Council - Regular Meeting

Time being 614, I call to order the city of Glenwood Springs regular city council meeting. It is June 4th, 2026. Good evening, everyone. Ryan, would you please take a roll call?

Mayor Dane?

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Zielinski? Councilor Townsley? Here. Councilor Schmal? Here. Councilor Weimer? Here. Councilor Schachter? Here. Councilor Smith? Here. We have a quorum.

Thank you, Ryan. Changes to the agenda tonight. We have a couple. We're going to pull item C. Adoption of Updated Engineering Standards and Item D, Ordinance 202610, Municipal Code 080-040, Water Regulation Updates, second reading of the Consent Agenda. And we're going to insert them right before Item 8. So before we get into the listed actions and presentations, we're going to pick up C and D right there. So with that said, any other changes from counseling to the agenda? I'll see none. Thank you. Any at this closure of conflict of interest. Also see none. We'll move on from three into four citizens appearing before council and the council response for items that are not on the agenda. And we have one hand up. Please step forward to the lectern and state your name and whether you live in city limits or not.

My mask down. Hi, my name is Judy Haynes. I live in Glenwood Springs. I'm coming here to talk to you again about ICE presence.

Would you please pull the microphone just a little? Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry. I'm here to talk about ICE presence. On April 28, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to revoke their occupancy permit. On May 21, I appeared before this council asking what you have done about that. You said nothing. And in fact, Attorney Hanlon had said that the Supremacy Clause of the United States prevented us from doing anything. I'm here to assert that's a wrong and a misconstrued reading of the Supremacy Clause and of our regulations.

The identity of the tenant

is irrelevant in a municipal code compliance. The supremacy clause does not apply to a private landowner. The city has a clear and non-discretionary duty to enforce our zoning, our building codes, and all of our properties in our area equally. When a landlord allows their property to be used in a manner that violates the occupancy clause on the sites approved by or permitted, the landlord is accountable. So and must and we can use anything we want to to enforce our own laws. The supremacy clause is misconstruction. of the municipal laws. And if we are allowed to say the supremacy clause, it does not apply to a private property landowner. It does not tie our hands. And if you say that the tenant has nothing to do with this, we have, as a city, every right to go down to there and padlock that place, put an eviction notice on it, cut off the power in the water and start finding their landlord who has been so arrogantly quiet on this matter. We can find them up to $1,000 a day. It doesn't matter if it's Joe, bar and grill who is in that center, it doesn't matter about the tenant. I'm asking you to put this on the agenda for the next planning zoning. I'm asking you to be more open and transparent about what has done, where you've misstepped and what you need to do to make it right. I believe that attorney Hanlon has not handled this well and to look for him for guidance on this, I would suggest that you hire some outside counsel. In order to do this, I am, I know I'm right on this. You can look at it yourself. You can look at your own rules and regulations. You have the right to find the landlord and evict their tenant. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Anybody else from the public here, please come forward. State your name and whether you live in the city limits.

Lori Chase. I live within the city limits.

Hi, Lori.

Just wanted to thank the city and all the people that worked on North Landing Park for a beautiful day. place for people to gather. I watch that quite often from my gallery and people really enjoy that space, kids playing kickball and such. And I'm really happy that the lights go off later on at night because they were to me really problematic. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Thanks for the comments. Anybody else from the public here that'd like to come forward? Okay, see none. I'll close item four for tonight. Actually, I'm not closing quite yet because do we have any response from council and or maybe legal?

Respectfully, I think it's a misunderstanding of how the law works, but I provided you a fairly detailed memo today. You guys can read through it at your leisure regarding the analysis, how this all interacts with the federal government and the federal government as a tenant. Certainly, you guys can make a decision at your next meeting, whether you want to move forward with that. I also, in that email when I sent it to you, suggested you may want to hire outside counsel if you would like to. It doesn't bother me at all if you do. I would suggest somebody, but I'm not going to do that because I think, obviously, the member of the public wouldn't believe that. Suggest that you maybe contact CML and ask them for a name of somebody to talk to, and you can check my analysis.

Okay, thank you for that. And we'll start with Mayor Pro Temselinski, please.

Thank you for that. Steve, what do you think about the idea of reaching out to CML? That's what we have them for, correct?

I'm happy to do that. Is it CML? Yeah. I mean, I'm happy to do that. There are a couple of places I could reach out. I will say though, that I don't be surprised if what comes back is we don't have anybody that wants to take this case. I mean, we may hear that. Okay.

Understood. And that's fine. You know, I think it's on us to do our due diligence and if that's what it looks like, then so be it.

Okay. Thank you. Councilor Schachter, please.

Yeah. Judy, I'm going to address what you said tonight and also a letter you sent to council. And I appreciate your assistance in bringing the ice issue and violations to our attention, as well as your desire for additional action. I do feel, however, that targeted and personal attacks on our city attorney, Carl Hanlon, are unwarranted and perhaps uninformed and not helpful in my focus, not speaking for council, in my focus on the issue. Carl has served the city long and well. He brings a valuable wealth of information and perspective to the city and council. He provides council with legal advice and guidance and necessary legal documents and correspondence when requested and needed. Carl nor staff make policy or council decisions. Council does. And if and when asked, Carl provides opinions as to legal pathways and strategies. Any oversight regarding permitting and occupancy that occurred over the past 20 years was the prior city staff and prior city council's responsibility. The city attorney does not supervise staff nor departments. Carl has not advised us to give in as you intimated in advance, but rather has upon request shared process past outcomes that may affect our decision. Please try and keep this in personal and focused on the issue and the actions and outcomes as we will. In my opinion, Carl has served council and the city in an exemplary way. Past council evaluations also support my opinion. As to ICE and Midland Avenue, Council has not made a decision, as you said, as to any next actions or steps. We have to date followed law and procedure, and the facility is in violation of its special use permit. I expect us to address this in the near future, perhaps even immediate future, make a decision in the best interest of the city. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Schachter. And Councilor Smith, please. Thank you.

My response is about engagement and process. I am delighted to hear people come and speak thoughtfully and in a prepared way on any topic and from any point of view. Tonight is a really marvelous coincidental contrast where the council and the city is being called upon to take a more deliberate action than it has so far on a very serious question. And to point out if we're not being up to the task on that is really helpful. to also in the same night, here's someone who appreciates a city investment in a city project, and the and the positive aspects of that can provide to the community. Both of these need for further attention. But I really appreciate the fact that we are much smarter as just a very small decision making board when people give that input. So please keep coming. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other responses? I see none. Thank you. Thank you both for being here. Have a great evening. And thanks to council for the response. Thank you, Carl, for chiming in. Closing item four for tonight, moving into item five, council announcements. And we'll start with Council Townsley tonight.

I actually have a few on here just from the Parks and Rec Commission meeting yesterday. Friday, this Friday, we've got, and I think we mentioned this once before, the GoPro Games does not have enough water in Avon to hold some of their whitewater events. So on Friday and then on Saturday morning for the finals, we're going to have them down at the Big Wave on the right-hand side, river left, if you're going down. Should be fun to watch if you want to go to it. Saturday, Glenwood Springs Pride Fest is at Two Rivers Park. There'll be some speeches, some music. And then as far as kicking off our summer events, on Tuesday the 23rd will be the first Farmers Market. We'll be starting up for the summer. Thursday the 25th, Films Under the Bridge will start from 6 to 11. That runs through mid-August. And then Friday, Music Under the Bridge starts 3.30 to 8.30. So you've got a bunch of events that are starting to pop through and give us the nash downtown that everybody likes to see. The other thing that came up that I don't know if a lot of people know about is on Strawberry Days, I believe it was the Chamber, TDA, somebody got a grant awarded on a drone show. And those are really expensive. We don't do it because they're so expensive for Fourth of July, but they got about, I think it's like a $50,000 drone show. So Saturday night at 910, you don't want to be at the community center. That's where it's going to pop up from. But if you're in Two Rivers Park, it's supposed to be quite the show.

Good to know.

Yeah. Those are the things that we've got. And then, you know, everybody's like, how come we can't do a drone show? And we're not going to do a laser show this year either for 4th of July. But the weather in the last couple of years has kind of wiped those out. So we've spent money and had resources go where, you know, clouds show up and all of a sudden you have nothing going on. So that's what I've got from the Parks and Rec.

Thank you. Any other announcements? Councillor Smith.

Thank you. Five items, four very quick, one a smidge more involved. Historic Preservation Commission met on Monday, and among other things, finalized its proposed budget to actually put a bit of money into some of their acknowledgement and research projects. They're at the suggestion of Mayor Dame, they are going to take their pitch first to the Tourism Promotion Board, who has money. and see if there's some teamwork available there. You may want to say more about about that. You got it. And then depending on how that conversation go, they may. The Historic Preservation Commission may indeed be back here with a proposal for the council's general 27 fiscal year 27 budget process. Transportation Commission met on Tuesday. I heard a very thorough, very well prepared presentation from what used to be called transportation options for the 21st century or something. They now call themselves the Roaring Fork Transportation Coalition, primarily Aspen-based leading citizens who are trying to figure out traffic patterns and traffic alternatives throughout. At the Castle Creek Bridge initially, they've now expanded their mission to look at the whole valley. So that was helpful to learn what they're up to. Transparency Commission also will finish up at their next meeting, at their July 7th meeting, any money-related project proposals that they want to pitch, again, in the context of the city's fiscal year 27 budget. They are also working on some other policy and initiatives, policy proposals and initiatives in a Beyond money, they'll have those more ready for the September work session that's scheduled with City Council, but they're going to really buckle down next time to bring in some proposals. Kind of related to that, I mentioned last time that a few of us, the city's transportation engineer and the city's city engineer and I, Each went on each of three flights with EcoFlight and Clear to look at traffic patterns up and down the valley. So we've been conferring on what we saw and reporting that back to the Transportation Commission. I did talk to the flight organizers at EcoFlight, and they are willing to take us in the afternoon where the traffic patterns change, of course, and the choke points are closer to home. So we may see a different picture once we get that flight. Yesterday there was a scene at the community center. There were preteens and teens by the hundreds running amok and having a great time. Adults were not invited. Somehow I sneaked in the side door and got to witness it and talked to some of the teens and talked to to some of the staff working on it, it was hilarious. It was really a remarkable bunch of recreations and interactions and prize drawings and money grabs. It was a marvelous way to kick off the last day of school, to finish out that last day of school. 400 teens and preteens registered for their free all-summer pass at the rec center. And passes continue to be available. That's the announcement part of this. follow your peers if you're eligible. I learned a new term, rising sixth graders to rising 12th graders, that is what class you're going into, are eligible for these free passes, so grab them. Next final point is next week, June 10th through 12th, I'll be available for the annual conference and some detailed work session, policy work sessions for the Colorado Communities for Climate Action. Ryan was helpful in sending around to you the preliminary agenda for those meetings. So if any city council members have questions or suggestions or want to come along, it'll be on those days. I'm going to always feel much more comfortable when I'm trying to go out as your delegate to an outside group like this if I've got your input, your information, and your guidance. So I welcome that. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Any other announcements? Okay, we'll see none. Thank you for that. Moving into the consent agenda tonight. And item C and D have been removed. So all that's left on the consent agenda is item A, May 21st council minutes. Item B, award request for proposal 202613, slip line project. Item E, the Downtown Development Authority Board Appointments. Item F, the River Commission Reappointment. And that's it. So with that, I am entertaining a motion for the Consent Agenda.

Councillor Schachter. I would move to approve, Mr. Mayor, the Consent Agenda as amended.

Thank you. And Mayor Pro Tem Salinski.

