City Council - Regular Meeting

There's information, registrations, and I guess it wasn't enough because the other companies, our application was maybe about 20, 30 pages long. The other applications were about 200 pages long. So I know that the other companies, they don't, they want the bid because they present themselves better on paperwork because I know they don't over... They don't work harder than us. So maybe we didn't do the best job presenting ourselves on paper. But part of that problem is that maybe we're not up to date with all the new chat GPT AI information. Anyways, one of the companies that was selected that I had some issues with They don't license their trucks here in Colorado. All their trucks are licensed in Nebraska. They park their trucks here in the residential area of Brighton, which is not permitted. So I don't think they should be able to benefit from a police contract when they're not even contributing by license plates here in Colorado. I know three minutes goes by real quick. I wish we had more time to talk about that. But I am asking the council to please look into this. It's not very often that somebody comes here and says, I want to work for the city at 3 o'clock in the morning on Christmas Day, Thanksgiving. But that's us. If we can please get your help, that would be fantastic.

Thank you, Mr. Valdez. We appreciate you bringing that to us. And then next is Lori Morris. Come on over, Lori. You've got three minutes.

My name is Laurie Morris. I signed in on the sheet. Magellan Strategies did a data centers and AI study in Colorado in August and September of this year. It was published two days ago, but I just became aware of it two hours ago, and I thought council should hear about it. In Colorado, 77% of respondents believed AI will eliminate jobs. 48% of Colorado respondents who were employed were concerned AI would eliminate their job. 66% had an unfavorable opinion of Google, 68% unfavorable of Microsoft, 70% unfavorable of Amazon, 69% unfavorable of SpaceX, 67% unfavorable of OpenAI, and 86% unfavorable of Meta. 74% had an unfavorable opinion of Elon Musk, 82% for Jeff Bezos, 61% didn't like Sam Altman, and the chef's kiss, 91% had an unfavorable opinion of Mark Zuckerberg. Specific to CD8, right here, our district, 68% of people had an unfavorable opinion of AI. 71% of CD8 respondents believe AI will eliminate jobs. 70% of District 8 respondents do not feel comfortable with their local governments incorporating AI into their regular operations and services. Makes me think of our flock cameras. 79% of District 8 respondents were not comfortable incorporating AI into how it educates students. Not in my backyard. 75% of Colorado respondents oppose data centers in our state, even if not close to home. 77% of Colorado respondents oppose data centers in their county. 82% of Colorado respondents oppose them in their city or town. I'm going to repeat that. 82% of Colorado respondents oppose data centers in their city or town. 86% opposed them in their neighborhoods. If a data center was coming to their town, 55% of respondents wanted a total ban. In CD8, our district, 43% supported a total ban with only 30% supporting new zoning code. Data centers have been around for decades, and Brighton has never had code for them. But these data centers are new. These data centers are coming out, supporting AI, and the voyeurism, busybody, snoopy that comes with it. Brighton City Council is not in tune with the community. We, the people of Brighton, are saying no. You, the City Council, have tools in your toolbox right now to get a ban or moratorium next session. We ask again for a five-year moratorium until we get this figured out. Meet the moment. Thank you.

Thank you, Lori. That is all I have signed up to speak. We will move forward. Next item, item 6A, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Brighton, Colorado, amending articles one and 11 of the land use and development code relating to the administration of the code and definitions. And this is a first reading. So this is a public hearing. I will go ahead and open up the public hearing and ask the city clerk to verify that all the necessary postings and publications were done.

Yes, Your Honor, the notice of public hearing was published on the City of Brighton website on August 11, 2026.

Thank you.

City Manager Martinez, please identify your speaker. Thank you, Mayor. Presenting this next item is Associate Planner Stephanie Imes. Welcome, Stephanie.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and members of Council. My name is Stephanie Imes, Associate Planner with the City, and I'm here to present proposed amendments to the Land Use and Development Code. The Land Use and Development Code, otherwise known as the LUDC, are regulations we continually work to improve and adjust. Staff looks for areas of the LUDC that lack clarity, may be in conflict, or items that are not currently in the code that may need to be. Tonight, I will be discussing a variety of amendments suggested by staff for your consideration at a very high level. In your packet, you have detailed red lines of the proposed changes. Staff maintains an ongoing list of amendments throughout the entire code that will be brought before this body over time. However, this evening we will be focusing on articles 1 and 11. We will begin with Article 1. This article contains provisions on how to use the LUDC. There are a few adjustments staff would propose to make in this article. These relate to how we handle amendments to plan unit developments that were approved prior to the adoption of the new code in 2020, identifying a more accurate resource to reference if a term in the LUDC needs to be defined, and clarifying measuring techniques and reference points. Additionally, we are looking to remove inconsistencies and redundant information across both articles to ensure we have a code that is clear and precise. Moving on to Article 11, this article provides descriptions and definitions for terms mentioned in the LUDC. In conjunction with modifications mentioned previously, staff is proposing adjustments to a few definitions to provide additional clarity or comply with state statute. Looking at the land use and development code, the city council, in making its decision, shall use the following criteria found in section 2.10 . In regard to the criteria on the screen, the proposed amendments enhance the LUDC by improving provisions and policies to foster efficient and coordinated development. The amendments align with the comprehensive plan by supporting its vision, goals, and policies. The proposed amendments are intended to address both immediate operational needs and long-range policy outcomes by improving clarity within the LUDC and removing conflicting or duplicative provisions. By removing conflicting provisions and establishing clear standards, the amendments reduce uncertainty for applicants, staff, and the public. This strengthens decision-making and supports orderly development by clarifying regulatory processes, helping residents and developers comply with requirements, and reducing the risk of misunderstandings or noncompliance to better protect community interests. All posting was completed in accordance with the Land Use and Development Code. Staff finds that the proposal meets the review criteria found in Section 2.10 of the LUDC, and therefore recommends approval of the Land Use and Development Code amendments for Articles 1 and 11. At this time, there are four options on the screen. Thank you all for your time and attention this evening, and I look forward to any questions.

Thank you, Stephanie. At this time, this is a set aside for public comment related to this item. No one has signed up to speak on this, but if you choose to sign up to speak, there are sign-up sheets in the back. You'll have three minutes, and I'll call you up one by one. But for now, no one has signed up to speak. Madam City Clerk, any digital public comment related to this?

Yes, Your Honor.

If you'll distribute that to the council. And so just so you know, a lot of the digital public comments related to data centers, and I see nothing about data centers on this item. Questions and comments from the council? Council Member Green.

Thank you. Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Allen. Is there anything in this development code changes that could provide a backdoor for data centers to be developed in Brighton?

no these amendments do not add or change any use definitions to allow a data center a data center is not currently a defined use in the ludc therefore any proposal for a data center would need to go through the land development process to specifically permit that use or go through a code amendment process that would go through the public and before this body perfect thank you very much any other questions or comments from the council

Seeing none, I'll officially close the public hearing. This item is before council for consideration. Council Member Green.

Thank you, Mayor. I move item 2, or 5, 6A. 6B.

6A.

6A. I'm so confused. I move item 6A.

