home ownership. There were also several comments opposed to the amendments with concerns related to parking, noise, crowding, infrastructure, traffic density, and overall impact of the neighborhood character and quality of life. Um, so with that, we do have a recommended motion on the screen, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Move to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to portions of chapter 2 of the land use and development code to eliminate parcel area minimum requirements for detached accessory dwelling units with the finding that the proposal complies with LUDC criteria for text amendments.

I'll second discussion. Okay, thank you. Um, so, uh, thank you Jamie for the presentation. So, c can you tell me, I know this went back to the CDC and then came back. Can you show what changes were made as a result of the CDC recommendations? That was the CDC recommendation. And the recommendation before you is still the staff's recommend recommendation based on council direction to eliminate all of those uh requirements. So um it seems like though that CDC had some requests. Yes.

That's Can you tell me which those are because it was more than just the lot sizes. There were other things as well. Um the recommendation that came from staff at the direction of council was to eliminate the lot sizes under detached and then we moved one of the notes. didn't change anything there. That was just a a change in where the location was. The community development commission's recommendations on your screen where the EN1 would remain unchanged. EN2 and three, the lot sizes will be reduced by 500 square ft. And then they added note number three that would not allow EN1 and two to take advantage of our detached garage bonus. Okay. And that's what you're recommending, the staff recommendation.

This is CDC's recommendation. Staff recommendation is still to eliminate them. I see. Okay. Thank you. Um, thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Jamie, thank you for giving that uh presentation. Will you go back some and say how many total ADUs ADU opportunities for ADUs and the 160 current ADUs? Are those attached and detached? Those are total ADUs. Yes.

Okay. So that means we have out of 116 lots that are currently allowed for a detached ADU. I mean lot says limited so 16. So 1106 I mean does that include lots that allowed an an attached ADU or is that is that all inclusive? The first row is what is what is currently allowed right now? There are 116 lots in IN1, two and three that are allowed ADUs. Now keep in mind these are not the only three districts where ADUs are allowed. Right? So I mean out of 1100 units or potential units 160 that not even all are in this these three zones. The majority of them are.

Majority of them are but but certainly not all. Um okay thank you for that. And then also so with the garage bonus does that mean that there's potentially allowable for a thousand square feet of ADU with the 450 foot? No. The ADU is still limited to 550 ft, but what you um run upon with a smaller lot size is there's still the F floor area ratio you have to meet. And so by adding both a garage and an ADU, sometimes people don't have enough flu ratio to accommodate that. So by giving them the exemption of the 450 ft, they can have that as as kind of an incentive to put the ADU there.

Okay. So it's not the it's not allowance of a a bigger ADU. just it just Okay, I see. Um Okay, thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate it. I'm just going to make some comments and then but I don't really have many questions. Um I was lucky enough to go to Cass last week um as I've mentioned before and we had a whole presentation on um from it's Colorado Association of Ski Towns and it was all about different initiatives that towns are taking um we got presentations from Salida um Breenray I forget there's a whole bunch and some of the biggest initiatives that are being taken are around ADUs um some new fun things Salida has has new minimum density laws So now they have you have to build a certain amount of houses on this lot. You cannot buy this whole lot and just build one. So they're creating minimum densities now instead of maximum densities because people are coming in and buying lots and building like huge mansions on them that were intended for multi-use housing and they are trying to like put a kibash to that. They've also, they call them enhanced ADU options, but essentially getting rid of a lot of the ADU restrictions so that there's more and it is because it provides h housing. We just had a presentation by Mike French today about the housing crisis that we're in. I ran for city council originally 5 years ago. Um, at that point in time, my boys were like 12 and 13. They are now 17 and 18 years old. and I ran and I said, "I want them to be able to afford a home in Durango if they want to live here." I was able to afford a home. I moved here when I was 20 years old. That is not happening anymore. When I ran for council, that was one of my main initiatives. We said it today about affordability. I'm saying it today about housing. This is a small step. This isn't going to solve our housing crisis. This is a small step towards getting there. a piece of the puzzle to make it to help affordability, help homeowners offset the c cost of their

home, help them bring in elderly members of the family, help to um provide more housing for college students and you know, other people that live and work here. Um I understand people's concerns. Um I want Durango to maintain its spirit and character. I totally agree. I don't think 10 more ADUs this year spread across Durango is going to do that. I think Jamie has made a commitment and we've talked about like the different ways that we can like increase enforcement and kind of help those things. However, two weeks ago, I remember sweetie sitting here. I said this for a different topic. People that just because we're going to increase efforts potentially to like help ADUs get um easier um what's the word I'm looking for? Like uh thank you attainable but then also like registered and legal and all the things doesn't mean there's not going to be illegal ADUs. People suck, right? They still suck. I said this two weeks ago for something else, they do. They're going to try to go underneath and cut corners no matter what. No matter how many enforcement officers we have, that will happen. And so I just think that this is one small step we can take to help maintain affordability in the um in the best ability for our community. So thank you