I'll second that motion.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the Consent Agenda? I'll see none. I will call for the question.

It passes unanimously.

Thank you, Ryan. And we got a comment. Mayor Pro Tem Selinsky, please.

I just wanted to acknowledge the reappointment of Paula Gora to the DDA and Chris Charo to River Commission. I so, so appreciate it. Not only when people serve, but also when they continue to serve because then they take all they've learned and bring it forward. And additionally, I'd like to welcome a new appointment, Allison Ackley to the DDA. It's great to get good energy in there. So, you know, we appreciate you all.

all right thank you very much for that and we are moving into a proclamation this is fantastic so i will have to move a few things around and please sergeant would you step up because you'll meet me in front i'll grab that from ryan Very lucky. Thank you very much. We'll put that over here. Sergeant Young, good evening. How are you doing? Good, how are you? Excellent. Okay, this is Proclamation Honoring Sergeant Young. Whereas Sergeant Young began his tenure in Glenwood Springs on November 1994 as a police officer, and whereas Sergeant Young embodies the Serve and Protect mantra, he has been the cornerstone of his department in both crisis and in good times. His vast wealth of knowledge has shaped his department and his kindness and humor have sustained his longevity. Whereas, Sergeant Young worked tirelessly as a training officer and was critical in the development of the department's first bicycle patrol unit, dedicating a full summer to patrolling the streets, back alleys, trails, and Red Mountain, all while prioritizing and building his health and fitness. Whereas, Sergeant Young was then promoted to the rank of sergeant in January 2003 and served his role for 23 years. During his time as a patrol sergeant, he was essential in fostering and mentoring over 80 officers, helping them all develop into competent officers. He took on the tasks of department range master, lead firearms instructor, and field training officer, FTO, coordinator, and where Sergeant Young was awarded the Terry L. Wilson Meritorious Medal in 2023 for his decisive and professional negotiating skills stemming from the July 2022 attempting homicide involving suspect, Craig Robbins. With his interpersonal communication skills, Sergeant Young was able to negotiate a peaceful surrender. Whereas, Sergeant Young has honorably performed his duties with unwavering dedication, professionalism, and excellence for his 32 years with the City of Glenwood Springs. Therefore, be it resolved, I, Marco Dame, Mayor of Glenwood Springs in the state of Colorado, do hereby recognize and express our sincere appreciation to Sergeant Michael Young for his longstanding commitment to serve our community. and witness whereof I have here to set my hand and cause the seal of Glenwood Springs, Colorado to be affixed this fourth day of June in the year of 2026. Congratulations. Thank you.

That's a remarkable thing. This is fantastic. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

32 years. That's quite remarkable, I have to say.

It was like yesterday, right?

Okay, that was lovely. Thank you all for being here for that. Where does this take us? This takes us into our actions and or presentations. And like promised earlier, we are picking up item C for the adoption of updating engineering standards first. And we're going to slide that in before the rest. And we got Matt Langhorst here to explain what we're doing.

Councilman language public works director I believe we're going to move this to the next meeting or continue to the next meeting. One of the chapters was uploaded incorrectly you'll see there's a naming convention on three of them and the fourth one longer matched I believe on the engineering standards, I have not heard that yet is that what we're doing.

I don't know what we're doing.

I think that if we need to move it to the next meeting, that's totally fine. One of the council members noticed we uploaded the wrong file. If we can move it to the next meeting.

Are you sure you're not talking about the next one that has the wrong title? No. Okay.

We're on the right one. I think we just want to make sure that the right materials are in the packet and appreciate Councilor Small noticing that.

So with that, I'd just like to continue to the next meeting if we could.

How is there any?

Councilor Schmal, is there any urgency to getting this done, Matt? Tonight, no. In the next two meetings, maybe?

whatever council would like. We would like to update them because there's the outside entities have been making comments about the standards. We've noticed things. So we've been trying to integrate all those things in. So whether it's this meeting, next meeting or the following meeting, I'd like to upload the correct file. So chapter five is reviewed properly. And then we would love comments from council. So however.

Let me ask you this quick. If we're moving this to the next meeting, There's no first and second in all this. This is just standard, so it's one deal. So I assume you have something to... Yeah, what would you like to do?

My comment was going to be that I would like to know that outside affected entities have been involved in the review process. For example, I know that the electrical code is... This is a year review. Every three years, the electrical code gets... by the National Electric people that were coordinated. We know we're not writing something that's going to be out of date in the electrical chapter.

Yeah, and the electrical chapter handles 480 volts and up, and the electrical code handles 480 volts and down, those kinds of things. So a lot of our chapter is based on high level voltage versus the electrical code itself that the state would be inspecting. But I'm happy to go back through it in two weeks if you would like to. We can reread it.

If you could include in the packet what's been done for that so that we know, that would make me really happy. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Since your microphone's on, would you like to move it to continue to the next meeting?

I would move to continue this to the next meeting where Matt is able to provide the information for our review in order to approve.

Okay, thank you. We have a motion to and then to continue and we got Councillor Smith.

Second.

And a second. Any more discussion in this? Are we good? We're good. I'll call for the question.

Should do it.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. To be more specific, this item now has been moved to June 18, 2026.

It passes unanimously.

Thank you, Ryan. Thank you. Sorry for that error. Well, let's the next one.

Let's fix another error. I got this one. The only reason that what's that? Thank you.

So item D was also pulled from the consent agenda. We're all efficient tonight, right, Carl? It is an Ordinance 2016-10 Municipal Code 080-040 Water Regulation Updates. And this was the second reading? This is.

We have a summary. It's actually Ordinance 2026, not 2016. But... We had ordinance 10 got used twice. And so we just pulled it off so that if the motion to it was an accident of numbering and we want to be careful about how we fix it to make sure that the record is properly reflected. So if you would approve ordinance 2026-10A municipal code 080040 water regulation updates, we would appreciate it.

Okay, you heard it. I am looking for a motion to do just that.

And we've got Councilor Schachter. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve Ordinance 202610A, amending 080-040-020 regarding water regulation.

Okay, we have a motion to approve and Mayor Pro Tem Stilinski.

I'll second.

And a second. Any discussion on this item? See none. I'll call for the question. It passes unanimously. Thank you, Ryan. This takes care of the two stray items from the consent agenda. Now we are moving into Item eight, approval of financial advisory board grant recommendations. And that's probably Steve Boyd.

Yep, I can take this one. So every year we allocate dollars from our ANI fund and our tourism fund for events and other charitable activities in the city. The way that that works is that the financial advisory board will get together and go through the list of grants that we have. They will then make a recommendation to city council, which they've done, and it's in your packet. We had a work session on it this morning where we talked about things a little bit. So now this is your chance to decide what you want to do in terms of passing, changing, or not passing.

Okay, thank you for that. Anybody from the public have any input on that? I don't see none since it's an ordinance. I'll bring it back to council and attaining, it's not an ordinance, sorry. It's just an approval of the grand recommendation. Bring it back to council and attaining a motion for the approval of the financial advisory board grand recommendation. And we're gonna go with councilor Schmoll.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the financial advisory board's recommended grants for the 2026 year.

Thank you very much. We have a motion to approve, looking for a second. Councillor Townsley?

Seconded.

And a second. Any more discussion? See none. I'll call for the question.

It passes unanimously.

All right. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Steve. Next up, Item 9, Ordinance 202612, an ordinance of the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, repealing and replacing Section 080-010-060 of the Glenwood Springs Municipal Code regarding utility disconnection notices.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What you have in front of you is a replacement of one of the sections in our utility code. A couple of things going on there. We're trying to sort of update to make sure that we're in compliance with current PUC regulations regarding how disconnect notices are noticed coming into play. We have been operationally doing it correctly, but our code hasn't reflected it. So we wanted to update the code for that. We've also had some incidences with doing door hangers that have been a little problematic and have had some bad interactions with animals. We don't absolutely have to do it that way. And so we're going to institute a little bit different approach, which is mainly notice, but then also using some technology that Matt's going to talk about in terms of phone alerts related to late payment or shut off notices. So Matt can walk you through kind of what the new process is going to look like, but that's why we're just repealing and replacing. It's pretty straightforward stuff.

Thank you for that. Matt, do you got to add on to that?

It's a simple process, basically. What most municipalities do or larger entities do at this point is they take in the names of the people who have not paid. That information is transferred to the meter tax. The meter tax usually go hang a door hanger. Now we have the ability with a piece of software, very simple piece of software. We can input the account, the amount owed and the phone number associated with that account holder. And it basically auto dials them and emails them saying, hey, you have a disconnect notice. This is the timing associated with that. This is how much you owe. And it notifies them in a appropriate way that's now meeting the code. Um, so that is how the process should go. Um, if there is a person that does, we can't get a hold of, um, we've actually tried this last month. It's not the official version, but we tried it. We auto dialed 50 people, 46 of them got the information, three of them that nobody answered the phone and one just was a wrong number. So we still went and did door hangers on all of them, but it was pretty successful that we got to 46 human beings. They came in and paid their bill. And we only had to actually deal with four of them out of the 50. So it seems to work okay. And that's the process that we would like to move forward with. We'll integrate that with IT and Tyler and all those fun things once we kind of get the chance to do that. It's an outsourced piece of software that basically Excel uses also.

Okay. Thank you for that. Any questions? Counselor Schmarr.

Matt, I got the idea that there were a group of regular offenders with late payments. Is there no provision for repeat offenders?

Yeah, it's, unfortunately, you, the way the, you know, PC regulates this and state regulations are so you can continue to be a repeat offender. You can get right up to that disconnect and then pay your bill and then you're fine. And unfortunately some people do take advantage of that and or that's just, you know, the squeakiest wheel gets the grease, as you will. John Potter, I think we're really excited about trying to use the auto dialer because I think we're getting compliance faster and easier because it becomes the first squeaky wheel of people here.

John Potter, And the other thing I gathered from the from the report is that there, there may be people with genuine. John Potter, Medical issues or medical liabilities for having their electricity cut off or or their service disconnected, should there be some sort of a notification to that one. when they sign up in originally the original contract for utility providing, acknowledging that they will be cut off. So if you have a condition, please let us know so that we can't contact you and turn off your respirator or whatever

So in reality, what happens is we'll put a yellow tag out. If the person has medical needs or can't have their service turned off for whatever reason, we generally already know who they are because they have contacted us. And we send them to Garfield County. We send them to the state. There's a lot of places out there you can get help from for paying your utility bills. And a lot of people just don't know what they are. So we help them help themselves. And most of the time, those situations kind of go away. because they've already got assistance for utilities that they don't need to pay that the yellow tag doesn't need to go on because they're paying their bills. So we have a lot of those people already in the system. If you want to call it that, um, the repeater fenders, and I know finance is really busy with the audit right now. I asked them to give me the list from the last 12 months without names, just in this area, is this the same person? And I will, I will actually still get that to all of you. So you can kind of see the repetition associated with some of these. Um, We go to some people's houses every 30 days. That's what they do. Here you go, here you go. We added a fee a few years ago, if you remember, some of you were hearing that. And that fee was a dissuadant for some people or a large enough stick, however you want to say it. Other people just don't care. They just pay the extra $25. which seems crazy to me that you would add 25% probably to your bill just because you don't want to pay it on time kind of thing. So maybe there's a larger dissuadant that needs to be talked about. Let me get you the list so you can kind of see the volume of repeat offenders and we can have that conversation in the future.

I would love to hear your recommendation for those repeat offenders. I mean, we've done it with, for the, police and fire false alarms and contractors that have to get infected over and over again. Let's get a recommendation for what that change should be to quit draining our resources because of someone else's negligence.