Thank you for clarifying that. And then Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you. I'll second that motion.

We have a first and a second to move item 6A. We'll call vote. Motion passes nine to zero. Thank you. Next, item 6B, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Brighton, Colorado, approving the Bromley Park Plan Unit Development 38th Amendment for an approximately 13.401-acre property generally located to the northeast of the intersection of westbound Interstate 76 Frontage Road and North 60th Avenue, more particularly located in the portion or in a portion of Section 1, Township 1 South, Range 66 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Brighton, County of Adams, State of Colorado. This is a public hearing. I will go ahead and open up the public hearing. Ask the city council or ask the city clerk to verify all the postings and publications were done.

Yes, Your Honor, the notice of public hearing was published on the City of Brighton website on July 22nd, 2026.

Thanks for verifying. In the next, ask members of council if they have any conflicts of interest or ex parte communications they need to disclose. Seeing none, City Manager Martinez, please introduce our presenter. Thank you, Mayor.

Presenting the next item is Planner Colton Guarini. Welcome.

Good evening honorable mayor mayor pro tem ladies and gentlemen of the council and public. My name is Colton Guarini, a planner for the city. And I am here to present staff's analysis of the promy park 38th amendment brought forth by Brighton crossing LLC. Tonight from the applicant team, we have Anastasia urban who will present her proposal after the review of staff analysis. The proposed amendment will affect a single property at the northeast corner of the North 60th and I-76 Frontage Road intersection. The subject property is located just south of the Ridgeline Vista development. For some context, this property was last zoned under the PUD Second Amendment, which was recorded in May of 1997. This property was recently replanted on July 8th of this year as Brighton Crossing filing number 10. The Bromley Park 38th Amendment is a rezoning of the subject property. The property is currently split zoned, single family attached, and office research and development. The proposal will consolidate the proper to be solely zoned office research and development. The proposal also further defines the allowed uses of office research and development to mirror those allowed in Brighton's land use and development code. Per the Bromley Park land use regulations and the land use and development code, the change in zoning and modification of allowed uses triggers the need for a PUD major amendment. For your reference, here is what the PUD amendment document looks like. On this page, you can see the boundary of the amendment, a land use table broken into two categories, one for primary uses and one for secondary uses, and provisions around said primary and secondary uses. These provisions state that primary land uses must occupy a majority of the PUD's land and that a secondary land use will not be approved until a primary land use has been established. The area circled on the screen is included in this PUD amendment as it is currently a part of the property, but will eventually be dedicated as right-of-way during the subdivision plan process and will not be developed on. For everyone's convenience, here is an enlarged image of the primary and secondary land uses. Here you can see the land uses that are permitted as uses by right or would require a conditional use permit. Any use requiring a conditional use permit will be required to undergo the review procedures as laid out in the Land Use and Development Code Section 2.07, which includes another review by staff and will be brought to a new public hearing for the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The uses listed include a variety of residential, public, civic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and wireless communication uses, similar to those seen in the City's Business Park Zone District in the Land Use and Development Code. Examples for allowed primary uses for this space can include senior living, a library, office space, and indoor self-storage. Those listed here are the only allowed uses for this property, and each use is clearly defined in the Land Use and Development Code. During the public hearing with Planning Commission on August 13th of this year, concern around data centers arose. A data center is not included on this list, nor would it fit into any of the definitions on this list. Therefore, a data center would not be allowed here under this PUD amendment. Now, why is the Business Park Zone District used as the foundation for the allowed land uses in this PUD amendment? The reasoning for this is because of the similarities in both of the descriptions found in their respective regulating documents. The Office Research and Development Zone District is described by the Bromley Park land use regulations as a campus type technological park to serve as an easily accessible employment center for the region. And the following is the description for the allowed land uses. Office uses shall include general, medical, dental, professional, and governmental activities. As you can see, these are very general use categories and these terms are not properly defined in the Bromley Park land use regulations. These are the terms used to regulate office research and development today. And if some developer were to propose something that can fit into any of these categories, we do not have very much ground to stand on to regulate what they propose. which is what prompted the need for this PUD amendment, to have a specified list of allowed uses that are clearly defined, although the proposed uses in this amendment are defined in the Land Use and Development Code and are allowed under the Business Park Zone District. To circle back to why Business Park, In the land use and development code, business park is described to provide business employment and light industrial uses and supporting services arranged in a campus development pattern and around common amenities, well-designed open space systems and internal circulation systems. Both descriptions call out business and employment centers designed in campus style development. The following are the major points of the PUD amendment that staff analyzed and compared against our code and the standards set forth in the Bromley Park land use regulations. First is the application seeks to rezone the smaller section of single family attached to office research and development to create a singular zoning for the property. Second is how the proposed list of allowed uses for office research and development compares to the allowed uses in the land use and development codes business park. Lastly, that the amendment does not modify building design or development standards. Those shown are the review criteria for a planned unit development amendment per Section 2.04 of the Land Use and Development Code. The plan proposes that office research and development closely resembles a Bay Zone district of Business Park. The plan fulfills the intent of the original Bromley Park PUD, which planned for this unique zone district to be a beneficial component to the Bromley Park community. The plan preserves the last opportunity for office research and development as all other instances have been developed in different forms through previous amendments. The application seeks to incorporate the portion of the site zone single family attached so that it can be a part of this development opportunity. The description of allowed land uses in the Bromley Park land use regulations are general, and this amendment clearly lists the allowed uses to mirror those in Business Park. The future land use map of the Be Bright and Comprehensive Plan has designated this property as medium density residential, which aligns with the portion of the site zone single family attached, but is in contradiction with the proposed office research and development. While it does contradict the Future Land Use Map designation, it does comply with a different section of the Future Land Use Chapter. The Opportunity Areas section describes areas of Brighton that should focus on specified development opportunities in pursuit of the goals and visions of the City. One of these areas of opportunity is called the I-76 opportunities. which should act as an entrance into the community and that the development should attract residential and business investors. The surrounding area already has the residential development and this application seeks to introduce business investment. The amendment seeks to fulfill the opportunity area section of the comprehensive plan while also furthering the following policies and strategies. The property is located in an area which has already seen development, and the proposal will be able to capitalize on that existing infrastructure. The proposal seeks to provide the only opportunity for this unique business park design of office research and development in all of Bromley Park. The proposal supports Brighton's non-downtown commercial centers by incorporating a compatible business park use as an amenity to its surrounding residential neighbors. In conjunction with the I-76 opportunity areas described before, this policy seeks to create opportunity areas along I-76. The proposal will create the diverse balance of residential and commercial uses that the comprehensive plan seeks, and this is the last opportunity for commercial on I-76 in this area. The proposal does not modify development standards. The original Bromley Park land use regulations contain the standards for setbacks, buffering, and screening consistent with the existing development framework and were designed to mitigate impacts on the planned adjacent uses. The property is adequately served by previous development and any future site developer will pay to connect to the city's infrastructure. The proposal seeks to develop this property in service of its surrounding community by introducing new uses and services at the availability of the residents. In conclusion, city staff find that this site is appropriate for business park development, given its specified location as expressed in the comprehensive plan. Site development, including buffering and building design, will be in accordance with the Bromley Park land use regulations as well as the Land Use and Development Code. Any development on this property will only be allowed with a design and intent ensured to fit the development pattern and context of the site. Public notices were mailed and posted to the website on July 22nd. The interactive development map was updated to reflect the date time and location of this hearing. On July 29th, 2 signs were posted on the subject property city staff posted info for the public hearing. On public on Facebook and next door prior to a formal application submittal as required per article 2 of the land use and development code. A neighborhood meeting was held on June 3rd, 2025. Planning staff has received one formal comment, which has been included in your packets for your review. The Development Review Committee has reviewed this project and recommends approval. The Planning Commission heard this request on August 3rd of this year and unanimously recommended denial. Staff finds that the PUD amendment meets the requirements outlined in the Land Use and Development Code and recommend approval of the Bromley Park Planned Unit Development 38th Amendment. The following are options for your consideration. I'll be available for questions after the applicant's presentation. Thank you for your time.