Jamie. Thanks for the presentation. Uh same thing. I think I'm going to do some comments rather than straight questions to you. Um I want to preface everything I'm going to say by um stating first current staff are not responsible for reviving the ADU topic. um nor are they responsible for the previous staff gaps. But we have had staff gaps in 2014. Promises were made to the community. Um overtime, change of staff, whatever it was, those promises were not fulfilled. Ownership occupancy um the the um all the rules and regulations that were around ADUs fell off at some point. And so I I remain opposed to following any to allowing any further ADU or vacation rental stock to be added to the city at this time. those promises made in previous years by the city around enforcement were not maintained. And I feel it's particularly important that we update and enforce owner occupancy as well as to ensure that there's a viable notification process and follow-up enforcement that brings all the current units into compliance. It looks like Jamie and her team are moving in the right direction here, but we've said this before and it fell by the wayside over the course of the 10 years. So, we need a viable enforcement system that actually works before we necessarily add more stock to it. Jamie, feel free to correct me on any of these, but I think these are the issues that are still floating out there. There's 25 grandfathered units with no requirements. Any improvement to the property over 65 67% restarts the need to follow the requirements, but we don't know the status of these units at this point. 17 units do not require owner occupancy and I think we should have some discussion on whether that should mean remain the case. Updates of inspections for units prior to 1989 promised by the city were stopped without informing the public why and they remain uh unfulfilled. Correcting the fact that greater than 50% of the current ADUs have not been certified. We we've got over 50% of these ADUs that have not been certified. Let's catch that up before we put more ADUs into the

system. And then following up on at least 70 units that exist that never followed the registration requirements. That's going to take enforcement. That's not one letter probably. That's multiple letters because people suck sometimes and they won't follow through until they're forced to do it. Um, so I think that's very important, too. So it's not an objection to the value of the ADUs provided to our housing stock or an objection around density. Uh for me right now, it's a pause that allows current staff to rectify broken promises from city officials and earlier agreements and present a clear picture of where we stand as a community with ADUs and VRs. We have multiple issues to address here before we should think about more adding more ADUs into the system. Jamie, I'd love to give you a second if I had any of that wrong to correct me. Um, and no, the only thing I would note is the 17 that currently have a waiver, if those change hands, if they're sold, then they have to sign the owner occupancy. And I believe a couple of those are have changed ownership. And so that'll be one of the things that we track as well. Um, and when you said over 50% are not certified, what do you mean by that?

I I I took that from one of our previous discussions and that the majority of ADUs had not been authorized or cleared or registered. Um I I may be using the wrong words. So is that not accurate? Um we have you don't have accurate records for greater than 50% of the ADUs right now in regards to ownership occupancy um and the other requirements for an ADU. Um owner occupancy is probably the one thing that we have not followed up on. The remainder of the requirements if they received an approval and acknowledgement from us they are compliant. Okay. It's the owner occupancy really the one thing that we need to follow up on. That's it. Thank you.

Uh I'm just going to give a quote that we heard from Mike and his team earlier. A city where people can work but not but not live is not fully thriving. Um we're not talking about a million units. We're talking about, you know, a handful in the greater scheme. Um a couple another um uh data notes jobs increased by 12% um over the last uh 10 years. Um and then housing units have only increased by 9%. So housing stock has not kept pace with job creation. Uh projected growth over the next 5 years projects about another 10% of growth over the next 10 years. Llata County, not just the city, is going to need 1550 units of housing per year to be built and available. ADUs are a piece of the housing puzzle, an arrow in the quiver, if you will, but certainly not going to been be the the end all be all. Um, and I really don't feel like there's going to be just a massive flood of applicants, you know, considering there's roughly 10 a year that apply and and end up getting a an ADU belt. Um, I think costs, home, the will of the homeowner and regulatory requirements are going to shape those decisions for folks and likely deter many of them from from pursuing it. Um, I would push back a little bit that we haven't given the public enough time to consider this. We've been talking about this for 5 months now and we've gone through multiple public comment periods throughout that process. Um, you know, as policy makers, we have a duty to ensure our community thrives and addressing housing initiatives in all their forms, whether it's Uras or ADUs or leveraging ARPA money, however we can discuss these things, I think it's imperative for us to address affordability in our community. And and Kip, I hear you that we we can't be condemned for the sins of our father. We we can't hold Jamie and the community development team beholden to what happened previously. I think that was a lesson that we could hopefully learn from and and move forward, you know, in terms of enforcement and and just

because we may have made mistakes in the past doesn't mean that we throw the baby out in the bathwater in my opinion um in in getting something like this uh to move forward. This isn't going to be um a a huge uh dent, but I think it it will at least be another tool that we can use to address housing and affordability. And again, we're talking about housing affordability in our community, something that's in our, you know, strategic plan, something that that we really are um that we're we we all agree that this is super critically important that we address. And I think we need to make sure that we're giving everybody the opportunity to to be able to thrive in this community.