Yeah, absolutely. I think we can probably come up with some language about escalating that. The actual cutoff is a little more regulated, but certainly those additional fees for, you know, you've had four shutoff notices in six months, whatever it is, we can come up with a schedule.

Okay. Thank you. Councilor Townsend.

just a little bit on the other side of that notice in, you know, cause I got the nice blue tag on my door. It's blue. Good. It's blue. It's beautiful. I worked with the city four different times to try to pay my bill on time. And chip was really nice. So don't give chip any hard time. He was great. And he kept telling me the problem was taken care of. And then I kept getting, I was still in the automated system where you're going to get fined. You're going to get billed. We're going to shut your water off. I returned phone calls. I've been told it's all taken care of. And then, you know, then the notice on the door, we're going to shut you off and, and, Suzanne's like, I want to shower in the morning. So somewhere in there, the reason I bring it up is somewhere these guys are going, OK, you're all OK, but the automated system is running. It's continuing to send out emails, calls, blue tags to people that have supposedly taken care of the problem. So that might be checked on just to make it. He told me there was some sort of disconnect between if I did it online versus if I did it with him. If I did it with him, it was cheaper. Yvette is writing that down, and we will talk to Chip about that. Chip was awesome.

He was a great guy, but the problem didn't get solved. Once again, if you're a new person that's getting a yellow or blue tag, we have a lot of communications between finance and the electric department and everything. We usually work it out. The list of repeat offenders is the one you would like to see. And then that is just an unusual situation. Obviously, we're not charging you $25 for the tag. It's just the fee until it all gets worked.

You just need to see if there's somebody that really was trying to pay the bill. I wasn't worried about it.

It's like, this is not a good look for us. Doesn't counselor small want to raise your fine? In that case, Chip will waive it.

Okay, so let's see. Any more questions? Super quick.

Go for it.

You said 27 out of the 30 answered their phones with the auto dialer?

46 of the 50 answered, received the call, and paid their bill. Three of them received the call, I believe did not pay their bill, and one of them was in the wrong number.

So my question or my suggestion was going to be to make sure that, and it sounds like we're probably good, but What the auto dialer, the name that pops up on the screen. Like if you were to call me and I don't know who the number is.

I believe it says city of Bama Springs, but I can double check that.

Yeah. Just super small detail to just circle back on and just make sure people know who's calling. So that they know to pick up or not pick up.

Well, if you call me and I don't have your number in there, it goes automatically goes to voicemail. So I would have been one of the three.

Yeah, totally. Okay. Thanks, sir. Cool. Thank you. If I see no more questions, then anybody from the public like to comment on this, would you like to? Okay, please come forward. Ordinance 2026-12, please state your name and whether you live in city limits or not.

Lori Chase. Cowden Drive. And I'm one of those offenders. I am a repeat offender. Let's see. The reasons are I'm lazy. And I pay my bill every two months. And I just recently found out about that little fine thing, if you get the door tag. And let's see. What else? So... A long time ago, I realized that it's not true now. But the person that came out to set the door tags, I would ask if, oh, can I pay you right now? And he went, sure. And so it made it really convenient. Just saying. I don't know if they still do that. But things have changed a lot in almost 40 years. Thank you.

Thanks, Laurie. Anybody else from the public? See none. We'll close the public portion of this, bring it back to council, and attaining a motion in Ordinance 2026-12.

Councilor Schachter, please. Sure. Mr. Mayor, regarding I move that we pass Ordinance 2026-12 in Ordinance of the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, repealing and replacing Section 080-010-060 of the Municipal Code regarding utility disconnection notices.

All right, thank you. We have a motion to approve. Mayor Potem Solinsky? I second. And a second. Any more discussion on our end? If I see none, I'll call for the question. Ryan, please.

It passes unanimously.

Thank you, Ryan. Thank you all. Moving on, item 10 tonight is water service agreement for 50, 23, 5, Highway 6, and 24. And I think Matt's going to lead off on that.

Good evening again, Council. I'm just going to hang out for a while. I believe Trent is right behind me hiding. That's good. The item in front of you is a water service agreement. We did sort of this with the property down the road a few months ago. That was a water service slash waterline extension agreement. What has occurred is the city of Glenwood Springs a few months ago agreed to allow the M-M-M-E-W-G-L-L-C property to extend the city's water line from Center Drive down US 6 all the way to their property, which is about 3,100 feet. Along the way, they installed, I want to say, six or seven fire hydrants. And we are servicing that property. They are using approximately 750 gallons a day at that property to keep the line flushed and keep the chlorine levels within the line itself good. And in that agreement, we also got the fire hydrants. We got a service connection done at the subdivision at Mitchell Creek and US 6. road uh and we had an extension up mitchell creek road slightly so the city and that owner extended the water line and agreed to service them with three eqrs of water basically What this agreement is, is a water service agreement. The owners of the, or potentially soon to be owners of the Amy's Acres areas would like us to supply them 84.5 EQRs off of the already existing line to supply, I believe it is 100 or 98 units plus two existing. And they are here to do a presentation and answer questions for you. The way city staff is looking at this is this water system. The West Glenwood Water District that was an individual entity back in 1999, we took them over. If you were within the district, we cannot say you can't have water, basically. This property abuts that district boundary. So we were looking at is we already have water over here. Several of the developments we were looking at coming into this area did not come to fruition. We have the EQRs based on our water modeling report that we have. So for us in the city, we like to sell water. So we were in favor of the agreement and the applicants can kind of go over what the whole entire site looks like. I believe they've kind of spoken to some of you about this. Trent wanted to clarify one thing.

Yeah, and I'll just add to that. I did want to clarify, I drafted the staff report, but in the staff report, I did incorrectly state that the model that the applicants were intending for this was a land lease model. That is incorrect. They actually intend to sell real property with the 98 units that are proposed there. One other thing I did want to point out that I mentioned in the staff report is that, you know, as is commonplace, when we, you know, provide water, potable water to applicants, we generally take their surplus water rights. In this instance, the applicants, there are two wells that serve this property, and one they will use for irrigation on the property, which is required by the municipal code. And, but the other, we will take, and it actually results in an increase in water rights to the city's portfolio. Now, there are a lot of details associated with that. We would have to change a diversion point, but it is something that Matt can work with the Division of Water Resources on changing that diversion point so that he can still use that excess water. So again, no questions from staff. I know that the applicants did want to go into a little bit more detail on, you know, some of the specifics of this development that will be reviewed by Garfield County.

Okay, excellent. Let's let's do questions to staff first. If we have any, please. Council small start with you.

I understand some of the benefits potentially to the water department and sales of water, but how does, and I understand the issue for having water up there for fire protection in a very prone area. I understand those benefits completely. How is this good for Glenwood to have property that we're extending service to that's not really in any of our jurisdiction or control?

I might almost lean that back on council. We extend water services, we extend sewer services. The City of Glenwood Springs Electric Department goes all the way up four mile. We provide water service to adjacent areas because we are basically the monopoly and the best provider for them. And if you ask CDPHE, What they would rather happen on this particular site, they will come back and look at us and go, you're already a professional water supplier, you're certified, you know how to do this, then you should provide them water. They can't make us do it, but they would prefer that. This client can come in and say, well, I have wells, I can install a water system and I can do my own thing. And they can still build this in the exact same spot if they want to, because they already have an agreement from West Glenwood Sanitation District to remove the sanitation. They're in our district. We have to supply them electric as long as we are able to do that. So really kind of the caveat is, do we want to supply them water or do you want them to supply their own water? Because I don't think you're going to stop the development. They will tell you they can go through all that thing. But they have the ability to supply their own water. They have two wells. They're 24 acre feet and 40 acre feet. If you do the calculations, I believe this product will use about 24 to 30 acre feet over the year. They have a whole entire another well to do irrigation off of. So we kind of look at it as, see that PHE would rather us supply it to them. If we have the capabilities of doing that, why would we not do that? That's kind of my thoughts on it, but I'm sure you all have your own thoughts on it too.

Okay. Thank you. Councilor Weimer.

Maybe for Carl, just as a point of education, how does annexation, the topic of annexation fall into a conversation like this typically?

Yeah. Historically, we would have used a pre-annexation agreement in a situation like this. But all of the same terms and conditions. The one thing that it would add is that, you know, the city could request annexation of the property when it became eligible to do so. I think at this point, that's a difficult, we don't actually have the authority to annex anybody without a vote now.

So we can offer themselves to be annexed.

They can't offer themselves, but they still have to go to a vote. You can't voluntarily annex into the city anymore. Even if 100% of the property owners want to annex, it still has to go to a vote. So we've sort of shifted the model of the type of agreement that we would use in these instances, just because it's kind of hard for us. I mean, we certainly could still ask for that, but it's one of those things that we can't guarantee a result. with that with that annexation whereas before when we did pre-annexation agreements i think the city's intent was much to counselor small's point is that when we wanted to assert jurisdiction and if there was kind of yodi that met the statutory requirements we would require annexation into the city so that's kind of the nuance difference are there any negative implications or or

outcomes given that they will not be annexed. We're providing all the services, but they're not going to be really within the town.

Yeah. I mean, I think the biggest one is, in the context of a development like this, is regulatory authority over the development, right? So they're being developed outside of Glenwood instead of inside. That's the biggest difference that you would see. it doesn't mean and to matt's point i mean we provided sewer service to spring ridge up four mile on a force main we do provide there's a number of properties outside the city boundaries that we supply water to that's mostly limited by the elevation we can deliver to for the most part so That's the biggest thing that we miss out on, but that's not to say that we haven't extended services underneath the pre-annexation agreement where whatever it is may have developed because they don't have continuity with the city now, but they might at some point in the future. And honestly, because annexation wasn't really on the table, I don't know that I've analyzed. I don't know if we have continuity here or not. no not not just this this uh property along uh yeah i was gonna say i didn't other parcels that were so just just um to kind of finish that annexation close that loop on the annexation so in order for us to even be eligible for annexation one-sixth of the property has to touch a city boundary thank you thank you council townsley

So I had a very similar question. I think you've answered about 80% of it. But, you know, when I first read this line, formerly the city would have required the submittal of a pre-annual. So that was the same line that we had the last time when Mr. Gould was here. And I read that afterwards a couple of times, thought, man, why did... If we've got something on the books, why are we not doing it by the way it's on the books? Or why are we not changing it? So I guess my question on top of Councillor Wymer's is, if we're just not going to use this anymore, then is that something that needs to be changed such that we don't keep saying, well, we're just not going to abide by what we typically have done?

Yeah, the code actually says approved. Any water surface agreement has to be approved by council. We had just, as a matter of practice, always utilized a pre-annexation agreement to do that. The code doesn't actually require a pre-annexation agreement. So it was just a matter of practice how it had been handled in the past in the form of the agreement.

Thank you. Councilor Schmoll.

Um, besides jurisdictional control, we also, uh, if you're in the city, you pay a different tax. So the property taxes be slightly different. We're, we're giving up on that potential revenue and historically, formerly that was part of getting city services was being annexed into the city. Now the ballot measure that was passed two years ago. that changed requiring a vote of the public for annexation or sale of city property, I don't know exactly what it was, changes the process a little bit, but it shouldn't change the, it changes the timing of the process potentially, but the process is there for a reason. And I don't think we should, for convenience sake, Dave Kuntz, giveaway city services without. Dave Kuntz, The jurisdiction and the tax revenue of the city base.

Dave Kuntz, Thank you, as a check.