I'd like to invite the applicant to share their presentation if they'd like.

Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem, City Council. My name is Anastasia Urban. I am happy to be before you again representing Brighton Crossing LLC, who is the owner and applicant of this subject application. Brighton Crossing LLC is an affiliate of Brookfield Residential, the master plan developer of Brighton Crossing Master Plan LLC. community which is shown here on the map Brookfield residential not only developed the land but also built a number of residential homes here the subject property though however is not directly contiguous with the Brighton crossing community it is it is further to the east highlighted in in a green circle and the property is shown in red approximately 13 acres located at North 60th and the frontage road of I-76. This property is a portion of the Bromley Park PUD. Brighton Crossing is a subset within that original PUD, and this subject property was zoned with the Second Amendment that was approved in 1997. As you can see from the inset, The subject zone parcel, the total area is 63 acres in size. I have colored that area based on the existing zoning in place. The existing zoning in place today, the red, is office research and development. That is what exists today based on the approved PUD. The orange yellow is the existing zoning that is residential single family attached. You can see the blue outline is the 13 acres of the property that we own. And so the blue outline splits with office research and development and single family attached. One other nuance of this PUD is in order to develop single family attached, you have to have a minimum of five acres. The yellow area within the blue outline is less than five acres. So this zoning map amendment or change to the PUD is essentially looking to just clean up the zoning to eliminate the split zoning and maintain the OR&D Office Research and Development zoning that exists on the majority of the property. The original PUD, as I said, or the Second Amendment that controls this property was approved in 1997. The land use regs that say what happens in OR&D Office Research and Development was approved in 1987. You can see the typewritten recorded SNP in the lower left and then retyped for clarity to show the intents of office research and development and then also the language that goes through that. As staff presented as well, that is fairly vague language and it doesn't directly align with the land uses that are permitted currently in the land use and development code. With this PUD amendment, these are the proposed uses that would be established should this amendment be approved. This list aligns with the business park zoning in the land use and development code. And it is further restrictive than the land use development code because it establishes primary uses and secondary uses. So again, it matches business park and it is more restrictive than business park. Staff went over the land use development code criteria to review and consider planned unit developments, also highlighted here. And then, just a summary, again, the 38th amendment, the application before you is relating to 13 acres of the original 63-acre zone parcel. Those 13 acres, the majority today is office research and development. There's a small portion that's single-family attached. That portion is less than five acres. It does not meet that five-acre requirement. And so the change to the PUD is basically requested to align the land use development code of business business park zoning with this pud so there is a very clear list of uses and processes for any future applications that would be come before before the city it provides clarity on the permitted and conditional uses which is not very clear in the 1987 regulations and then it also again further restricts the percentage of uses by establishing primary and secondary land uses and then once again no changes to the development standards those those would comply with the bromley park land use development code and we're not specific it would refer to the city of brighton land use development code refresher just representing again brookfield residential brighton crossing llc as the property owner and happy to answer any questions that you may have

Thank you for your presentation.

Thank you.

Next is time for public comment. Although I have no one signed up to speak, but if you choose to speak on this item, there are sign-up sheets in the back. You'll have up to three minutes to speak. Madam City Clerk, anybody here signed up or submitted any digital comment?

Yes.

We'll distribute that to the council. Let's give us a moment to look through this real quick. Looks like a lot of the digital comment is related to data centers, and I didn't see anything about data centers in this presentation. We do have someone that signed up to speak now on this item, Jordan Rebel. Aguilar sorry the come ups state your name for your record.

You got three minutes Good evening mayor and council members. My name is Jordan Aguilar. I'm at 764 sawdust right in that impacted area I'm not here to oppose development of this property. I'm here to request revisions to the proposed rezoning before it is approved. First, I asked the council to remove industrial uses as a primary permitted uses on the site. This property is adjacent to established residential neighborhoods, and the proposed use list extends beyond what many residents were led to believe when the amendment was presented as promoting neighborhoods serving development. second if the goal is to truly promote positive community impact i encourage the city to modify the permitted uses to prioritize businesses that directly benefit residents such as health and wellness services medical offices fitness facilities child care educational services neighborhood retail and other community oriented uses those are the type of amenities that improve quality of life and serve the surrounding neighborhoods removing industrial uses that take away from the community being developed there Um, 3rd, um, if the issue is that the site can no longer meet current residential development standards, I asked the console to explore reasonable exceptions or modifications to those standards rather than eliminating residential development altogether. The city's comprehensive plan identifies the property. For residential use, and once those residential rights are removed, they're unlikely to return. My concern is that the current proposal appears to prioritize maximizing the marketability and sale of the property rather than balancing the long-term interests of the surrounding community. Residents are being asked to accept a broad expansion of development rights without a clear understanding of what specific development is intended. I also ask the council to consider whether the existing infrastructure, traffic network, and community amenities were planned for the intensity of uses is now being requested. um my my request overall is simple revise the amendment to remove industrial primary uses focus prime permitted uses on neighborhood serving and wellness oriented businesses and preserve a path for residential development if reasonable zoning modifications can make that possible thank you for your time and consideration thank you jordan for your well thought out thoughts would either staff and or the applicant like to address the items that were brought out by the public

Will you turn on your mic?

Yes, thank you. Regarding the land uses proposed, again, these are in line with the business park zoning that's already within the existing land use and development code. There were not necessarily modifications done to shift some or the other. There are just a handful of industrial uses, and those are really limited, I would say, in nature on the left-hand side. And if we can go back. On the left-hand side, the industrial uses are listed in purple at the very bottom. So manufacturing artisan, manufacturing light, which is a conditional use. And then there are two types of indoor storage that are listed as proposed permitted uses within a primary zone district. And then there are two uses that are listed on the right-hand side. I apologize. circle again a purple a little two-thirds down their storage of gases and then there's there's a provision for for drilling as conditional uses again we did not modify by taking away uses in the business park similarly we didn't add uses for the business park either so if we start kind of mixing and matching, then we're not aligned with business park zoning any further. And I would further state that there are other industrial uses permitted in the land use and development code that are much heavier, that are not contemplated here. So again, just a very narrow list of industrial uses aligned with business park zoning.