Yeah. I just wanted to make sure I I started my entire di tirade off with a absolute preface that you are not responsible for this that you inherited it. My my concept here is that we clean up what we've said we were going to do before before we add to it. Nobody's talking about restricting affordable housing. Nobody is sitting here thinking that there's going to be a million units added to it. I think there are legitimate discussions about the impact of the neighborhoods that have the most ADUs within them. And so the voices from those residents carry a little bit more weight in the discussion in this whole thing as well. So, um, again, I think I'm asking for a pause, clean up what we're doing right now, the promises that were made 10, 12 years ago. Let's make sure we follow through on those and then we can restart the conversation about add changing the lot sizes and adding more.

All righty. See no other hands. Could we vote on the little machine? The motion passes. Three in favor Jessica lawyer Dave Woodruff Shirley Gonzalez. Two opposed Kip Koso Gilda Yazi. Thank you. Uh the next item on the agenda is 12.2 which is an ordinance for text amendments to the city of Durango code of ordinances chapter 27 the land use and development code regarding electric fences and mats and related definitions.

Good evening mayor and members of city council. Daniel Murray in the community development department presenting an ordinance to allow the permitting of electric fences and electric mats. Topic aligns with the city's strategic plan goal of safety and quality of life given the focus on public safety. The process thus far has included October 7th when council gave direction to staff to present options. We came back on November 18th. We provided some research as well as background on electric fence and mats. On December 2nd, council gave direction to prepare an ordinance and that brings us up to the process that has kicked off on January 21st. the item was introduced on your agenda and then today, February 3rd, is what's known as the first consideration. If you take action, it'll come back again at a subsequent meeting on February 18th for final consideration. Through the course of staff's research and presenting options to council, there was consensus that electric fences and mats are an effective means to help deter bears from impacting gardens, fruit trees, and chicken coops. Electric mats can be used to prevent bears from getting into garages, homes, and other structures. And therefore, staff actually has two ordinances for your consideration tonight, which have uh standards and a permitting process for electric fences and mats for your action. Some quick context in terms of what we're discussing. On the left side of the screen is an image of an electric fence around a garden. Center image would be an electric fence around a fruit tree. And on the right side is an electric fence in a chicken around a chicken coupe. This is an image showing the bear mats or unwelcome mats as they're known.

They're largely a plugandplay system where you plug them in and it would preclude an animal from entering the doorway or in the right side of the screen. It shows a series of mats uh in front of a garage door. Same intent to prohibit access through the garage door. So this slide captures the process we've gone through in terms of the options presented. It's a continuum if you will. On the left side the most permissive approach would be the greatest allowance in green. On the right side is where the city of Durango currently stands. We have no allowance meaning electric fences and mats are prohibited. So in this process, we analyzed all these options and came up with what would work best we think for the city of Durango. On the left side is the greatest allowance as a point of reference. This is known as a use by right. This is what occurs in Lllata County. It's also a Steamboat Springs example. There are no pering permitting requirements. Moving to the column with the yellow dot would be what I'm calling a medium allowance. These electric fences and mats do require a permit. They have a important component that I'm referring to as a barrier fence. It's known as a fence around a fence. The exact wording in our code is to make sure is inaccessible to persons who would not know the fence is electrified by virtue of another fence, a structure, or retaining wall. That's a key element in this medium allowance. The electric fences and mats are allowed in most zone districts. And this is the example we drew from in Missoula, Montana as well as Montro. Moving to the column with the red dot still requires a permit. It still requires that barrier fence. But what is different about this option is it is not allowed in residential zone

districts. And this is the Colorado Springs example. The reason why, and I'll just go ahead and say where uh Durango landed on this continuum is in the medium allowance. And the reason why I think it's best for the city to fall on this column is if we don't allow electric fences in our residential zones, we've now preluded 80% of our city. And working with CPW, Carl, Parks and Wildlife, and Bears Smart, and maybe your own experience, bears are everywhere. our town is small enough, maybe it's dense enough, the presence of the river, a whole variety of factors have contributed to bear activity not just being limited to our urban edge or our commercial core. It's everywhere. So that is how staff arrived at this scenario where we would allow the electric fences and mats in all zones but subject to some standards and I can get to those next. There's the first consideration is to make sure this option is safe and we took all the elements from what our standard practice in other jurisdictions and we put them in this proposed ordinance which includes limiting the voltage to 10,000 volts which is a significant amount of voltage. However, the key consideration is limiting that to two two jewels of energy which is a small amount of energy. Other considerations including include the requirement that these systems be commercially available, what you could refer to as offtheshelf. There is a prohibition on a modifying the systems or the DIY electrical system. It also requires that the energizer, which is the aspect that you would ultimately power, has to be ULlisted, and that's a common certification. Underwriters laboratory is what that stands for. And that's consistent with