John Potter, It would be okay, I just want to follow up yeah good primary. The largest revenue that we would see, because obviously the city has a relatively low sales tax. The one place that we do see a mill levy is in the fire department. And this would also be in the fire district outside. So that revenue balances in terms of the fire department is similar. It would just be that smaller mill levy that we wouldn't be getting. I just wanted to make sure that he realized it was in the district.

Well, plus on top of that, it's not touching the city. We couldn't even annex this.

I think to Councillor Small's point, he was just saying that that requirement that if they ever did touch the city that they would annex, not having that included. Maybe I'm misreading this.

Wait. Councillor Townsend first. You finish your question. I gave you the room.

OK. Chief, I got a question for you because I'm sitting in the rural fire district meeting. know they're they're looking at okay are we gonna and that was the piece that came to my mind is you know if the city passes a mill levy increase for the fire and the rural fire district decides not to put it out there and i think they will but if they decide not to then again we're providing services to somebody that i would rather have in the city so we're getting those those bill levy pieces from that too for fire so i mean just is am i wrong on that or do you

John Potter, I believe i'm tracking you correctly is that okay accurate yeah I think that's accurate, I mean to the to the mayor's point this particular parcel we couldn't annex right now, anyway, because it doesn't have continuity so it's really more of a binary decision that. Yes, it is. John Potter, Just like the mountains are Jason.

John Potter, Council shack a couple things just the clarification I don't know about big projects and no one small projects. there's sales tax on the building materials. In this case, a large project, do those go to the county and not the city? The flip side of that, we're not responsible, we're not primary responsibility for police and law enforcement, nor road maintenance, any of the infrastructure, is that correct? Since it's not in the city? The only thing we deal with is the water system and the revenues from the water system.

We would be responsible for the utilities that we're providing. Law enforcement would be on the sheriff's department.

And get the revenues from those utilities. Yes.

Can I mention one more thing? We've never agreed to take any of the utilities on the site. Right. So we'll take the electric because we have to, it's the lines, the transformers and things, but we've never talked about all they're asking for is water service. So we will, and we don't even own the line that is in within us six for at least 15 years. So once again, we're not really taking a ton of responsibility. We're just taking the water supply.

And my last question, this is Garfield County planning. It's their process. Do we, the amount of water we supply, What is that? Is that based on any control we have over density and number of units? How does that interact with the subsequent county approval for the plan for the property?

All the county wants from us is a can and will serve letter. So we can and will serve them. It would be specific to 99 units plus two existing. It would be 84.5 EQR. I believe we would do an assessment of that EQR, those uses after a certain amount of builds. Cause what we're finding basically is that our number of 350 gallons per day is probably a little high and they're gonna use less than that. So our EQR calculations are a little off. but something to be resolved in the future. So we're just selling them water. That's all the county cares is that we will provide for them.

And we, and I guess related that we, by default or by understanding, we are supplying the amount of water for whatever the county subsequently approves. Is that correct? Yeah. Oh, okay.

So we're approving a specific amount of EQRs. If you approved this, it would be for a specific amount of EQRs as we calculate them. Um, or a particular number of maximum number of units. Thank you.

Right.

Thank you.

We'll sort of let her say if that defers by any amount, the city has the ability to pull it. Okay. I try to make them very specific nowadays.

Thank you. Back to council small, please.

So I tried to trace all of the rules coming up to this to understand how it works. And I question whether or not annexation is possible because of the adjacent nature of our property where the wastewater treatment plant is. That north-south line ends up being almost directly the west edge of this property. And since it's all public, property from their property line to the edge of our property line, I think that qualifies as adjacent. If one sixth of the length of that property satisfies the contiguity, then I think it is eligible for annexation.

John Potter, That that's actually a really good question counselor in terms of trying to calculate that and whether all of the hops across right of ways i'm not sure if. John Potter, The right of way for I 70 doesn't break that but i'd have to look at the Statute again I can't remember it because it's not a it's not a. John Potter, yeah I my conclusion was, I think it does, but I wouldn't defer to you on that Carl for sure.

John Potter, So I, I have a real problem with with. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The fiscal questions right.

Okay.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, We're not there. Okay. Thank you.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Mayor pro temp select please.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, I just wanna make sure I understand here. So we have infrastructure in place. PB, Lupita D Montoya, Would we be receiving cap fees. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And HAB-Juliette Boone, Yes, so that so there's that. HAB-Juliette Boone, And then we also would receive additional water rights in trade basic requested one of the wells yes okay so in your calculation is this is some benefit.

And my calculation, the way I think about this process is that they're probably gonna build this, let's supply them water. That's what CDPHE would want. The West Glenwood Water District went outside of the city's boundary because it was West Glenwood Water District. It abuts the property line itself. So I'm just looking at realities here of if this was still West Glenwood Water District, they would have just supplied them water because that was the intent of the West Glenwood Water District to supply everybody who was outside of the city water in that particular area. I'm just looking at it as, They're going to probably build this. They can use their own water. CDPH would rather that we do this. They're using their own water on site for irrigation. So all they're doing is internal water, which reduces that EQR potential calculation, which is why there's some negotiations. And they're going to write us a check for approximately $550,000 to do this. And they will be paying MMEWG some money to hook onto the line because that was the reimbursement agreement or the class agreement. So- I don't know if that answers your question.

It does. I believe it does. I think you and I are analyzing similarly.

I'm trying to just go into the reality of the situation.

Same. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Smith.

Thank you. Periodically, staff presents to the council an update on a relationship the city has with another independent non-municipal water service outfit, which has become a real morass, legally at least. Does providing water to this non-city limits parcel set us up to repeat or set us up to avoid a situation like that?

John Gerstle, I don't think they're the fact patterns are so different that. John Gerstle, The answer is neither.

yeah.

John Gerstle, I would be my answer like this is just a. John Gerstle, yeah totally different thing not inside of a currently existing or. You know, previously existing water service area by some other provider. This is purely a property that was served by their own on site water previously by those two wells. And it's currently served that way. So it's, it's really, we're just, you know, from your standpoint, it's just who's the owner and can you come to an agreement with them.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, We'll see none.

Can I mention one more thing, just like historic value of all this. I don't know how many pre annexation agreements, the city has with people outside the city that use sewer and water and everything else I'd have never counted them. Have we ever pulled any of them to actually annex in the city car.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Um, There have been one or two annexations that were based on pre-annexation agreements, but I think that was at the choice of the owner, not at the choice of the city, that they just had gotten to the point where either we touched them and it was possible and they wanted to annex a couple of ones along Midland Avenue, if I'm remembering correctly, but that's the only ones that I can think of. We have, like I was saying, probably one of the largest ones that we have under a sewer service slash pre-annexation agreement, I believe would be Spring Ridge and Spring Ridge 2. And that's a pair of four-inch force mains that run from that development in Dry Park all the way through the dip and down the hill.

Yeah.

Can the applicant come up and do a quick question?

Hang on, I got one more question showing up here. So just a second, Mayor Pro Temselinski, please.

Can we look at the Cardiff Bridge neighborhood as an example of what this looks like? Sorry, the Steuben property? That's owned by the county? It's an enclave.

Yeah, it's an enclave. That one would be slightly different in that it is an enclave that we could potentially request or require annexation.

But it has existed in its current state? It's multiple. Yeah, right.

Yeah.

And but none of them are in the city. Right, right. That I guess that's my point is that we have some precedent for handling things this way. And it has gone in a pretty non problematic fashion. I'm just trying to see if we can align that situation with this situation and find a more comfortable relationship with what we're trying to do here.

I guess my point to the question I asked Cara was, is we have a lot of these pre-annexation agreements out there and we've never requested anybody actually annex. So what's the difference between a pre-annexation agreement and this one?

I was trying to help with that.

Exactly her point. Yeah.

Councilor Wyman. So I kind of knew the answers to my last set of questions. This set, I don't know the answers to. I guess maybe for Carl, maybe Matt, you as well. But so we provided a can and will serve with respect to water supply, right? How do we consider our ability to serve this development through transportation networks, the ability to handle any additional residents humans traffic right on our existing you know already somewhat limited ability to shuttle cars back and forth right so um you know hypothetical the county allows a 20-story tower and and a thousand units on this property right according to their zoning it's all allowed PB, Harmon Zuckerman, We can and will serve them water. What would that do to our. So how do we think about all of those other sort of elements that we then become responsible for outside of simply provide them water.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Yeah, I mean, I think from a utility standpoint. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Um, if there were a different water supplier, or if they developed that service on? No, I know, but let me, I know. Give me a minute. Give me some latitude, please, Your Honor. Assuming water is not part of the picture, and so they're supplying onsite, and we're not supplying Benoit. The answer to your question is no. We don't have any ability to influence any of that whatsoever because it's a development of the county. It's the same as if we're developing a four-mile. We might be a referral agency. We might provide some comments, but we don't have . No, it wouldn't even fall under the . Because it doesn't hit any of the markers that you have to hit for the types of things. So from that standpoint, we wouldn't have any regulatory authority whatsoever. And so we're just kind of the downstream as we are with a lot of things that come into town in terms of traffic volumes. So the answer is we wouldn't have any ability to do it. So then the question is, can you leverage that into anything in connection with this water service agreement? I think that's maybe a conversation to have with the developer when they come up to the lectern to talk to you. Because that is always just a balance point on cost between what does it take to develop that water system on site versus what does it cost to connect to the city service?

I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, right? And then our ability, right? Again, back to my wild hypothetical, right? If we were literally unable to properly handle the increase in residents, right? We have no regulatory authority over anything like that. We couldn't challenge it, right? In front of anybody, right? And so we would then be literally forced to figure out how to accommodate those residents on our street networks.

Yes. Okay, thank you. Can I expand upon that? And then applicant will have some of these answers to some of these questions also. But currently there are 73 people that live there.

I know, I know.

But I guess the point was is that the county gave us their entire application. We've looked at it from grading and debris flow and sewer and water and storm sewer and traffic flows and geotech reports. We went through the entire thing just like we normally would for a city project. And Lee's like, there is such a minuscule change in traffic associated with this versus that, that it's really not even a point of conversation. Other things going on with the roundabouts are definitely things we're going to be talking about in the future.

So let's get the... Hang on. Hang on. One more thing. Two more things. Okay, we got to get this wrapped up here. Councilor Schachter. Well, you opened it up, Matt.

I did. The N you gave, 73, is that Amy Zaker's year-round residence and the RV... traffic in addition to that?

I'm going to let Ben go over all that with you.

Okay. But you mentioned 73. That's your number you're showing as full-time residents?

I'll let them handle it.

Okay. Thank you.

Councilor Schmarr, questions?

I should have said there are existing traffic loads there. Thank you very much.

So maybe this is for Trent, but if this went through the formerly process of pre-annexation, your office would review and establish appropriate zoning and mitigation of the impacts of the development, correct? Correct.

Well, not on a pre-annexation.

Oh, no, no, no, no. Not for a pre-annexation.

But with the following annexation, then your office would have jurisdiction all over.

Correct. Prior to annexation.

Under the agreement that you're proposing right now, we would have no control over any of those things, even though right now it appears that what this developer is proposing is acceptable. This developer can build this out in a year and sell it. And now we have a new landowner who hasn't agreed to any of that stuff. And you have no jurisdiction over any of the zoning or development that occurs then. It's the county that approves it. Is that correct? That is correct. Thank you.

Councilor Small, I just wanted to make one mention of a previous question that you had while I was pulling up their presentation for you. In terms of annexations, you can utilize, and I've been a part of annexations in the state of Colorado that include right-of-way to make that continuity. However, in this instance, the portion of the right-of-way adjacent to this property is not annexed into the city currently. So I think in order to establish that continuity, you'd have to annex across the right-of-way first. Okay. All right.