Thank you. And then Colton, do you have anything to add? Okay. Now time for questions and comments from council. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you. I appreciate everybody putting all of the work into this and giving this presentation and laying this out for us. I do have some questions trying to figure out because the city presentation didn't include the illustration of the split zoning. Would you pull that back up? So Why is this application specific to the 13 acres presented here where the corner of it is yellow and not the 63 acres where a broader segment of it is yellow that would enable that five acres of development?

Brighton Crossing LLC currently only owns the 13 acres. We do not own the remainder of the site.

Okay. That answers the question. We don't own it. And so whatever was projected at the original time, your parcel includes roughly three acres that's zoned with this residential crackies. If we don't permit this change, that effectively forces that three acres to simply sit and be wasted or lost or sold.

It does not allow construction of single family attached. And so it would require it to be undeveloped, essentially. But in reality, there would be some sort of relief or future amendment sought in order to be able to reasonably develop that property.

OK. And the current comprehensive plan identified this as low density residential, correct? But I believe the draft, and you'll have to tell me if it's out of bounds to look at the draft of the comprehensive plan, but I believe that's one of our large mixed use territories and where we're headed.

Correct. We are not supposed to address the draft of the comprehensive plan as that is non-official or approved.

Okay. Then I will move on from that question. Can you provide a little bit of illustration or examples of what are artisan uses in an industrial zone and what would qualify as a light industrial use?

both uses are allowed in our downtown zone district so it's very small very light very hidden industrial manufacturing I have the definitions for both here and they were provided in the packets under all the allowed land uses Manufacturing limited slash artisan is defined as a small-scale industrial use, manufacturing predominantly from previously prepared materials or finished products or parts. The activities produce little to no byproduct, such as smoke, odor, dust, or noise, discriminable from outside of the building where deliveries and distributions are made by general consumer delivery services requiring no special large truck access. and where products are made available to the general public. Uses typically occupy buildings or spaces under 10,000 square feet of gross leaseable area. Examples include artist studios, small wood or metal shops, craft manufacturing, small bakery or microbrewery, or other small-scale assembly or finished products.

Okay, so microbreweries, somebody who makes dollhouses and ships them out via FedEx are examples. And just to make you say it out loud one more time, because the online comments refer to it, permitted uses as artisan do not include data centers.

Correct.

Okay. And industrial uses... Somebody were to try to come and recommend that that doesn't exist in data center does not exist in our industrial code at this point in our land use and development and a conditional use would require reviews and public hearings and all of those things or some exception process a conditional use would require an additional review in front of and public hearing in front of the Planning Commission and Okay. I think that the biggest question that I really had was why the triangles didn't match. Thank you.

All right. Next, Council Member Green.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Guarini. I appreciate your presentation. To address one of the comments that came from the neighborhood meeting, a traffic impact study would be conducted at the platting stage, correct, or at a later stage when we actually had some sort of development that actually put in an application, hence why this is just a rezoning. This is not something where we're addressing traffic impact that may come from this that would come at a later date, correct?

Correct. Yes, sir. That would be analyzed during either the subdivision plan or a site plan.

Correct. Thank you very much. I wanted to get that on record, too.

Next, Council Member Carbajal.

Yeah, thank you guys so much for the information. One of the questions that was asked by the audience was around, like, what are your intentions? And obviously this zoning doesn't lead to intentions, but are there intentions that are already in the works in terms of what you guys are looking at doing, and can you talk to that?

Sure. Brighton Crossing LLC, again, affiliate of Brookfield Residential. I'll hone in on the residential component. In our Denver division, we develop master plan communities and typically construct homes. We, as Brookfield Residential in this area, do not develop commercial properties. And so for as long as... Brighton Crossing LLC and Brookfield Residential has retained this. It's been in our business plan to essentially market it for sale to an end user who does do uses that would align with office research and development. So that is basically our purpose and intent, to clean up the zoning such that future buyers have a clear understanding of what's permitted. And then so staff and city council have a clear list of uses because otherwise without this rezoning being approved, you go back to the 1997 vague office business park without very clear permitted and conditional uses.

My second question is when we look at the primary versus secondary components, like it says 50% correct has to be used for primary and 50% is secondary. There are other things that prevent things from coming. Like I see the drilling thing here, which could be intimidating when you're living there and you're thinking you're getting residential. But with just eight acres, is it possible that you'll be moving in those type of big things? Or what does that look like? Just give me a feel of if that acreage, what it could support.

So I'll clarify the acreage. So the application is 13.4 acres. We will lose some acreage by that strip that Colton pointed out, that strip that heads to the north. That will not Change what it looks like in reality that that will be future right-of-way So so there's already a street that's there and so when the when the subdivision plan the final plat goes goes forward to develop that property That strip will will revert to public right-of-way for use of the street So so I don't have the exact acreage, but we'll just say roughly 11 11 acres left and and you know 50% of the 11 acres, you know plus or minus five and a half acres and would need to be a primary use.

And I think my last question, and I don't know who I asked this to, but it said that it was denial from our group, correct, that they didn't pass it? So can we just talk about the why, what were their feelings behind that? It's not something we can have access to as counsel.

Is that something you can address, Colton?

So that's not something I'm at liberty to summarize. But it was staff's impression that the denial came from a place of vagueness in those definitions, in some of the concerns brought up by the public around potentially traffic. But there were no real findings of facts for the denial.

Thank you. All right. Next, Council Member Wirth.

Thank you, Mayor. And I think I'm a little bit further ahead now on the primary versus secondary. But for me, I'm seeing a big disconnect, you know, the primary being artisan and light manufacturing and a secondary being oil rigs. drilling I mean that's there's a big difference there it's not like it's not like they're similar you know so that's one of those things in Sesame Street that one of these things is not like the others can you help me understand what that could look like I mean because to our any guests that are from that area or anything like that that's a big difference

Yes, sir. And so staff did some research into that as well because that is a very real concern. And in the City of Brighton's history, there were a lot of state mandates created around oil and gas drilling, and they were changing a lot. And so at that time, when we were creating the land use tables and the permitted uses, we put oil and gas drilling and the storage of gases and liquid petroleum as conditional all across the board. And so now this allowed land uses just reflects what the current land use and development code says.

Okay, but that's something that could happen, right? I mean, it's out there as a possibility. Is it possible, and I think you alluded to this, and I think the answer is no, but it's not possible to strip out some of this stuff that is really, I don't know, for lack of a better term, offensive? Because that's offensive to me to have the idea that an oil rig could be building right across the street from me.