almost every piece of electronics in this room. It's possible to buy non ULlisted products from overseas, but our requirement would be that they be ULlisted. And lastly, that there be a requirement for warning signs. This is the example that I was offered uh as a conventional type of sign. It's um in in two languages and it's on both sides. And uh this is what is recommended in the ordinance. I will add that the ordinance right now requires the sign to be 8x10. I would suggest if you're going to take action tonight to revise this motion to allow the sign to be 4 by 8. And you'll see that on my last screen. What these systems are doing is providing a brief pulse or a shock burst. It allows the animal or the human to step back. They do not cause the muscle to lock. They don't generate heat and they do not cause electrocution. There's not enough heat to start a fire, which is important given our urban wild uh wildland interface. And in some what we've learned is that these are designed to deliver a short, sharp, and non-lethal shock. The second consideration, which you've already heard me reference, is that these systems be surrounded by another fence or it could be a wall or a structure. This is known as a barrier of some sort to keep them inaccessible to a person who would otherwise not know that that fence is uh electric fence is there. There is also a requirement to keep these installations away from the front yard. This was something that staff introduced looking at other jurisdictions where you you're going to

allow it in all zones. The language that we saw was not adjacent to the street or a sidewalk. And in practice, not being adjacent is a difficult one to implement on the you could say on the planning side. So what we opted to do is make that a very explicit distance. The front yard is typically 20 ft. This is an image right out of our land use and development code. It quantifies the front yard in this case to be 20 feet in all of our uh established neighborhood zone districts. And that's where the electric fence could not be located or the bear mat. The electric fence or bare mat can be in the sideyard and it can be in the rear yard. So this is intentionally taking the first step. It's a rather big step, but we're putting ourselves in the medium allowance. We're requiring both the barrier and being out of the front yard setback. If in time we realized this was too restrictive, this and could become an or fence or out of the front setback. Let's figure out what works best. But right now, we're going to wait into this cautiously and we're going to see how this works. That's why it's designed to be both requirements. The next piece of this process was getting feedback both externally and internally. That included working with our police department. The question was raised whose enforcement responsibility is this? And it comes down to a lot of things that happen in comdev as well with police department. Is it a shared responsibility? comdev community development uh enforces many things by day when we have staff available and then in the evening our police department colleagues take over to enforce an issue. There's also recognition that we would want to log the presence of an electric fence for dispatch. They provided us with contact information. We've actually already put that contact information into our workflow. So, at the end of permitting a

hypothetical fence, the planner would notify dispatch that at this location, a fence exists, and that's a standard practice for dispatch to then share with first responders. Community development worked with the attorney's office. There is an indemnification language you'll see in the red lines, and I know that was a specific comment I heard from council. Uh, in this process, we worked with city engineering. They echoed and underscored the importance of these being commercially available systems, not the DIYs. The UL listing was important, the warning signs, and then they affirmed that the two jewels and the 10 volts max uh is seems to be the industry standard. We worked with our external partners, Colorado Parks and Wildlife and Bears Smart. They very much see this as being an effective tool. Uh you've heard that thus far in the process and they're willing to support the city in this implementation. With respect to next steps, we see ourselves working with the Bearsmart group to come up with a brochure. They have a lot of experience in installation so they can come up with our quick guide in terms of how to go about installing a compliant system. There are loaner mats uh available which is a current practice in the county that would now come to the city. And one uh specific element in the ordinance is they're often 10 days effective, but what staff is recommending is 30 days. That gives us time should you take action to then update our forms, create the brochure, and this would be an online permitting system. So, most of the framework is there. Just a little background on fence permits. It's an administrative review. It's a $50 application fee. people can apply online. And with respect to the uh bare mats, this is a pretty simple system. You've heard me refer to it in the photograph as a plugand play. We

think we can turn those around in about 24 hours. If all the information is there, we want to be responsive because what I've learned and I think what we experience is animals create habits. And if we can curb that habit, the first day they discover a food source, say someone mistakenly leaves a dog bowl on their deck, if we can put a mat out in front of that, that behavior would be uh addressed more quickly. So, we can commit to about what we refer to as over the counter permitting for the bare mats. I think the fencing would need a little more consideration because there's a lot more site uh specifics to be taken into consideration, but we can work within our existing framework. So, electric fences and mats are an effective and humane deterrent for wildlife. They create a negative association with human spaces. The goal is to keep wildlife wild and a safer environment where there are fewer interactions between humans and wildlife. What you have in your packet this evening are two motions. One is for chapter 27, which would create the standards in the process. And then chapter six is to remove the prohibition on electric fences. You can take those motions independently and staff is recommending that you do amend the motion for chapter 27 to allow the minimum size to be 4 by 8, not 10 by 8. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Yeah. Move move move to approve the proposed text amendments to the city of Durango code of ordinance chapter 27 the land use and development code regarding electric fences and mats and related definitions with the amendment that the ordinance will allow a minimum size of the sign to be 4 in by 8 in.