Let's leave it at that for now. Thank you. Would the applicants care to come forward, present your item? I have a feeling you do. Please state your name and whether you don't live here, but tell us where you're from.

Sure. Hello, everyone. My name is Neil Scotter. We are the folks that are proposing this amazing project. We believe that wanted to take you through the sort of the idea was to take you through some of the talking points, highlights of the project, and hopefully you like the project. So we We when we first claim came to Glenwood you know we approach a site and we tried to get some input from talking to some folks. You know, in the Community, and you know what we heard was you know what we don't need any more of is mobile homes, we you know we've got enough apartments what we're really looking for is single family homes. and attainable homes for the community and for those around. Prices have gone up quite a bit in the area and a lot of people are forced to commute and whatnot. So our goal, our vision became building attainable homes that can accommodate families. And in the end, we'll be providing 10% affordable of those units. and um we think that overall we heard a few different concerns you know one of probably the greatest one being fire um in the case of fire you know right now there's currently one fire hydrant on the property built in 1974. our project would have five new fire hydrants on the on the site um We also obviously had the project reviewed by the Glenwood Fire Department, access, turning, and the hydro plan. And one of the things that's happened over the last few years is there's been the A-break right at Storm King Road, which allows cars in an event of emergency to exit before they even get to the roundabout. I wanted to sort of hit different questions and points. As far as the traffic, the post project, assuming that we were able to move forward on it, the I-6 highway will be at 6% of its capacity. So it is a very minimal traffic impact. As far as water, one point though is that, so this is kind of a unique situation where we hope that you'll approve the EQR site. But in this case, as staff has mentioned, we are in exchange transferring a well, which in fact is approximately 21% more than the water we would be even at the 350 gallons per day that is currently assumed. Our plan based on sort of new technologies and things like that is to make these houses as efficient as possible from a water perspective. And so hopefully we'll be well below the 350. The other thing is there's an issue we've heard from the water system is there is a standing water issue and this helps allow the water to circulate through the current line that exists right now. And finally, we are, paying our fair share of a water line with the gentleman who developed the line here. So in addition to the EQR fee, in addition to the additional water that hopefully will be provided to the city of Glenwood, we are paying a very high sum to split that cost with that person. So I also wanted to talk about, and I'll get through the, sorry, we've been on this one slide, but I also want to talk about the occupancy right now. So the way traffic and a lot of these things are done is at the peak of time of day, 4 a.m. versus, sorry, it's at 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m., And that's how the tracks are calculated. The peak times are in the summer because about 80% of the site is used for tourists, big RVs coming in and out of there. Currently there's about 15 to 20% of residents that are on monthly rentals, cancelable at any time. And there's also folks that live in those houses. So of the folks that are in the RVs, those are month to month. There are some nurses that are, for example, on these fixed contracts that are leaving after a certain point. And everyone on site that lives there currently, month to month, has been noticed for the last couple of years that this site is going to be developed and or sold. And at the end of the day, eventually will be closed because the folks that own it are no longer sort of interested in the complications of running an RV park. So I'll also, I can flip, just give you kind of vision. We're still working on that. I don't think it flipped. So this is the kind of housing that we're envisioning. We're envisioning homes that are sort of three bedroom homes, two to four bedroom, call it. Somewhere between 1300 and 1700 square feet in a place that we can really create a community. These are examples of some of the builders that we're talking to. We're exploring modular, we're exploring stick build. It just depends on where the market is. We're in very challenging real estate times with high interest rates. gas prices that have just spiked. So transport costs are very expensive. And in general, based on where the treasuries are, mortgage rates are at an all time high, making home ownership difficult. So it's all about creating the type of housing that has attainable price points. And so this gives you an example of some of the folks that we've been talking to. The one on the lower right with where you see the children is a company that is called Fading West, and they've built various kinds of homes. The next one I just want to show you just as inspiration, this is a project in Basalt. It's a smaller homes, very unique kind of designs. We'd love to have a variety of designs, layouts, all with garages for the residents. And it gives you an idea of some of the different styles that we've been exploring. Finally, a couple more slides here. Just to put it in perspective, just based on the grade of this property, you can see the existing view versus proposed. Obviously, we're gonna be doing some landscaping and whatnot, but based on the grade from I-70, the houses behind the first row are basically not visible from any angle. It's just the first row, and it's kind of comparable to the RVs right now that are on site. It just shows you another view angle, existing versus proposed. And then finally, just the entire site. And we just kind of laid them side by side. These are not scale. We actually zoomed in on the homes. We are developing only on the disturbed areas of the property. So we're not taking natural area and turning the homes. We've just focused it right around the main core and then also creating the debris flow, which is actually making it better than it was for this project. With that said, I'm more than happy to answer any questions and really excited about the project.

Okay, thank you very much. Thanks for all the info. Any questions at this point to the applicant? Start with Councillor Smith.

Thank you. First, just a bit of terminology. You know, I was following and noting correctly. You talked at one point about 10% of the homes you called affordable. Can you define that for us? And maybe while you're at it. Sure. In a previous sentence, I think you said you want to provide single family attainable homes.

Correct.

What's the distinction percentage wise and quality wise?

So the quality we're hoping to be, you know, amazing quality homes, modular homes or sick build are, you know, you can do fantastic homes and it's our job to do that. And obviously we're aligned to do that because we want the project of the 98. So not 9.8, but 10 homes that are, you know, you know, capped at the certain income restrictions of the county. And the term attainable is more just to represent at the end of the day, this, you know, a lot of folks who are building in desirable areas these days are building big homes on big lots, multimillion dollar homes. we're trying to do is create price points that are attainable which you know are you know quite due and far between as far as new homes in this area and we are doing this all on our sort of our project there's no grants we're not asking for any you know contributions we're doing this and in an environment that is a very challenging environment for development but we're confident we can

Thank you. If I can use my green light for two more questions?

I think you can, but I think I want to remind you that we're not reviewing the building site at all. We're just reviewing whether we want to supply water or not. This is not our purview at all.

Just as a reminder. Well, I can make a case for why it is relevant. If you want, I can ask my questions and see if you want to cut me off.

Yeah. I'm just reminding you that this is really not our deal at all. It's very nice of them to show us what they're going to do, but it's really not our purview.

I guess I would contend that while it's not the purview or review is not under the authority of city department or the city council, this is a proposal within the functional area of the city and has potential ripple effects on the city that may well be positive. And we're being asked to provide a component supporting that development. Knowing what that component would facilitate I think is relevant to the question of whether to help. without getting down to, I'm not seeking to get down to nitty-gritty about design standards or development particulars. I just want to get a sense of the place.

I see what you're doing, and I think we got the sense of the place.

I guess if we have a sense of what's envisioned, but I hearken back to Councillor Schmall's a question earlier about potential for the vision to change, that is for ownership to change. I'll venture a question, see if I get away with it. How committed are you? Is this a follow-through proposal that is going to be part of our community, if not part of our city limits? Or is it an opportunity to enhance the value of the land with some approvals that would facilitate you selling it to someone else?

I appreciate the question. We are 100% committed. This is something that I've always wanted to do. As far as being able to provide attainable housing and I built apartment projects. I've done different things. There's a lot of variety of uses that could go here. We specifically chose this because of what we heard in the community. And so I would tell you that we are 100% committed to this project and absolutely love being in this community.

Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Pro Temselinski.

It's all for sale, right? There's no rental component? That's, thank you.

Okay, any other questions? No, I see none. Excellent. Well, thank you for being here. Thanks for all your information. Anybody from the public? Like to weigh in on this? I guess we could. John Potter, Since it's a specific thing I guess I could take online comments, since this is a well the comments are related specifically to this to this. John Potter, item item 10 water service agreement if you guys should. John Potter, sway away from your comments and start talking about something else we will cut you off so your hand let's see we'll start with Gary hobble please.

Hi there. I am the listing agent for the Amishaw family, and I've been representing them through this process. And I want to tell you that as a Western Colorado real estate broker, I grew up in Carbondale, went to Roaring Fork High School. We had our little contest with Glenwood all through my educational experience and so forth. And I know and love the Roaring Fork Valley. The one thing that has never been mentioned in today's proceedings is that you do have a limit of where a nurse can live, an emergency nurse can live from Valley View Hospital, don't you? I believe it's 10 minutes. And the transport time, if you're in your car and driving to Valley View from this property, should be about seven or eight minutes. And so I want to ask you, Where do you want your soccer coaches? And where do you want your teachers? And where do you want your firefighters? And where do you want the people that serve this town and want to live in this town? Where do you want them to live? Is it Silt? Is it Rifle? Parachute? Battlement Mesa? Or Grand Junction? And right here you have a project where these folks are trying to make attainable, affordable jobs. Housing for the people that want to live and work in Glenwood Springs and raise their families and have the opportunity now I just did a little Google search right before I got on with you and the median home sale price In Glenwood Springs is about nine hundred thousand dollars while the median income is about ninety one now pray tell Who can afford on a ninety one thousand dollar salary to buy a nine hundred thousand dollar home and And this is intended to be affordable housing that is attainable for the working class, for the people that serve this community. And that's why I would, and look, we're talking about a water annexation agreement. We're talking about tapping onto a water line that's already built. The town of Glenwood Springs, the city of Glenwood Springs is gonna make a lot of money by selling water to this development. And I'm hip to the whole facts on this project. There is a 25 gallon a minute, well and there's a 40 gallon a minute commercial well extent on this property this minute they don't need you they want to join you so they want to work with you and they want to provide affordable housing so what's the problem here okay well thank you very much for your comments anybody else online would like to speak up please raise your hand

Okay, we'll see none.

I will close the public portion for this hearing and bring it back to council for a motion.

And now I lost everybody. Oh, they're back. Okay, Councilor Schachter, please.

Mr. Mayor, I would move to approve action item one, approval for the mayor to sign a water service agreement for 50235, Highway 6 and 24.

Thank you very much. We have a motion to approve. Mayor Pro Tem Salinski. Thank you.

And a second.

Any discussion? We'll start with Councilor Schacht.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I'm in favor of this motion and what I've seen for the development. We were led to believe when we first passed the approval to Matt and the city provide water, we recognized that there were benefits to the city. There were limitations because it was in the county. But at the same time, We also were led to believe that similar to, it's not like a location extent, we'd be fairly more informed about what's going on. And then we were tonight. I believe I heard that The EQRs we're providing is kind of a cap on, to some extent, the density that the developer is proposing. I also understand that whether you like the number of units or not, there's a direct relationship between number of units and feasibility of the project. And I look at our housing goals, even though this is a county decision, I look at our housing goals and what are we getting? We're getting owner occupied. We're getting smaller square footage, but multiple bedrooms for families and not rentals. So those meet, and we're getting some both attainable and some affordable as per county code. So we're getting a lot of things we're getting that are part of our goals that have not been provided by other developers recently. So I see way more benefit to the project than leaving it I can imagine if we didn't do this, another developer would come in and say, okay, we're going to build four or 5,000 square foot homes, nice big single family things or rentals that do not jive with the city housing goal. So I'm in favor of the water service agreement, which is really what we're about tonight.

Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Solinsky, please.

I also would like to highlight the fact that this is going to make the west end of Glenwood Springs much safer because this type of development, you're going to have people living on site, you're going to have people living in enclosed homes with modern fire standards, in addition to the additional fire hydrants. And so there really is, I think, a kind of unacknowledged just basic safety component that we're elevating simply by having this in the west end of our town.