So the initial application, again, was intended to align with the business park zoning uses. And obviously, I think in line with developing more of a commercial center and employment center, that's likely why the drilling component was moved to secondary. We are not directly proposing that as a proposed use. And again, going out to market. in order to develop and sell to a developer. I would refer back to the overall process to where if there's similar concerns on drilling specifically, that could be something that the council could propose as an amendment. Alternately, if there is alignment, I think, in a singular use, we could also consider that as an applicant and take that back for consideration for a potential amendment. But again, the uses here aren't specific to someone who's knocking on the door saying, I want to build a

drilling operation here it really again is is meant to mirror um what's what's in the land use development code okay but that that's it oh we brought in the big guns here do you do you want to say something here if i may yes yes go ahead yeah good evening council thanks for having me here tonight um so with the oil and gas as anastasia and colton have alluded to it the use is allowed in this pud amendment mirror the business park zone districts But we do understand your concerns with the oil and gas. What I will say is, looking at the table, they are listed under conditional. So they would have to go through additional processes to be allowed at this location. On top of that, they would have to meet state minimum requirements. So it's no secret there is an oil and gas site up to the north of this. That was there before the residential subdivision. You're allowed to build closer to oil and gas if oil and gas is there. However, oil and gas has to meet a minimum setback if it's building towards residential that's already existing. If that makes sense, um, so on top of the fact that the oil and gas requires a conditional use for additional processes, um, through the lanes and development code, it also has to meet additional requirements that are mandated by the state. And that's multiple thousands of feet set back from oil and gas operations to residential. Looking at this property, it would probably be a stretch that oil and gas would be allowed to meet those minimum state requirements.

Okay, thank you for that. I just really don't like the idea of we stepped in this and now we can't get it off our shoe. And somebody comes in and we're not expecting it. We've got our doctor's office there and maybe a storage unit and shed, and we've got some businesses like that. And all of a sudden, we've got this oil well or even the storage of, what is it, storage of gases or liquefied petroleum. I don't know what that really looks like, but it sounds like something I don't want next door to me. And so I'm just wondering, not just what's the chances that that could happen, But unless the chances are zero, then I'm not liking this at all. I just don't. Again, I wouldn't want to be living there. I back up to the MTV open space, and I wouldn't want this stuff in my backyard. I just wouldn't. And so on behalf of the residents there, I'm pretty sure that if we went through door-to-door and took a poll, most of them would agree with me. Yeah, put a daycare back there.

Put a doctor's office.

Oil and gas and drilling and even the other industrial stuff is, yeah, I don't know. But this is really, it's like it takes a big jump from really light industrial to pretty major stuff. And so that's kind of where I'm sitting right now.

Like I said, we understand your concerns and I'd also like to pass it back over to the applicant if they had any thoughts on those uses.

I'd like an opportunity to comment if they're at the end of council comments prior to the end of public, close of public hearing. Just to see if there's other feedback regarding any of the uses.

Okay. I think the probability of oil and gas is very low given the setback requirements that are needed, and also they did some drilling in wells when that neighborhood across the street was built, so I highly doubt that that's on the table in the future, but that's just how I see it. Council Member Snyder. Thank you, Mayor.

I want to make sure I understand what I'm looking at. I think I do, but I want to make sure this is on the frontage road on Interstate 76, just south of the Colorado to Interstate 76 exchange.

North of it.

Just north of it. Correct.

It's north of Colorado 2. Are you referring to Bridge Street?

No. Colorado 2 is the lock buoy.

That's County Road 2. Yeah, County Road 2. That is south.

Baseline Road.

South of Baseline Road. Right. This is closer to Bridge Street.

Oh, it is closer to Bridge. Okay. How far is this from... that residential neighborhood. A mile, quarter mile, 100 feet, I can't tell from the map.

It looks to me like it's across the street. It's directly across the street from the Brighton News Farm subdivision.

It's directly across the street from the residential area? Correct. Okay, and the... red brick looking area the orange brick looking area already has am i correct that already has the zoning you're seeking for this small piece part of it thank you okay council member todale

Thank you for your presentation and all your time on this. I think my comment to the concern about the oil and well is that it's too small of a parcel and nobody's going to want to do it. They can do all the subsurface stuff they want to do. But I understand the concern. But my question is, so the other yellow part, the owner of that parcel, is there an interest in that owner purchasing your parcel so that they can build on it?

I can't speak for the adjacent property owner.

I thought I'd try to get that information from anybody that would answer it. Okay. Thank you.

Back over to Mayor Pro Tem.

For the record, sorry to interrupt. I meant to do it before she was done. That property to the north is owned by South Beebe, and it's one of their large drainage ponds and is not likely to develop anytime soon.

Thank you very much.

Mayor Pro Tem.

Thanks. I'm a little bit of mixed mind on this and sort of defer to staff at some level here. I think the secondary industrial uses have low likelihood of being used on this property, but with the potential of them being listed, it creates some hesitation and I would offer some hesitation to approve this change, and I would rather not see it come up and fail and have a year's delay. So given the low likelihood that those uses could come in place, I would sort of make a recommendation to go back and make an amendment and withdraw and pull those out of the secondary use table. uh we don't i realized that the idea was to aim at our existing business park entirely but we are talking about a 13 acre parcel in total do we need to stay 100 within the city's definition across the board for that smaller property or given that we're already dealing with amending a pud and already dealing with a special one-off Is that the hill worth dying on for this one?

Would you like to comment on that?

I'm hearing a theme on the secondary industrial uses and Appreciate the feedback and the opportunity to engage PUD amendments. PUDs are challenging, right? What does it mean? What's allowed? What are the next steps? And to be able to engage in detail on these uses and what it means for the future, I really appreciate the time. As the applicants, I would actually ask that we have an opportunity to continue this to the next meeting and work with my client to see if we can refine those uses to address that concern on the secondary industrial.

Given that our code requires us to not reconsider something for a year if it failed, I think that that's strong. I would ask city attorney's guidance whether we would need to act on that after the public hearing has closed or if staff can do that with the applicants and if they can withdraw the request.

City Attorney Calderon?

Because we would continue, and I don't know if that's the appropriate step.

Well, that's what I'm hearing. Sorry. Thank you, Mayor. That's what I'm hearing and understanding is a request for a continuance so that the staff and the applicant can work together and bring it back to you based upon your feedback and direction this evening.

Yep. I'm happy to go that direction once the public hearing is completed and we can take action.

Okay. And then Council Member, hold on. We'll go to Council Member Fidler since he hasn't spoken yet and then Council Member Carbajal.

Thank you for being here tonight. Direct question for the applicant. The request is so you can create a parcel large enough to build single-family attached homes.

The request is to remove the split zoning to have the entire parcel zoned as office research and development.

I have to believe not paid attention to that. I'm super confused. But the existing definitions are the ones that already exist.

Tried to lean into those the the definitions for use in that industrial space That's what they're aiming for so so today the red the red area is office research and developments with the words with the words that are on the screen so it's a general description of some commercial uses here and what we are seeking to do is to provide a very specific list of uses and that that align with the Purple the Easter colors the purple yellow pink and green and in both a primary List of uses which would have to occupy more than 50% of the site and then Secondary could could occupy less than 50% of the site.

Thank you. I'm still confused, but I'll look forward to learning more next time next time

Yes. All right. Council Member Carbajal, back to you.

Yeah. Thank you so much, Mayor. I was just, I agree with Ann when she said unlikely that that could happen, the setback. But it'd be nice if we just knew what that meant. Because, like, I don't know those numbers. So I love that we're trying to align it with the code. But when I don't understand what the setback looks like, it does give some variance on what we're exactly voting for. And so that would be my only request. Just, like, something hard detailed of what that means exactly. Thank you so much.