I'll second question. I just had a couple questions. Um, so going back to the um the picture of where the allowable space is. Um, so can somebody potentially have a bear mat on their front porch or at their front door or would that not be an is that considered a stairway or something considered a barrier? That would be Yes. So, the way the red lines read is that you don't need to have the bare mat be behind a barrier and then the setback is applicable, but at that rate, if they're out of their front 20 ft, okay,

you can have it. Perfect. Um, and then after someone gr is granted a permit, is that an indefinite time to have the bear mat available or is there like um they have 90 days and they have to take it down and reapply or is it a yearly thing or is it just indefinite? It's in indefinite. The current fence permitting is structured to be ongoing. we could consider a limitation, but I think if I just wasn't sure if there's going to be an ongoing administrative requirement, the fruit tree example would probably want it to be ongoing. Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you. Yep.

Yeah, just to follow up with that, I wouldn't want somebody to have to resubmit $50 every every year to to get the bear mats and fencing for their fruit trees type thing. So, that makes a lot of sense to me that it would be perpetual. Daniel, thank you very much. I I think you've done a great job of shephering this project as well as working with the the outside external partners um in providing this as well. So, um I just wanted to say thanks for that and um I really appreciate all the time and the energy that everybody's put into this project. So, thanks. Any other questions? Could we vote on the machine? Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

The motion passes. All in favor. Dave Woodruff, Shirley Gonzalez, Jessica Lawyer, Gilda Yazi, Kip Koso. And then the next ordinance under 12.3 is a companion piece, an ordinance for text amendments to the city of Durango code of ordinances, chapter 6, buildings and building regulations regarding electric fences and mats. I'd like to move uh the ordinance as read. I don't have it right in front of me right here. Second. Okay.

All righty. Discussion or do we are are you going to do a presentation? No. Okay. Same thing. Okay. You guys going to vote? The motion passes. We're eliminating Ben out of the in favor. Jessica Lawyer, Kip Koso, Dave Woodruff, Shirley Gonzalez, Gilda Yazi, and a side thank you Brian Peterson, decades of work on the bear issues, so thanks for all your time and effort and energy there. Appreciate you.

Just a reminder, it is a requirement that the vote um be said aloud. So, the new technology is great, but we need to let need to let the computer talk so it's read out loud and meets the statutory requirements. So going in the habit of talking over it.

Maybe we get a better voice, you know, like Carl.

All right. Um, moving forward, there has been uh no one who signed up to speak or public comment for city matters not under consideration. So we can move forward to item 14 which is other new business with the first item being 14.1 a motion to conduct a presentation on finalizing resilient resiliency and recovery fund at a future study session. council. I'm hoping that after our past study session presentation, we can continue to kind of move forward with developing a remediation grant fund uh for businesses and private individuals negatively affected by city operations that are not reimbursed through insurance. We had uh suggestions for edits to the proposed process when it was presented by uh Tommy Crosby and a conversation that suggested council's willing to see a more robust proposal that would include the framework of a loan program in conjunction with region 9. So I'd like to make a motion at this point to um for staff to finalize the structure of the resiliency and recovery fund for presentation and voting at our next available council meeting. Sure.

Um, did we So, I'm nervous with all this funding items that we talked about. Did we say how we were going to fund this? Is there is this just a like is have we talked about that or staff staff was intending to come back with the the specifics along these lines? So, I think, and please feel free to correct me, Jose, but we needed to we needed to authorize them to take the the skeleton framework that they talked about in the study session and put some meat on it.

Yeah, I think we had uh we had a a structure of a program. Um, and if I recall, there was a little bit of a differentiation uh I think of kind of where the staff was at. Maybe we were talking like 1 to 3,000. And I think councelor Kosa, you may have had a different uh kind of a opinion of or a thought process is probably the better way of looking of what that maximum amount may be. And then there was a lot of discussion that happened on that. So the program on finalizing would kind of need just kind of a guidance as to what would that level threshold on that finalizing that program look like because I think the program we were looking at was not at the level of funding that might be available that you may be anticipating. So, I'm um I'm supportive if you want to. I I'm supportive if it's a small starting spot for this. Like until I figure this out or we not me. I could do it.