Thank you. Councillor Wyman. So I fully support this project. And in fact, I wish we had more control over it. All of my questions tonight, all of the discussion points that I've been trying to tease out of folks really for me was to highlight how truly horrible Proposition 2A was and is to this town, right? And how incredibly poorly thought out that was as an initiative. And I don't know who I'm speaking to at the moment. I'm speaking out to the people who were behind that dumb thing. Because my hypotheticals tonight were meant to hopefully get some people to think about what the potential could be, the unintended PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Consequence potential could be around something like two way that is completely tied our hands around annexation. The city doesn't annex properties. No city in the world, in the country, let's say, goes out and annexes properties. That's not how it works. Properties raise their hand and they say, hey, can I please be annexed? And then there's some consideration, there's discussions, there's legal agreements that are drawn up, and the annexation happens. In this case... These two guys, anyone else developing this property or any other property could absolutely raise their hand and say, we really need to be annexed. We want to be annexed. We want to become part of the community for the benefits that being part of Glenwood Springs would provide. And we would say, hey, great. We can get you on the ballot in 120 days. and we'll let the people decide. And I guess let's hope for 51% approval of the annexation. What are those people gonna do? They're gonna say, smell you later, right? They're gonna go on to the next opportunity because no developer in the world, very few developers have the ability to call a 120, 180 day timeout just to see if they're able to go to the next step in the process. And the hypothetical, that I tried to raise was these adjacent properties, the county could absolutely, right now this is zoned rural as far as I could tell, but Garfield could change the zoning on this thing to literally allow a 10-foot tower. There's really no, well, a 10-story tower, right? And there's no structural or logical or physical reason why that couldn't exist. They would just decide to do it, right? And maybe there's some benefit for them to... And we would then have to eat that, right? So with Mr. Hanlon kind of pointing out our streets, our utilities, our viewpoints, right? Where we can no longer see that beautiful hillside because now we're looking at a hundred foot... All of that is now completely out of our hands because of something like 2A. And I'm not even going to get into how to develop city-owned land and that sort of thing because that's a whole other really sticking point with me around this. I'm in support of the project. I'm going to vote yes on this. I really just wanted to sort of, I don't know, go on a little bit of a tirade tonight and potentially get somebody out there thinking about a repeal or partial repeal of 2A. As a counselor, I cannot have any sort of part of any ballot initiative that, but I can certainly put ideas in people's heads. And I think that there's a lot of opportunity and a lot of room for something like that to happen out there. So thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Councilor Schmoll.

So, I sat on the County Planning and Zoning Commission years ago and The limiting factor that the county at that time used was availability of water. Even a single-family home on a 40-acre ranch was subject to the availability of usable water. And they had to prove that they had water before anything got approved to build. PB, John Gerstle:" Once you have water it's almost limited your your concerns counselor weimer about what could be built there are legitimate. PB, John Gerstle:" Once they prove they have water. PB, John Gerstle:" Anything that goes there is out of the city's control once they have water. PB, John Gerstle:" I think it's a bit ironic. I do appreciate the engineering perspective and that is really a good thing and it doesn't make any difference and we get to sell some water. At that level, I agree 100% with the logic. It's a bit ironic that we're under watering restrictions and we're providing water to a new development at the same time. And as for other developments in similarly adjacent properties. That is a bad precedent because we're giving up control again. The process for annexation is a standard process throughout the country based on the legal code when home rule cities were set up, when all of the process for land use regulation was established, and it was for a reason. And we're just, because we're so angry that somebody limited our ability to do something in the past, we're just gonna tear loose and ignore the will of the people who passed that ballot measure. I do not agree with that process.

Councilor Townsley.

Two things. A couple of things, actually. So one, this is, as we've been reminded, this is about selling water. So when Councillor Smith brought up some questions about, I'd like to know a little bit more about what's happening, who these people are, he was told those questions aren't really appropriate. And then I've heard from four councillors that we're getting all these things. And I'm like, well, how do we know what we're getting? Because we have not been able to ask any questions. The projects at Sands, I mean, you know, if it is exactly what you wanted, I would say, let's get you in the city. This sounds great. This is exactly what we're looking for. um i don't know who you are i don't know anything about your backgrounds i really don't know anything about your project because we were told not to ask about your project so i think the argument that we know we're getting all these things is is not legitimate because we don't know what we're getting um we don't know if they're going to be owner occupied we have no idea about price points we're like well these are going to be attainable attainable is like adjacent. It's got a thousand meanings. I don't know any of that stuff. I think the proper way to do it, because the voters have given us some guidance as to how they want things done, would be to say, is there a way that we can legally annex this and encourage that process to happen? And if they want to be part of Glenwood, then let's make them part of Glenwood, open them with welcome arms, see what we can do, because this is the sort of thing that we're looking for. But until that happens, I don't think I can support it as is, because we don't know. We don't have any ability to ask questions. I think we should go through the process the way it's set up, the way the voters have asked us to proceed.

Mayor Pro Tem Selenski.

not going to talk politics past was passed that was a messy messy time in globalist history i'd like to move forward we do know what we're getting here we're getting nope listen to me we are getting five fire hydrants we are getting infrastructure that is in that side of town and we are getting something that is going to happen whether we give them water or not That's what I commented on, but they can they have the water to do this, they can do it it'll make it a little easier and there is some benefit, we will get some tap fees, we will sell water. they're going to the project can proceed with or without a blessing, there is precedent, as I brought up there's several places in town, where we do have this and it has historically operated. fairly successfully. And so we can clean up messy things that we have in our codes, in our past, in our history. I don't know that that's relevant tonight on this particular topic. We were never approached for an annex. If a pre-annexation agreement is standard practice in the past, they've not necessarily become annexed. So it really is a moot point. It feels relevant. because it's right next to town, but I don't believe it is.

Thank you. Councilor Schach. Thank you. I'd like to ask our attorney and perhaps Matt a little more detail about a can and will serve agreement. I'm trying to figure out what I understood. We're providing enough water for 100 units. If it's significantly different, the can and will serve may be revoked. is the cannon will serve, how specific is it? Is it tied to the property forever? Or is it tied to a project with parameters? How does the cannon will serve

So I think there's kind of two things. One is the agreement that's in the packet in front of you, which lays out the terms and conditions of the extension of water service. The cannon will serve letter typically that Matt does, and he will go into more detail on that, is typically water is typically project specific that we're providing water for that specific project. Certainly we could modify the agreement in front of you to be, you know, a a little bit i mean potentially more specific on that or attached to the cannon will serve as an exhibit or something like that but that that's kind of the the level we're at um i i do think to counselor small's point um i think you you could make an argument that it is contiguous based on the ownership interest in that right-of-way um across the river across i-70 across the the other little section right away there for whatever that's worth. I don't know that it changes you guys' analysis tonight, just to acknowledge that. So that's kind of where we're at in how we look at that.

So I would like to be, can and will serve letters. We used to just write them. We can and will serve you with water, sewer, electricity, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Didn't work great for us. Never had an end date. Didn't have any specifics to it. This can and will serve letter, I will work with Trent on. It will be this property because there's actually three of them. It will be how many units there are, how we got to the EQR calculations, how many are one bedroom, how many are two bedroom, how many were three bedroom, and it will end in one year. So if they change it, if they come in with a thousand units that will be used more than 84.5 EQRs, they will not be allowed to do that. And I will also send it directly to Glen Horn because he's keeping track of these so that if anything changes within the proposal on the other end, which they've already presented to the county. So they've already got all of this in record at the county. This is what they're doing, and this is how they're doing, and this is what it's going to look like. If anything changes that's outside that can and will serve, and we do not feel comfortable with it, could be you guys, maybe we bring it to you, then we will revoke it. And then the ability for them to develop goes back to if they want to do their own wells in their own system, they could do that.

Would that include housing type, Trent and Matt, as well, some parameter as described by the developers?

We will talk about it tomorrow and figure out how detailed it will be, usually with number of bedrooms, how many units there's going to be, two existing, 98 new, approximate sizes of those things, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and a one-year end date if they do not start the development with those parameters met. So they can't change it on us because if they do, the county will revoke their development. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Schmarr.

OSBT, Dave Kuntz, You know, in light of reality. OSBT, Dave Kuntz, And our reluctance to enforce some of the. OSBT, Dave Kuntz, hammers that we have with other water customers in town. OSBT, Dave Kuntz, That all sounds really good in it, and it sounds like it gives us the leverage and i'm really i'm not opposed to the development i'm not opposed to the to what you're proposing at all. but not having the jurisdiction and control over it, I still can't, I can't get over that.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Smith.

Thank you. I might slip in a question since.

No, my decision is as the city of Glenwood Springs, like Matt said, we're here to help. The state would want us to help. We're close, we're helping. Therefore, I will 100% support this.

Exactly. And the difference here compared to Flock, which I think is substantial, is particularly in their data storage services, where you'll recall that Flock has both had a number of times when they have changed settings on data, departments as what when they deploy deploy new equipment or they do software updates um and and that in general they contained an out in their contract for the use of the data for whatever purposes they deemed appropriate for other law enforcement none of those things are in the axon contracts And so it's really incumbent on the department or the city to make the decision on particularly data retention is the big one that we think about, right? How long do you keep that data from those license plate readers? How do you utilize? Some of it is pretty straightforward. The sensor equipment on the holsters when you draw the weapon turning on your body cam, that's a pretty easy policy. When you pull your gun out, the light comes, it turns on. kind of thing, right? So that's a simple one. Some of the more complex ones, like I said, are the cloud storage.

Thank you. I'd like to add to that, if I may, that even the courts take a look at department policies pretty closely. So when there's some kind of legal action that's brought forward to the court, there's a two-pronged approach that they looked at that was lawful, and secondly, did it comply with enforced police procedures and policies, which are, of course, publicly available. So these are not without scrutiny. The courts are certainly involved in that process as well. And then if I might add, if I can go back just very briefly to Mr. Small's question, when we have these upgrades, the technology refreshes automatically. It's like a software upgrade to your iPhone or something like that. That's kind of built into that technology as well.

Councilor Schachter. Sorry, Chief, for being a little vague. Could you just quickly explain What Exxon ALPR cameras, are they replacing current Flock cameras? What cameras will we have? Not our speed cameras, but our ALPR.

They're entirely different. Yes, sir. Yeah, so Flock will be going away. We just have to provide them with proper notice. They'll be going away. And in place of those, we'll have the Flock outpost cameras. The exact, I'm sorry. Exxon outpost, not Flock. Excuse me, yes. The Exxon outpost Flock safety system will be going away. Thank you. Thank you.

Councillor Townsend.

That's a question. Are the condor cameras that we had that were not on the roads that were on trails and whatnot, are those just going away? Are those being replaced with axon cameras?

They've gone away. We just had two of those. Yeah, we had a contract for those. We had two of them throughout in the city. Those have gone away until we will not be replacing those. Okay, perfect.

Same number of block cameras that we've had. These cameras are the number of things. That's correct. Yes, sir.

Yes. And so the city, we have our own network of cameras that we can use like downtown near the restrooms or those cameras kind of operate that same way, but they would replace if we chose to do those Condor cameras, but we've removed those a couple of months back.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Slensky, please.

I just have a question. Okay, so we've recently been getting, I've been getting, I think others have as well, a lot more inquiry and concern about some of the bicycle activity on our shared use paths. particularly a certain category of e-bike or that does Axon have a product that might help us with better management of some of our non-street traffic? I guess resources, I don't know what you would call those, but you know, I've been like in my mind trying to think of what we could do. And I was like, how do we bring back like a bicycle officer or, and I was kind of told no. So is this something that might have an option?

What do you sign? I mean, just retire.

So I know that's what I was like.