Council Member Fidler, do you have more? Okay. Then Council Member Wirth.

Thank you. I just have one more question. Is it possible, so we don't run into the one-year penalty, to approve this conditionally that we strip out the industrial stuff? Whatever works best, but if that would help us avoid the penalty. Okay. then I would be for that. I think everybody, I think, I'm not going to speak for everybody. I would agree on a business park type thing out there. This stuff just doesn't, to me, doesn't fit in a business park. And I would like to see it not be there. So whatever the best way to make that happen is.

City Attorney Calderon, did you have some to add?

yeah just just just to clarify if you continue this to a date certain which is what you're you will do because you're in a hearing uh then then it'll be brought back to you and you'll still be in the hearing and you can finish and see what they're proposing so you're avoiding yes the penalty that you're thinking of if it fails very good all right council member carbajal do you have more all right everybody's clear the screen

All right. I will go ahead and close the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem will make the motion.

Thank you. Yes, I also always hesitate to try to amend a PUD amendment on the fly. We don't have all of the right language to do so, and I could screw things up really badly. I would ask staff for guidance on a date for me to continue this, too.

This is the best date? Currently looking at October 6th, if the applicant is the first meeting in October. Correct. In about three weeks.

Okay. Okay. Then I move to continue item 6B to a date certain of October 6th.

All right. There's a motion to continue to date certain of October 6th. Do we have a second? Council Member Green?

Thank you, Mayor. I will second that excellent motion.

All right. There is a first and second to continue this to October 6th. Roll call vote. Motion passes nine to zero. Thank you all.

Thank you for your feedback.

Get a good resolution coming up. Thank you. Moving ahead, Item 7A, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Brighton, Colorado, authorizing the issuance and sale of City of Brighton, Colorado, Water Activity Enterprise Revenue Refund Bonds Series 2026. City Manager Martinez.

Thank you, Mayor. You heard this at the last study session, but here to give you a reminder presentation is our Director of Finance, Katrina Asher.

Thank you, Michael. So the item before you tonight is an ordinance authorizing a refunding, issuance of refunding bonds. So as our city manager mentioned, this was discussed last week, so nothing's changed from that presentation, but I will walk through this just at a high level as a refresher and for those that maybe are watching at home and didn't see last week. So when we talk about a refunding, what we're really talking about is refinancing, aiming to get a lower interest rate and lower our costs. So this is akin to refinancing a mortgage on your house. Over time, interest rates change and when debt has been outstanding for a while, we work with our financial advisors to determine if it makes sense to refund that debt. So this slide here gives just some background on these bonds. They were originally issued in 2009. They were refunded in 2016, and then we're looking to refund them again now. So I do want to point out that the repayment term, the original maturity was 2037. We would not be extending that. So the goal here is to get a lower interest rate, lower our cost based on that, not on extending the debt for a longer period of time. These bonds benefited both the water and wastewater funds, so we'd be looking at some debt that's outstanding in both of those funds would be paid off, and then new debt issued at lower interest rates. We are hoping, based on interest rates as they are now, to see a savings of roughly $60,000 a year between those two funds. Now, the caveat I will give you is that the Federal Reserve is meeting today, and we'll be hearing about interest rates tomorrow. So should interest rates increase at a level where we no longer see savings and it no longer makes sense to do this refunding, We would pause on that. But any debt issuance tends to take about three months to do. So we just want to get this moving so that we can be ready to move should the market look like it would be conducive to savings. But we would pause or hold off if the market does not support the savings. This is the timeline we looked at last week. We're now in that second dot, September 15th. So looking at the bond ordinance for initial consideration. If you're supportive, it would come back to you for final consideration on October 6th. And then we'd move forward with a lot of background work with staff and with our consultants to prepare for a competitive bond sale in November. This would be, as I mentioned, a competitive bond sale, which means we would put it out. Investors would bid on it. We would look at what is the most competitive offer, and that's what we would accept. So we won't know an interest rate until we do that competitive sale. But what the bond ordinance in your packet does is set some parameters. So maximum amount of debt, maximum interest rate, and a maximum term, which is that June 1st of 2037. And again, I want to emphasize this is not new money. We're not looking to fund any new projects. This is simply a refinancing of existing money that was issued a number of years ago. So with that, the next steps are outlined here, as you saw last week. And staff is recommending approval of the ordinance. Again, if supportive, these are the next steps that you would see coming to you in future weeks. So happy to answer any questions.

Thanks. Any questions? Looks like we have approvals that we're aiming towards. So we'll go all entertain motions. Council Member Green.

Thank you, Mayor. I love saving money. I move to approve item 7A.

All right. And then Council Member Taddeo.

Save away. Second thought.

We have a first and second to approve 7A. We'll call the vote. Motion passes 9-0. Thanks. Next 9A resolution is a resolution of the City Council of the City of Brighton, Colorado amending the City Council policy for the appointment of members to the City Boards, Commissions, and Authorities. With that, City Attorney Calderon.

Thank you, Mayor and members of Council. We presented and discussed this at the study session last week, and the red lines are now actual red lines in your packet, but if anyone has any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Any questions by the Council? If none, I'll entertain a motion. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you. I will move Item 9A.

And then council member today.

Thank you mayor.

I'll second that. There's a motion in a second to move item nine a as presented roll call vote. Oh, motion passes eight to one. All right. Next item, a 9B, which is a stem that was 2B earlier. Let me pull that up. A resolution of the city council of the city of Brighton, Colorado, approving acceptance of an Edward Byron Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, JAG, and authorizing the chief of police to sign the JAG grant agreement and any other public safety grant agreements. City Manager Martinez.

Thank you, Mayor. You heard this presentation at length last week, so staff is here to answer any questions that you may have regarding this grant acceptance.

All right. Questions? Council Member Fidler.

Thank you, Mayor. So my concern, Chief, is there's language in the resolution that we didn't discuss during the study session. So I'm prepared to make a motion to amend Section 1 of the resolution accepting only the 2025 JAG grant and amend Section 2 to remove execution authority for any other grants from a federal agency that benefits public safety, law enforcement, or victim assistance up to $100,000. And I'll repeat that for the council.

If you'd like, I can respond to it. If not.

Well, just I don't know that I have a problem with any of the additional language. We just didn't discuss it last week.

Sure. Well, I guess for clarification, that has been in these similar JAG grants for the last few years. So we did not talk about it, and for that you have my apologies. I think part of the reasoning behind that is we have a number of grants, especially as it relates to victim services, that are fairly low-dollar grants that I don't know that you all want in front of you every week, but certainly whatever you all prefer, we're happy to do there. That language has been in there for the last few years on this same grant agreement.

Does that satisfy your... Okay, let's go on to other questions next. Council Member Snyder.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm just going to ask you some questions I already know the answer to because I want publicly to verify. There's a lot of public mistrust with flock cameras. The Brighton Police Department does not share information with our flock camera system with federal authorities or ICE, is that correct?

That is correct.

And we do not retain information more than 30 days, is that correct?