Only I alone. Um until we figure this out, I have a really hard time adding anything extra that who knows how much it could be. But if it's a small amount, that's what I was trying to remember, how much it was. If it's a small amount, I'm okay. like starting a program, getting it going and then it could potentially blossom. I I would like I mean it says that a study session so we would hopefully study session that we already did a study session that's why I modified mine to say next let's move it forward if it session a second study session is not was not of that much interest to me I mean I'm I'm happy to move forward at a small low cost if you want if you don't want that then I'll say no

this could be as well we're doing okay right yeah we're this could be as well that the staff comes back with their recommendation and we have that conversation, right? We don't exactly know what the staff's going to recommend on a new okay several bits of that as well. So, okay,

we're still in discussion here and you know, I think this is a a bad idea. You know, this should be something for a nonprofit, a social service agency out in the community to take up this banner to help businesses in trouble. Because if businesses are going to survive, they're going to have to learn learn how to be mean and tough and watch their money and look out for having insurance that covers catastrophic um items. So, I I don't think this is the right move for us. I think it's out of our lane. Mayor, I'd only reply that I I think these are citycaused issues um as a result of city activities, maybe is a better way to say that. So, the the the business that is trying to survive and has sewage come back up because of maintenance on the sewage line and loses $25,000 in stock, I'm not sure how that's a nonprofit's responsibility. I think the the person that it goes back to is probably the city taking care of some some kind of compensation. Now, this is the reason I am against this because this is going retroactive back on a policy that has been determined by the insurance company that we were not at fault. And this this um example you're bringing up has already been um settled by the insurance company with the building owner. there's no responsibility of the city in this instance and I do not think going retroactive to correct something that you feel like you need to cam um lead up this campaign is the proper method for the city to go down because we have to look at how we

spend our money and Jessica's right we've got a lot of um infrastructure that we have to figure out how we're going to plan for in the future. We're looking at putting on um you know a new taxing going forward and there's other considerations that we have to think really clearly about how we spend our dollars. This isn't one of them.

My only response is is if if you object to the most egregious example, I think then that's fine, but it's not the only example. Um City Theater has had an issue several years ago. There's been other entities that have had very similar situations occurr. We also don't necessarily have a great mechanism to support businesses when we are going to be doing major projects um in front of them and and and the infrastructure rebuild that's going to happen at some point down Main Avenue. Helping those businesses survive being down 6 months with a block shut down I think is it's important to have some kind of funding source for that available. So it's it's not limited to and and I we have to keep having this argument between you and I and I apologize for it but this is not in no way shape or form in my head is this limited to the one entity that was you know uh had an issue uh within the last year. I think this is has a much broader application.

See no raised hands. Could we get a vote? The motion passes. Four in favor. Shirley Gonzalez, Dave Woodruff, Kip Koso, Jessica Lawyer. One opposed. Gilda Yazi. Quick question. Uh, Jose, did you get the direction you were looking for from council in regards to what the components of that should be?

I'm thoroughly confused. That's what it that's what it felt like. So, I just wanted to make sure we were we were clear. I will lean from the attorney if you didn't believe and maybe I I I just don't envy you, Jose, because I didn't hear clear instruction and I'm confused about what the expectation on staff is. Um because I heard things mentioned about broader infrastructure projects. I heard things mentioned about small dollar limits, big dollar limits. So, region 9 loans. I would it be fair, council, if we just go ahead and and and let staff recommendations come forward? I think you got a lot of direction, but staff recommendations come forward.

You know what? This is what I object to. You're putting too much work on the staff, taking away from their jobs that they're supposed to complete, whereas you should come with a proposal already vetted and telling us what to do. I did, mayor. Then how come there's confusion? because we had a bunch of discussion and that's why I paused us just for a sec to make sure that we weren't we were giving decent direction. I thought actually I was doing a pretty good job of holding things for a second and making sure everybody was clear.

I mean I can tell you that Jose will come up with something and you guys can amend it and you you do have a final vote. So I do want to caution though that the the one incident that keeps getting brought up um that individual has hired an attorney. Um there is potential litigation out there. So any further discussion of that on from the DS is going to really compromise Cirrus's ability to defend us. So you guys need to my recommendation is you completely stay away from any reference to that one incident that keeps coming up. That incident that type of incident has happened with other businesses. So it's okay to talk about the type of incident without referring to the specific. Sure.

Yeah. Just there's happy to do that. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. The next item is uh item 14.2, which is a motion to authorize the city attorney to draft a resolution for consideration regarding penalties for John Simpson based on the board of ethics findings submitted by Mariazi.

Okay. I make a motion to authorize the city attorneyate to draft a resolution for consideration regarding penalties for John Simpson based upon the board ethics findings. I'll second discussion. See seeing none. Let's vote. Yes. That's just a vote.