You know, I don't have a good answer for you. That's something I can certainly find out with them tomorrow.

Yeah, I'm curious. And I don't know if anybody else has an appetite for that. But, you know, as we're constantly being called to better manage that situation and what can we do, I wonder if there wouldn't be something that would help us augment our resources there as well.

Thank you. And we are working on some bicycle related legislation, particularly with these e-bikes. And they're very, very fast around town. They're everywhere. So we're working on that with our staff and the city attorney's office. And then we have a couple of other things I think will be coming online in the next five or six months that might be visible deterrence. But we'll be more to come.

All right. Excellent. Any other questions? Okay, I see none.

Two things. Nobody mentioned that we have the Mike Young's going away ceremony Monday at 11 o'clock. Please join us at the police department.

I didn't know. Now we do.

Secondly, next Wednesday is the state of the public safety at the community center. We'd love to have you there. 530. Yes, sir. Five or 530. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you, Chief. Anybody from the public like to come forward? There's a reason you waited. State your name and whether you live in city limits or not.

My name is John Houghton. I live in city limits. Thank you. Three minutes. I'm following up on a written comment. I sent you the 11th hour on this item, so I wanted to make sure you heard what I had to say. I'm asking for you to continue this item to allow for the contract to be modified and to allow for additional information about proposed policies for new technology to be made available. Specifically, the provisions around AI concern me and I think warrant further consideration. Axon's DraftOne tool used to draft or write police reports was specifically described as, quote, performing worse with longer interviews, pursuits, and traffic incidents, and, quote, in loud environments when unrelated conversations interject, such as radio chatter. That's by users of the technology and the industry publication IPVM. Additionally, independent research done by a university professor, not by Axon itself or sponsored by Axon. An independent researcher, a professor of criminology and criminal justice on draft one was not found to improve report writing speed or save officers time. with an additional finding that AI, quote, AI reports were rated substantively and significantly worse on accuracy, end quote. The author further stated, quote, for a document whose downstream readers are prosecutors assigned to charge defense attorneys probing for inconsistencies and judges and juries reconstructing events months later, accuracy is the threshold condition, end quote. Uh, that, that paper is called something along the lines of AI great for college essays, not for police reports. And that gets at these reports were actually quote unquote written better. The language and the grammar was more sophisticated in AI report. The accuracy was not. And that was from a panel of triple blind sergeants and people that review police reports on a daily basis. Um, Ultimately, for this to be a third of the contract, this is almost $800,000 of a $2.4 million contract. It seems like a significant financial risk for the city to take on. When it's unclear if this is actually going to save us time, it's unclear if these reports are going to be helpful. If in a year we find out that we're spending just as much time editing our AI reports as we did drafting them, we're on the hook for another nine years of it. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, On an 800 well on a $2.4 million contract 800,000 of it is is this portion. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Ultimately, I'm asking you to continue this item for modifications and additional information on what guardrails are proposed for this. Thank you.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, All right, thank you very much for being here and your comments. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Mayor pro temp Stilinski

Did I understand correctly that if that proves to be true, if in practice these reports tools are not as great as we believe they're to be, you can back out and it doesn't impact the rest of the contract?

I'll ask Mr. Hale if he knows.

Yeah, I think we could selectively non-fund any of the portions of the contract.

Okay, that was my understanding.

And certainly, you know, this is a supplier who doesn't, you know, they're not going to go to the mat over a contract with us, over a portion of that contract. That's not been my experience in a couple of other jurisdictions working with Axon. Can't always predict outcomes, but I think it would be something we could pull back on if we found not to be effective. I think it will be interesting to see what the chief's current use of that right now to see how it's working and what they feel like in actual deployment for kind of typical situations for them. And it may be that we discover we don't, it's not going to work for us even before our initial deployment towards the end of the year. All right.

You know, to that point, I would add that, you know, this gentleman referring to a study that was done, I'm referring to real life experiences here with the Garfield County Sheriff's Office and the 9th Judicial District's District Attorneys and the 9th Judicial Bar Association, which represents the defense count, the defense bar. And so to date, I'm unaware of any significant challenges with respect to accuracy, particularly with other noises and some of these other things that were mentioned.

Okay, thank you. Just really quick. You guys did receive John's email? Your departments all have it? Okay, excellent.

Councilor Smith. Thank you. In response to Mr. Hausman's helpful comments and Councilor Zielinski's astute question, I have a companion question. whether or not you're still obligated financially for that portion of the contract. If you don't like the AI function itself, you can just choose not to use it. Is that correct?

Correct. I mean, that's one feature. You know, you buy a new car and you don't want to use the air conditioning or the sunroof and you choose not to use it. Same kind of thing. But there is a financial piece that's attached to that. And to Mr. Hanlon's point, then the council just chooses that we're just not going to fund that through the budget process next year and then we'd be out on that piece.

Great. I understood that from Aaron's question. I just want to be sure that on the practical side, you can act sooner than asking us to hold money. You can just write your own reports if you choose to.

Absolutely. And we as police administrators can control that. If we choose that it's not working or in the benefit of the efficiency of the organization, then we can pull that back and restrict that use. Or the officers can choose not to use it entirely. I think the case that I'm making is about the efficiency and the time and cost savings. That would be a policy that they would use it. So we can have them available and back on the road much, much sooner. But if we chose not to, then we certainly have that option as well.

Thank you. Okay, excellent. Anybody else from the public? See none. I'll close the public portion. I'll bring it back to Council, entertaining a motion in Resolution 2026-10, Approval of Sole Source Purchase of Axon Equipment. Mayor Pro Tem Solinsky.

I'd like to move to approve Resolution 2026-10, which is the Approval of the Sole Source Purchase of Axon Equipment.

All right. Excellent. We have a motion to approve. Looking for a second. Councilor Wymer.

I'd like to offer a second as long as do we need to some of the stipulations we just talked about with the AI, the being able to selectively defund line items with the contract. Does that need to be stated tonight or is that just sort of implied?

It's kind of built into the form of the contract and I'll just go back through. That's one of the reasons why I wanted to do one final review before I sign the motion.

Dave Kuntz, Okay excellent motion a second to approve resolution 2610 any. Dave Kuntz, comments or discussion. Dave Kuntz, we'll see none call for the question.

Dave Kuntz, It passes seven zero. Karen Hollweg, it's okay.

Okay. Did you vote at all?

Oh, God, sorry.

I think we're going to have to redo it.

There we go.

Let me call for the question again. The motion is to approve.

I need help. You got it?

Okay, very good.

We're missing a vote.

Oh, there we go.

It passes 7-0.

Excellent. Thank you, Ryan. Thanks, presentation. Thank you for being here. Thanks, John. Thanks, John. Moving on. Council of Commons, start with Councilor Smith.

Thank you. Quite a few meetings ago, we had a work session presentation from the Charter Review Commission or Committee, and they outlined some of their recommendations for actual charter changes for at least consideration or further discussion of some. And then more recently, we talked about that again, and I believe you were anticipating a package of at least some of those charter changes to come back for the council to consider. What's next on that? I thought we'd get that.

I thought we had a conversation around it, and I don't know that we had any direction to move forward with any particular one. Now, there was some discussion about potentially with the next municipal election, which in my world is like forever away.

I thought it was all about the housekeeping items.

Yeah, but I think we were talking about doing that on the regular municipal election next spring, not this November.

John Gerstle, So it's like oh I think you're right question is about timing.

John Gerstle, Probably sometime we start really looking at what those are Ryan and I probably after we get through most the end of the year stuff and a little bit like in January about what we might throw on an April ballot.

John Gerstle, Great Thank you. The council received yesterday or today a letter asking about or saying nice things about apparent clearance of some renegade camping sites east of the train station and in no name Kerr. Was that indeed our doing? Was that police department doing or do we know anything about that?

I don't know if our police department was involved. It was our parks team that got the trash and stuff picked up out there.

So the city did take that initiative. Great, thank you. And then finally, My thanks to the intrepid team that went to Washington this these past few days, in half of the city and we're pursuing an important priority policy priority for the city. Sounded like some pretty intense travel and some high level meetings. So thanks to everybody who took the time to go do that trip.

Thank you.

Councilor Schach.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I have two items that might gobble up a little bit of time because they're requests of council to see if there's, in one case, support to make a request to commissions. So based on my perceived need for some housing review, not necessarily our higher level policy items, I'd like to request of P and Z and our housing commission, which is our workforce to see housing commission with respect to our comp plan and housing goals, please consider the pros and cons of these housing strategies. Prepare pros and cons and any recommendations to council, say, within 60 or 90 days to give some latitude. Number one, short-term rental regs and limits as they apply to multifamily units under single ownership. Are there unintended consequences? I believe there's an unintended consequence in our code at this point, asking them to review that. Second, commercial linkage. Should some form of requirements be added to our development code or not? Third one, should our inclusionary housing requirements be changed? Do they currently meet, reflect housing goals and need? Fourth one, we talked about it tonight. Should underground inside parking be required in some form or quantity for multifamily and or mixed use construction? If so, where and how many spots? And the fifth one, which Commissioner Smith has mentioned often, should... Should for sale standards be applied to all our multifamily projects in the future, whether they are intended for rent or ownership? So those are five things that I think are important for us to be proactive rather than reactive about in our housing code. So I'm asking, I guess I need the support of at least three counselors to move forward with this through Trent.

Yeah, I think we got a nod here.

Very good. Thank you very much. Trent, are you clear? Pretty specific. Good. I have one more item that's related to something that came up tonight. And based on Commissioner Zielinski's question to Steve Smith, I don't know if we're ready for it, but I'd like to put it out there regarding The ice facility and what I'm suggesting. Let me see if I can get this back up. I'm sorry. Since it's come up and we had comments before council and I feel ready. I don't know if council does, but it seems that we might be ready for a statement that might go something like this to the public. So the public knows that we are not ignoring this, nor have we ignored it. So what I drafted be something like this, We Glenwood City Council are concerned and offended that a special use applicant, in this case, GSA ICE, is in violation of the terms of the permit found in violation, duly revoked by jurisdictional process, seemingly can and will ignore municipal code and action with little or no recourse. We feel that human rights and reasonable comfort are jeopardized by the violation and continuation of the occupancy. Council has carefully considered the risk and likelihood of success if we were to sue the federal government seeking an injunction to shut down the operation of the ice facility at 100 Midland Avenue. At this time, given the cost of litigation and that the law is not on our side, we feel it is not in the best interests of the city to pursue additional action at this time. That's a draft. But I feel we owe ourselves a final resolution, whether it's inconsistent with this or not. And we owe the public some acknowledgement. I don't know if we're ready for that or not, but I wanted to put it out there for consideration.

So you want to bring this back, see if you can get support to get a resolution out of it and bring it straight away to the dais and all that?

If they want to modify it, I can put this out.

What are we thinking, Stephen? Let me just clarify. When you say resolution, you don't mean a resolution.

I mean a comment, some kind of public statement acknowledgement from council.

And so one thing that we could do is issue a press release. If you guys would like to, I'll work with Bree on it. I mean, I like what you said there. We'll try to clean it up a little bit. I think the thing that we have to weigh that against is this might bring this back up into the public consciousness and bring it back up into meetings.

I mean, I think the other struggle you have here is if you're making a decision not to move forward on something or to move forward on something, you need to make that decision. And while You know, you will potentially see 100 people in the room like we did at the Planning Commission. I think it's something you have to do at a regular meeting and noticed on the agenda.

So the other option, and I don't know if it's right or wrong as our responsibility, do we ignore it and not do anything at this point and hope it goes away?