That is correct.

And we also cannot look up any license plate without a case number that's assigned to it, correct?

Correct with the caveat that if a case number does not exist at the time the search is conducted, it has to be referenced to a call for service number that would then later be associated with a case report. So the answer is yes, but there can be a circumstance where a search is done prior to a case number being issued. So you would include the call for service number at that time. it would then later cross-reference to a case number. Hopefully that makes sense.

It does make sense. And if there is a case number or a call for service number, those are audited once a month to make sure that nobody's abusing that system, correct? That is correct. Thank you. You have my support.

Thanks for clarifying. Next, Council Member Carbajal.

Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of questions. This grant specifically, the 12,400, is just going to continue services of the seven existing cameras, correct?

Eight existing cameras.

Seven plus one. Yes. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. And then my second question in response to what Fiddler said earlier, for me as well, I just read through that and that was just something that we didn't really discuss. And I, you know, we want you to have the support you need, I think, or I should speak for myself, want you to have the support you need in terms of the office. And it's disappointing we don't have the budget to back that in staffing. And so this is one of the ways that you're utilizing that. With that being said, there's a lot of, like, skepticism around this type of technology. And so I think just that second piece was something that screamed out since we didn't have that conversation. And I would also still ask that that was kind of removed from the JAG. That would be my request as well.

Yes, ma'am. And for the record, we're always happy to present on those grants. I think, you know, I know how you all love long meetings, but we'll try to make those presentations short when they come out, depending on how this goes.

Great. Next, Mayor Patel.

Thanks.

No, it is not Currently about the only other federal grants that we're receiving I I do not know the answer to that question. I don't know if the city attorney or the city manager does.

City Attorney Calderon, do you have an answer?

Generally, we follow the limits in the procurement code that signature authority, so a director has up to 50,000. However, with many federal grants, they do want the governing body's authority, and so then we used this resolution in the past for those we don't have very many of those grants anymore but um certain federal grants require a city council approval yes jag does and that's why this one is brought to you that is true of jag you're saying okay

Okay, so I guess I was surprised that this became a controversial issue over the concept of accepting money from other people to help us make public safety happen in the community. I suppose if somebody makes a motion to strike pieces out of this, I'll still support getting it done, but I... Certainly wish people, I would hope not to have this amended. I think that it's a reasonable request to be able to draw in grant money for public safety.

Thanks. Yep. Agreed. Next council member Carbajal looks like you're up again.

Yeah, just for clarity. It's not that I don't want you to be able to go get that, and if we had that conversation, then it would have felt great, right? So it just ended up there, and it just isn't something that was in there before. So having that conversation, talking about that $50,000 and what that typically looks like, looking at grants and what are the parameters and understanding the federal stuff that Alicia was just talking about would create the clarity I think I needed as a director so that that wasn't even a topic of conversation.

Next, Council Member Fidler.

Thank you, Mayor. And I agree. We didn't talk about it. It was on consent. That was my concern. I will happily move to approve the resolution as written.

We have a first to approve the motion as written. Mayor Potem.

So that's to approve now 9B? Yes, 9B. Okay. I'll second the motion for 9B.

All right. There's a first and a second for 9B, formerly 2B. Roll call vote. Motion passes 9-0. Thank you all for supporting public safety.

Thank you all.

All right, that is it for the main part of our business. We'll go on to reports, reports by the mayor. Last week, I had the privilege of attending the I-25 Colorado 7 Mobility Hub ribbon cutting. That's a project that's been in the works for about a decade. And it's nice to see that project actually live again. And so that mobility hub they built right kind of near that Lark Ridge shopping area of Thornton. It's the interim mobility hub. They intend to build a much bigger mobility hub like you see to the north up towards like Weld and Larimer counties. But that will be in the future. But meanwhile, we have at least a start to that. So it's good that that's live and going now. And that supports the bus staying stop that happens along Interstate 25. And it also supports the Brighton to Boulder or the B2B bus line that will be live coming up next year. And then I also attended the Ralston House benefit also later that day. And also the 9-11 ceremony that Brighton Fire does every 9-11. And just for awareness, it was the 25th anniversary back on Friday of the 9-11 incident. And Brighton Fire does a really good job at... Putting together a ceremony every year so we don't forget what happened on that tragic day. Coming up next this week, I have a Dr. Cogg meeting. And then as a reminder, this weekend is the Trash Bash. So get your junk out and take it over to the place where we drop it off. Next, any reports by department directors? We have none this evening. Thank you. And then reports by our city attorney.

None this evening. Thank you.

Reports by city manager.

Thank you, Mayor. As you mentioned, it's trash bash week, everybody's favorite week here in Brighton. To remind everybody where trash bash is, it is at our former wastewater facility on 325 North CUNA Road. Happens this Friday and Saturday, so be sure you get all the trash out of the house. It's going to be a busy one. I think we're expecting some decent weather, so do what you can we also have the eco recycling event happening at the active adult center on Saturday as well so an opportunity for you to get out and get some of those electronic recyclables out of the garage as well I know I have way too many so That's all I have this evening.

And shredding. And there's a shredding event too, yeah. And shredding as well. I have an inoperable printer in my garage, so I look forward to getting rid of that this weekend. All right, next reports by our city council. We'll start over here, Council Member Collins.

thanks mayor uh not a whole lot for me uh youth commission last week week before um the youth are just kind of getting settled into their newly elected roles which is fun to see we did some robert's rules practicing which was also fun because i'm a nerd i guess but that was really fun to see them practice and get good at those kind of things so that's really it I'll be at Trash Bash getting my junk out and taking it to where the junk goes so that's it for me

Very good.

Council Member Snyder. Thank you, Mayor. The Highway 85 Commission, once again, did not have a meeting. I don't know why they canceled the last two quarterly for some reason, but maybe there's nothing going on on Highway 85 except a lot of semis. The DDA did have its second meeting, and we're trying to get organized and figure a way forward. That's going to take a minute, but they are making progress. We are discussing the possibility... and of course we'll be discussing with council and the city manager of utilizing the insurance building we bought on Main Street as Headquarters for the DDA and maybe having the URA have their meetings there and maybe even letting the downtown business Community use it for meetings because it is right downtown and it would give them access But what we're looking at the finances of that whether it works for the city whether it works for the DDA so And just trying to get organized, get our feet on the ground. Aaron Herrera from Burra is sitting on the committee, and he's doing a wonderful job directing us and kind of getting some traction for us. So I think we'll, as we go through the rest of this year, we'll see some great progress there. But with it being brand new, we're a little lost. All right. Thanks for that update.

Council Member Fidler?

Nothing to report.

Okay. Mayor Potem?

Thank you. Most of what I have to talk about tonight is the Housing Authority. I'm really pleased to report that we interviewed a couple of candidates for the final two full membership slots on that Board of Commissioners and have two people we want to recommend. I'm going to ask the staff to get them on to our next meeting, even though we don't have another study session in between. So unless somebody has some wild objection, uh we'll make sure that you get the information about those applicants in advance but i'd really like to be able to discuss those that are october 6 meetings so they can participate in the october 8th bha board meeting i know that steps outside of our normal process a little while so a little way so i'll ask the city manager to figure out how to accomplish that

Just let me remind you that you still have to do the city council interviews.