The motion passes. All in favor? Jessica Lawyer, Gilda Yazi, Shirley Gonzalez, Kip Koso, Dave Woodruff. Thank you. And the next item under 14.3 is a motion to conduct an executive session to receive legal advice on options concerning litigation and potential litigation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement Submitted by Councelor Gonzalez. Um, thank you, Ben. So, my request is to go into executive session. Um, so we can discuss legal strategy.

Oh, uh, move to approve. Second. Just have a couple questions real quick. Do we have a specific lawsuit in mind?

Okay. I'm I'm just a little concerned about going into executive session without a lawsuit. Like the things that I would need would be like lawsuit, time, staff, who's leading it, who else is on board. I'm not against doing it. And then what? Yeah, the lawsuit because I know we have a self or uh citizen initiated movement that could be if it's a similar to lawsuit, maybe that's just doing that and I don't want to steal their thunder for that. feel like I want them to be able to do it. Anyway, um I'm happy to do it. I just I think it's important that to go in executive session we have specifics.

Well, my request would be to discuss legal strategy. Um you know, again, I think it really needs to be led by Mark uh because um I'm not a lawyer and so I don't I don't want to put the city in any position um that could be detrimental to us. So I'm very I would be very reluctant to give direction to what um that is. I uh I know that there is a group that is um initiating that and um I think we should just make sure that our legal council is fully it prepared to give us a recommend or not not even to give us a recommendation. Um really just we know that there are many lawsuits that cities are enjoining. Um there's one regarding masks. I think there's others uh or removing masks. Um others regarding damage done to constituents. There's others regarding um land use policies. Um so I you know I think there's many and they're changing. Um, so I would be very reluctant to give any suggestions other than that we have a discussion in executive session um to discuss strategy.

All right, Dave.

Um, yeah. Um, thank you, mayor. Um, surely I would I think I'm locked up with you in discussing strategies. Although I guess I would disagree that it should be Mark's responsibility to lead the conversation since um he's more in my opinion, I mean he can speak for himself, but I think he's more wellversed in city laws and and ordinances and that sort of thing. And I feel um that if we are going to have a more robust conversation about um federal legislative matters and if we're going to join a lawsuit, I think those are things that you know if you um have found other things that are working or things that work in your previous municipality that you could bring to the table, I think we'd be open to some of those ideas and discussing them. I just don't think that that would necessarily fall under Mark's purview as per like what his role is with the city. I and that's just my opinion. I I would be I am not a lawyer. So I I don't think you be a lawyer.

No, no, I don't think you have to be a lawyer to talk about strategy and bring ideas to the table because I think we're all going to bring ideas to the table, but I don't think that necessarily means that Mark needs to bring that has to facilitate the conversation. I feel like since this is something that that you're very passionate about, which is great. I think that maybe the conversation should be better led by you in terms of like what has worked for you guys in the past and how we can best address this. I think that is a a better path forward.

Okay. Right. I have my hand up. Okay. So, you know, when we go into executive session, we go in there for a couple purposes. Is is to get legal advice. In this instance, we're not getting legal advice. So I'm wondering why would we have to have an executive session to discuss this topic. That's that's what I want to know.

So um my re it was recommended to me that we go into executive session to discuss legal action. Um and so that was in discussions with Mark and with Jose. That was how it was proposed. Um that we discuss legal strategy in executive session. So, um I I feel like that would be the best approach given that things are changing all the time. Um and we know that perhaps we have um there could be something comes tomorrow um regarding legal issues around the country. Things are changing constantly. So, it was suggested recommended to me that we go into executive session. That was why I requested it that way.

And that that's a fact. um councelor Gonzalez approached me about what was going on in the country, the state in the community and um wanted to do something and I suggested that whatever she intended to do should was more properly discussing executive session because it could lead to us joining a lawsuit or not joining a lawsuit. Um Councelor Woodruff is correct. I am not an expert in immigration law. Uh but I am uh very proudly capable of being able to brief you guys on on the general state of litigation involving um Homeland Security and and ICE. Um it changes every day. So you know I was watching on the news this morning that you know Denver was poised to pass a mask ordinance and the news covers about how yeah they might they might pass it but it's just you know ceremonial and and would never be enforced and ICE would just ignore it. So, uh, if if a majority of the council would like some type of update and my advice on whether or not it's wise to join in or start passing legislation, I'm happy to do that. Um,

isn't this part of what the CCRC is doing or the task force too is like evaluating what we should do and I'm just nervous time, money. Have we ever joined in on a lawsuit before? Does Durango have the capacity to do that? The money, the time. Do you have the capacity? So, I explained to councelor Gonzalez that that joining a lawsuit is not particularly timeintensive um for a city attorney's office. I've done it in the past um for other jurisdictions. Um again, every lawsuit's different. Uh so, it could be done. My staff and myself are capable of evaluating the lawsuits that are out there and then bring to you guys recommendations on whether to join or not. Joining a lawsuit is not the heavy lifting part of a lawsuit. it's the getting it filed, laying out all the arguments. Um, and then sometimes, you know, those type of suits, they they're shopping for other jurisdictions to join and they make it kind of easy for you. So, I I have experience doing that. I would not ever recommend being the tip of the spear in a lawsuit because we don't have the staff to do that and that could be exorbitantly expensive and make you a very easy target for someone like the federal government.