Well, but what we talked earlier with the comment from Ms. Haynes is about outside counsel. Let's get a second opinion. We value what you say, absolutely, but let's get a second opinion, and maybe we'll get the exact same answer from CMF. Do we want a second opinion? I would start there if it was me. I would start there and see if we can, and Steve said he would reach out and see if we can get that.

We can do that. And we really haven't ignored it. I mean, I think that council has been clear and our legal council has been very clear about our position.

I see that you want to. Well, we have, we've been very clear about advice. We haven't, we haven't affirmed our position, but if so, what we're looking for, what. Counselors Linsky asked for when you mentioned, is there, is there, would there be an outside council who would. amend or review the advice we've received?

Is that what you're looking for? I mean, I guess from my standpoint, I would appreciate if you guys hired outside counsel to give you an opinion on your authority to regulate the federal government. I think that will be relatively quick because the law is very clear. But I think you just need to find somebody to do that because I think the public, for a wide variety of reasons, PB, Harmon Zuckerman, You know, wants to hear. And I don't know that that'll solve the problem. But I think you've done your due diligence. And I think that's appropriate to do and to spend it, you know, $1,000 and four hours of somebody's time to PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Like I said, maybe we'll start with that and start with that and then PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Thank you.

Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. Pretty good stuff. Yeah, it's your turn now.

All I was trying to say is, that's exactly what I was wanting, is that we would get that advice, get clear direction. I like your statement. At that time, the press release would be appropriate. I don't think that we need 100 people in the room. We're not taking a formal action. We don't need to take a formal action for a press release. And then we can stay at our position and move forward.

Sounds good.

Opinion, and then next.

Yes. Ding, ding.

Ding ding. Mic off. Mic off. Councilor Weimer.

Good. Thank you.

Okay. Councilor Townsend.

Quick question on that. You know, a lot of the letters that we get, I don't know how much facts and I'm not passionate, but you could say, well, this is going on. That's going on. There's not this. There's not that. Does anybody have any information that we don't have? Has anybody been in the facility or is this stuff all just made up? Are these factual?

I think that there is a lot of interpretation of the documents that are out there that are different for everybody. I think you have seen, you got a memo from me that listed everything that was related to this. those are the facts that we have you guys can go back and read the minutes from the planning commission meeting i think trent did a great job of explaining the factual history around it and so that's that's the real information as as we know it there is to my knowledge nobody has any information that we haven't both provided publicly through quora requests or haven't publicly stated in a meeting there's no other information out there that i'm aware of thanks

Okay. Steve, is your comment related to this? Okay. Councillor Smith.

Thank you. I appreciate Councillor Zelensky's initiative on this because it is hanging out there. or at least to many people's perception, a sense of incompletion. I appreciate Councillor Schachter's drafting of a statement. I want to be sure about next steps. There was talk of bringing it back to a meeting for more thoughtful discussion. There was talk of issuing a news release. I would, for one, suggest that we not do a news release until Council was more formally- done something?

Yeah, I think the next steps are second legal opinion. Once counsel has that, then they'll move on to next steps, whatever they are.

Great. And in that case, I would ask, as part of that, either from our own attorney or from the second opinion, information a step beyond the likelihood of success of an injunction, lawsuit, whatever, that we've already learned is not likely to succeed. Kind of a so what next question? If it's important to make that effort, is it important to make that effort anyway? And could it backfire with a bad legal precedent that would harm other people? Can we pose those questions? Not necessarily tonight. Let me clarify.

You're not going to get any attorney telling you what your policy choice is as a client. So whether you want to move forward or not, that's not my call. So likelihood of success is about all you're going to get there. A little bit more on, I mean, either I or second opinion, probably both, can give you a little bit more about consequences. I don't know that the precedent will get any worse. You just might be writing the federal government's check to them for their attorney's fees and potentially writing a check for the sanctions against whoever brings that claim as an attorney.

Yeah, attorney fees are troubling. I just want to be sure we're not making it worse. Or do we make it better by even if it's only a gesture?

You know, you're going to get a second opinion, but I think the reality would be, so it would be filed, it would be dismissed probably before an answer was even filed by the federal government. And there might be a request for fees. So that would be the likely outcome.

Okay, thank you. Back to regular council comments. Council Towns. Mayor Mrakas, Council small. Mayor Mrakas, Mayor pro tem silence.

Thank you okay. PB, Lupita D Montoya, One really cute one we make a bear crossing sign for midland. PB, Lupita D Montoya, What did you. PB, Lupita D Montoya, Bear crossing sign for midland the portion between 27th street and eight streets somewhere in the middle there may be close to where like the bridges, it goes to the high school we get some bears they like to go to the river i'm. We have a sign maker. It's been requested of me, and I think it's a good idea. We could have bear crossing signs all over town. I don't think there's any problem with that. But that's not up to me. That's like a Matt question.

There is no to cross there.

This is the ever unanswered question. I'd love to have that. We'll flesh it out.

These are demons.

This is just an idea.

Let's keep going.

Moving on. I live in Park West. We have two entrances. We have this really nice shared use path that runs up Midland now. People use it as a bike path, which is fine, except for there's still this problem where you're not looking for the person coming back Jesus up the bike path when you are getting ready to turn and go towards town. And so we've always had stop signs and I don't know why people hate that stop sign, but they get taken out. And so we are missing a stop sign right now. I don't know if there's a place, like maybe we could move it a little further back from the corner for bicyclists. But I was pulling out and a little girl came and she just went flying. She was in front. And then here comes her family of four. And they didn't even stop mom and dad. Nobody, like they just aren't sending good examples. And I'm just afraid we're going to have a bad incident. And so I know it's, yes, the little one, one, one ended up in my backyard once. I don't even know how it was like, is it first? But yeah. And they're on a pretty sturdy, so I don't know what we got to do, but it's just one of those things where I'm afraid if we, yeah. So I think that's the only one that's missing right now. I got other stuff, but that'll be for another day. Oh, there's one more thing. Maybe since... No, I'll just tell staff later.

Okay, excellent. That was council comments. I have a quick thing, and I was hoping if there's some appetite to have a work session on maybe brainstorming, I don't know, on the unhoused. I know. It's a big one, but I... And I'm usually the guy that holds back on this because I don't see the problem or feel the problem as much as others, but I have experienced it more and I have been alerted that it's experiencing, it's more and more and more and more. So I'm wondering if we could just sit down, put on a workshop, chat about it. See what direction, see what we can get out of law enforcement, see what we can get out of legal, just to see what options we have. We all kind of know what we can do, but what can we do? I know we need to start addressing it. So I'm wondering if this is something that you guys are interested in. Yes.

So I have had a few conversations with business community downtown and I've encouraged a few people to come and talk before council. They have not, but they are talking a lot in the community. I think that if we could, maybe get dda to do something with um start there and participation business meeting thing yep maybe because what was posed to me was uh like is there any way that we could have a like businesses and law enforcement so that there's a little bit of an understanding i don't know if that's the way to go about it but that would start that conversation of just understanding You know, all the messaging that seems to get out to the community is that our hands are tied. There's nothing we can do. And I think that that just sounds like excuse making when you're frustrated. And so I think if there was a little bit better dialogue, some specific questions asked and some understanding around like what those limitations are and maybe how we can work around, you know, for instance, that no open containers that we did in Centennial Park was like a start. So it's like, okay, we can't do this. We can say no loitering, but we can give you no reason to loiter, you know, things like that. So I don't know exactly how that works, but I almost feel like there's like almost like a pre-meeting that should come before the work session. And then that would help frame some of that conversation in the work session or maybe concurrent. Yeah.

Or just 45 minutes of us saying all these things, compiling it, and then moving it to the channels. I don't know.

Again, we've said of ad nauseum. I mean, I do believe.

I know, but I don't know what the path forward is. I just know that we need to do something.

I don't disagree. I don't disagree. So yeah, maybe we work session coming up with a plan and then.

Maybe strategy first and then. Is that something we can do?

Maybe you have full support at this end of the dais.

maybe that side too so that's all let me know uh city manager

So I sent out earlier today, you probably haven't had a chance to look at it, the list of upcoming agenda items. And I think The Unhoused is on our next work session. So we can talk about that then. This drone show that is coming up is pretty cool. If you haven't seen a drone show, just go Google it. It's going to be pretty cool. I don't think you're going to want to miss that. And you're right, whoever said that, it's very expensive. And it's a very big grant given to us by the state of Colorado's tourism office. So pretty cool. I can't promise.

I forget the date. Saturday, 9-10. Yeah.

Yeah.

I can't promise for CDOT but CDOT has said they're going to put a, you know, Glenwood Springs. What is it a population or an elevation or something sign up in the next couple of weeks. I do think that we have now gotten an executed easement with the folks that we need that from to put our welcome to Glenwood sign out on the south of town. So I think in the next two weeks, you'll see that go up. That was the never-ending sign conversation. We have an officer who we've made a job offer to. She works in Silt right now. I think she's going to accept that job offer. She happens to be a canine. trained officer. The way that this works is that when you hire somebody like that, we buy the dog. And so we're going to buy the dog, unless I have any objections here. And it's depreciated value, which is right around $10,000. So we'll write CILTA check for the dog and then we'll steal their employee. Then we have two dogs. We'll have two dogs.

Both by hand by women. Nice. Dogs depreciate.

Dogs depreciate. It's an asset. It's on your books. It's on dogs. Last thing I had, I have a lease that people are asking me to sign and it's for the garden, the community garden out at Cardiff. I'm not aware of any problems that we've had out there. As far as I know, it's working fine. It's not getting in our way, but it is a 10 year lease with an option for another five years. So I didn't want to just rubber stamp that without seeing if anybody wants to see that on an agenda or talk about it. I think it's a normal course of business, just what we do, but I didn't want to do it without you guys being aware. So in Cardiff Glen, they have another one kind of by the rec center, but it's a community garden, right, where they lease it from us, the land from us, and then they have all these little individual sections where families can go in and plant vegetables and that kind of stuff.

HOA leases it? Or who's the leasee?

I think it is an HOA, isn't it? It is the HOA, yeah.

That's fine.

Is that my regular block? Yeah.

Okay. That's it for me.

Okay, thank you. Carl? Oh, I'm sorry, Dave?

Do we have any update on what's going on with the Habitat project or is that just been kind of locked up and nothing's happened?

No, I mean, I don't. I can get an update for that. I don't think it's that nothing's happened. I think it's going very slowly. They're split between a couple of different places.

I do have a bit of very good news related to the Habitat project is that one of our parks and rec employees will be living there and is purchasing one of the units.

There, there was a, I'll, I'll pull it up my personal email and forward it to you, Dave. There was, or I can forward it to all of council. They actually sent out an update today from Habitat. Yeah. So on a number of those projects that was actually kind of helpful and interesting.

So I can. I saw an update that they sent out and it's, it's a fundraiser blowing smoke about how good they do.

But they are, I mean, it's the best timeline we've seen.

The gap on this project, you said, has been met. Starting now, this month, they should have contractors over the next two months finishing and closing up the project. That was what Darla conveyed to me.

I read it to sound the same as what we were told last time.

Anything else, Carl? Or anything? I got nothing. Any correspondence?

Yeah. We got we included as an email from Judy Haynes regarding the ICE detention facility at 100 Midland.

That's it. Okay. Thank you. Social event announcement. Mayor Pro Tem Solinsky.

I think we might go to docs. Sounds good.

Sounds great. And attaining a motion to adjourn. This concludes our meeting. I need the microphone. Whoever wants to do it. Councilor Schachter. Move to adjourn. And second, Mayor Pro Tem Solinsky will call for the questions.