That's what I'm hoping that we will get scheduled in advance of that so that we can follow that process.

So any two of you that are available next Tuesday, we'd love to see you here from 4 to 5. So perhaps you could chat with us if you're available.

please chat with us if you're available.

Please, because we do want to fill those positions and have voting members of that board as quickly as possible. So I didn't mean to skip a step in the process, but I am trying to figure out how to get those things done in advance of that October 6th meeting. yes it's really something to finally have that board be at full steam and there's a lot that's happening in front of it the other thing that I want to share from the housing authority is the creation of a pilot program that's designed to provide some housing assistance and case management for residents in some of the housing authority Facilities or apartments to ensure that if people are in danger of becoming unhoused and losing their lease that we have some assistance for them to be able to keep them in the. the property and keep them from being evicted but also along with that financial assistance ensure that with some partners there's some case management some and some guidance on how to remain stable so very neat pilot program that will be kicking off for the remainder of this year and that is one of the benefits of being a move to work housing authority program that we have some flexibility in how some of those funds are spent to keep people housed. So excited for both of those things. That's all I've got tonight.

Cool. Thanks for that update. And I can make myself available Tuesday if nobody else, or if you're short, I should say.

I can, but since I already interviewed them, I should be the sort of last resort if we need somebody.

Fair enough. Council Member Taddeo.

Thank you, Mayor. I was able to attend the DDA meeting, which was, I am the alternate on there, but it's really, really fun to watch that group just starting from the ground up. It's fun to be a part of that. I love that. Voting in the directors and everything that happened was great. great i was also able to attend the 9 11 ceremony um that was surreal not a lot to say about that but i was glad i was able to make that at the fire station here in town and was able to attend the very first um alzheimer's meeting uh at the i can't say it all skak there you go eagle sue corbett There we go. Thank you. Anyway, I was able to attend that very first meeting, which was really more of an informational meeting about Alzheimer's. It was great. A lot of information. And there was about 30 people at that first meeting. I was really excited about that. So the next meeting is going to be a support group held, again, at the Center. Thank you. So the next meeting is on October 2nd, so Friday. The calendar says 1 p.m. or the happenings in their website. I have heard rumor that it was 1.30, so anyway, just wanted to put that out there if there's anybody that you know that is affected by Alzheimer's, which is pretty much, I think, everyone, which is one of the things we discovered out of the 30 people in that room. There was not one person of, obviously, that were there for a reason, but... um you know that we all know somebody that's affected by it and um so if you get the word out if there's anybody that needs a support group for for that if you're a caregiver or whatever capacity you feel for those shoes keep that in mind thank you thank you next council member green thank you mayor um a little bit of a hispanic flair on the friday i attended the 205th celebration of the

Guatemalan Independence Day, which actually is September 15th is the actual date. Went to the Latino Festival on Sunday. You know, I'm actually really excited about September 26th, the Richard Lambert Foundation will be having their Lantern Festival out of Cherry Creek State Park. It's a really chance for you to acknowledge some of your past grief and loss and put it on a lantern, set it on fire, and put it on the lake and let that grief go. So I would really encourage a lot of people to do that. I know it's previously been up our lake, but it is at Cherry Creek where there is actually water. So that'll be nice. And I'm excited about the trash bags, even though Council Member Wirth seemed to be hinting that I should be sent there. Dude. But, you know, after the trash bash on Friday night, when your neighborhood no longer looks like it's in the ghetto, it's time to put on your blue suede shoes and get on down to the armory to see Victor Trevino, the ultimate Elvis experience. And I'm pretty sure if you don't go, you go straight to jail. And you can do the jailhouse rock then, of course. But please be there Friday night at the armory for Victor Trevino, the ultimate Elvis experience. Thank you. Thank you very much.

All right. Council Member Wirth.

Can he go last next time? so um i spent uh the majority of a day at the e470 board retreat had a lot of good conversations now this is following uh joe's visit to us last week where we learned a lot about e470 and what's going on um in speaking with joe there's some good possibility for partnerships with e470 i believe At least the executive director would like to see partnerships with the communities that are surrounding and involved with E470. That's still up to the board to kind of decide that. But I would, at this point, I would kind of maybe encourage certain members of our staff to meet with some of their staff to see what that could look like and kind of deepen the relationship. I think that would be getting ahead of the ball on that, and I think that's a good place to be. I went to Art in the Park, and $200 later I left. I didn't know you could eat $200 worth of churros before, but hey. No, we got out of there with some very nice pieces. We were trying to help my daughter put stuff in her, get stuff for her apartment. And I still found some stuff for my office, so that's always good. And then as we had to cancel the meeting for the sustainability committee this last week because of a lack of a quorum. We had one person who resigned due to being a mom, a new mom now, and so she's gone. And that kind of leaves us without a quorum if anybody else just doesn't happen to make it to the meeting. So we need to address that. But we do have two youth. I think the Youth Commission is working on that. Tanya said she had multiple candidates that want to be part of that commission. So I'm very excited about that, and I think we won't have a quorum issue anymore. But we need to get that one spot filled, the adult spot, and then two of the youth, and we are going to be rolling. So I'm looking forward to having those. And we're still looking at prioritizing and determining where we can, sustainability can impact the city in the best possible ways.

So that's it for me. Thank you. All right. Thanks. Council Member Carbajal.

Nothing to report.

Okay. So before we go on to the next two items, I just want to explain, we will vote on each of them individually and then go in for the exec session. So with that, Mayor Pro Tem, go ahead and call it.

Okay, our first motion is a motion to recess for an executive session pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute section 24642 subsection 4F1 and Brighton Charter section 5.4 subsection C5 to address personnel matters.

We have one motion to go into exec session. Do we have a second? Councilmember Collins.

Thanks, Mayor. I'll second.

We have a first and second for item 13A. We'll call vote. Motion passes 9-0. The next 13B.

Thank you. I move that we recess for an executive session pursuant to Colorado revised statutes section 246402, subsection 4B, and Brighton Charter section 5.4, subsection C3, for matters of attorney-client privilege and to receive legal advice.

All right. We have one motion. Do we have a second? Council Member Fidler?

Thank you, Mayor. I'll second.

There's a first and a second for item 13B to go into exec session. Roll call vote. Motion passes eight to one. We will go into executive session, then return to the open meeting. And for those in council, this will be our 10 minute break as we go between. All right, time is now 8.25 p.m. The executive session has been concluded. For the record, the participants in both executive sessions combined were the current city council, director of human resources, Kevin Young, city manager, Martinez, and city attorney, Calderon. For the record, if any person who participated in this executive session believes that any substantial discussion of any matters not included in the motion to go into the executive session occurred during the executive session, or that any improper action occurred during the executive session violated any open meetings laws, I would ask that you state your concern for the record. All right, seeing none, just a reminder, we have no meeting next week, and then we have a combined meeting with 27J in two weeks, and then we have a regular meeting in three weeks. We are adjourned.