Okay, I have one more question. Okay. So, to join a lawsuit, um, don't you need to have an injured party and somebody's going to go ahead and and make a claim? And we don't have that now. So, um, it to me it seems I mean it's it's a nice sentiment, but I don't understand why we just can't discuss it up here in in in the open public being transparent instead of going into an executive session. all day long from the Diaz if you'd like. Um, so you're right that that's a choice for you guys to make whether you do it in executive session. My recommendation to councelor Gonzalez after our discussion was it was more appropriately discussed in executive session, but that's just a recommendation at the will of council is to do it in public. There's nothing prohibited about doing it that way. The motion passes. Four in favor. Shirley Gonzalez, Jessica Lawyer, Dave Woodruff, Kip Koso. One opposed, Gilda Yazi. Thank you. Uh, so we're moving into section 15, which is executive session. And, um, if council's okay with it, um, I could read each of the executive session titles to vote on, and then the group can convene into executive

session. So the first item is a motion to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter specifically to perform a contract review for the city manager as permitted in CRS 24-6-42F2.

So moved. Second. The motion passes. All in favor, Jessica Lawyer, Dave Woodruff, Gilda, Yazi, Kip, Koso, Shirley Gonzalez.

All right. Into the next one. Um 15.2 Two is a motion to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter specifically to conduct contract review for the city attorney as permitted in CRS24-6-42F2.

So moved. Second.

The motion passes. All in favor, Kip Koso, Jessica Lawyer, Dave Woodruff, Gilda Yazi, Shirley Gonzalez. All right. And then the last item 15.3 is a motion to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter, specifically to conduct a contract review for the municipal judge as permitted in CRS 24-6-42F2. So moved. Second.

The motion passes. All in favor? Dave Woodruff, Gilda Yazi, Jessica Lawyer, Kip Koso, Shirley Gonzalez,

for the record is 704 and we're convening into executive session. Yeah.

All righty. The time is 8:25. The executive session will reconvene. The time is okay. Sorry, I'm tired. 8:25 the secretary has been concluded. The participants in executive session were um Jessica, Jessica Lawyer, Gilda, Yazi, Dave Woodruff, Dip Koso.

For the record, the council met in executive session. A motion was to convene an exe executive session for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter specifically perform to perform a contract review for the city manager as permitted. C R S246402F2 and also for to perform a contract review for the cidious attorney permitted in CS246 42F2. Perform a contract review for the M municipal court judge as permitted a C RS 24642F2. Okay. For the record, if any person who participated in the executive session believes that any substantial discussion of any matter was uh any matters not included in the motion to go into the exe executive session occurred during the executive session or if any improper action occurred during the executive session in violation of open meetings law, I would ask you to state your concerns for the record. Seeing none that the item is okay. So we can go into the motions.

Yep. Um I make a motion to um make the following three amendments to the city manager employment agreement. uh section or first one is amending section 3 article A changing the schedule of check-in evaluations from quarterly to bianual and revising section six regarding automobile removing the city's obligation to provide regularly replace and ensure a vehicle for liability property damage and comprehensive package and granting the city manager a monthly car allowance and removing section 7 regarding the cellular phone from the agreement.

Second discussion. Seeing none, let's vote. Oh god.

The motion passes. All in favor? Shirley Gonzalez, Kip Koso, Gilda Yazi, Dave Woodruff, Jessica Lawyer. Um, I will make a motion to amend the contract between the city of Durango and city attorney Mark Morgan by revising section one to clarify the process for engagement of outside counsel. Number two, revising section two to remove language related to the dis dissolution of Mr. Morgan's prior law practice and preserve authority to perform certain work on his private time. Three, revising section three by changing quarterly evaluations to bianual reviews. Four, amending section four by removing the original severance provisions and replacing them with new 9month severance provisions. Five, revising section 9 by changing automobile allowance payment to reflect the actual practices of the payroll department. discussion. See none. No hands. Let's suppose the motion passes. All in favor? Dave Woodruff, Kiposo, Jessica Lawyer, Shirley Gonzalez, Gilda Yazi. I move to amend the contract between the city of Durango and the municipal judge Matt Marges by revising part seven from quarterly reviews to bianual reviews.

Second discussion. See no hands. Let's vote.

The motion passes. All in favor? Dave Woodruff, Jessica Lawyer, Kip Koso, Gilda Yazi, Shirley Gonzalez. The next item on the agenda is adjournment. Thank you.