Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. It is 6:15. I call to order the city of Glenwood Springs city council meeting. It is April 2nd, 2026. This is our first meeting for April. Um and with that, I will take a roll call. Ryan, please. Mayor Day here. Mayor Prom Zalinski, Councelor Townsley, Councelor Schmal, Councelor Wymer, Councelor Shaker, Councelor Smith. We have a quorum.

Excellent. Thank you, Ryan. Moving into changes for the agenda. And I was informed that we are pulling item 10 and item 13. Uh because they're incomplete at this point, we don't have to move them to a a separate meeting because they are not noticed items. So, we will just pull item 10 and item 13. tonight. Um, conflicts of interest from counselors for any of the agenda items. We'll see none. We'll move on. We'll go into citizens appearing before council uh for items not on the agenda. And whoever is here, please come forward. State your name and whether you live in city limits or not. Hello, my name is Lori Chase. I live on Cen Drive and I'm here to single-handedly represent as a nimi in the Cen Overland Drive neighborhood. I would like to ask please could you have all the cement blankets, all the miscellaneous trash that is around that uh beautiful habitat um development that's eventually going to be finished. But I sure would like all of their trash to be picked up that's outside of their construction fence area. That is including all those cement bright orange cement blankets. is just not great and that there's no reason why they should be there. So, if you guys could please push somebody into getting rid of those, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Lori, for your comment. I'm sure that's something city management can handle. Um, we do that a lot. We do point out to construction sites that we do need you to clean up your stuff, especially when the wind carries it miles away. Um, anybody else here from the public? We'll see none. I'll close the public portion for the items not on the agenda and we'll go into council announcements and we'll start with councelor sorry mayor prominsky. I just wanted to uh let the community know that there will be a springtime river cleanup um occurring Saturday uh April 25th, 8 a.m. till about noon. Um there'll be coffee and donuts, uh supplies provided, and just an opportunity to kind of it's a minimal runoff season, but there is going to be some runoff. There probably is going to be some debris that gathered over the winter, and it's a chance for us to clean it up and get ready for spring.

All right. Thank you. Uh, councelor Smith, please.

Thank you. Um, since we since this council met last, the Garfield Clean Energy Board met, a board to which we uh have representation. Um, kind of the three primary topics came up. One of them was kind of fun. the the staff discovered a $100,000 discrepancy not or update to the budget that there was $1,000 more by year beginning than was first thought. So there was a move to re reallocate that money primarily to um residential um energy efficiency and upgrading programs was kind of a positive bit of news fiscally. I also had a really diverse update on the activities of GCE and its sister organization clean energy economy for the region clear on transportation topics many of which implicate our own transportation staff and our own engineering and public works staff. So there's some nice partnerships going on on there. Coming up in May is going to be Garfield Clean Energy is a collection of municipals and the county as members uh to work on clean energy projects. Coming up in May, they'll be holding a workshop, a work session with facility managers from each of the member organizations. So putting that detail together here, and I'll help get the word out to Ethan about that. Um, there also will be a locally produced electricity workshop on April 23rd. Invitations are going to go out to planning staff and the public works staff and I'll again I'll help be sure that gets to the right place. Um, on my own, I contacted a couple of teachers at the high school to see if they could help recruit youth representatives to our boards and commissions that don't yet have that

representation. They were pretty enthused about trying it. They're going to take it to some of their their internal uh student service clubs and sue some other teachers and see if we can get some responses there. The transportation commission met on March 3rd um and published a a pretty strong recommendation for the city to get on with uh toward implementing paid parking policies for downtown. Um subsequent to that on u April 7th uh the downtown development authority met and talked about this topic um at the instigation of the city manager. Uh during that meeting we got the two commissions together. So, next Tuesday, um, April, whatever that turns out to be, um, 8th, whatever next Tuesday is, the two commissions will have some representations meeting together to talk about downtown parking management. Uh, Jillian's got some of her board members organized. The transportation commission has been very welcoming about it. So, I think that among them, they have very diverse points of view within and between the two commissions. So, they should be bringing this back a pretty lively package of updated ideas. Um, the Colorado Communities for Climate Action um legislative committee met on March 25th um to provide some updates on legislation that has some effect here, legislation pending in the state legislature, the Colorado General Assembly. uh one of them uh including the overall budget struggles that the state has and impact that that's having among other things on the busang service the Colorado Department of Transportation crossstate bus service

that brings I think 15 uh scheduled stops in Glenn Street each day. Um so that'll we'll be following that more closely. The same organization CC4CA is going to have one of his regular board meetings normally done by Zoom uh in person April 17th in Carbondale 9:00. Uh anybody anybody here certainly anybody from council will be welcome to attend once I get the particulars pinned down. I'll be sure to get those circulated through the city manager in case you want to see what that organization is up to. Thanks very much.

All right. Thank you, Councelor Smith. Any other announcements? No, we'll see none. Thank you. Item six tonight is the consent agenda, and I'm entertaining a motion. Mayor Prom Solinski, I'd like to move to approve the consent agenda as written. Thank you. We have a motion to approve. Looking for a second. Councelor Townsley. Second. And a second. Any discussion on the consent agenda? Well, let's let's get it approved. Um, let's see. Got to get through the buttons. Council Townsy, do you have anything to say? Okay, please.

Just want to let you know, uh, I did recommend Ashley Moffett for reappointment to the parks and recck committee. She's six years on Rivers Commission and three years on us. She'd be willing to go another three years. She's good, valuable member of that. Well spoken. So, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion? See none. With that, I will call for the question.

It's unanimous. It passes. Thank you, Ryan. And with that, we will go into our first proclamation of the evening. And this is the wildfire awareness proclamation. And I'm not quite sure who is here to receive this one. Is it is it Robin? Okay.

Oh, thank you, Ryan. Hey, Rob. Hey. Good. How are you?

Good. Okay. Let's see. A proclamation for wildfire preparedness month, May 2026. Whereas the size and destructive nature of Colorado wildfires have continued to grow significantly since 2002. For the top five largest wildfires have occurred in the last six years. And whereas the most destructive white fire in state in terms of homes lost occurred less than four and a half years ago, almost doubling the amount of homes lost than any previous record. And whereas warmer temperatures, drought, and continued development in the wildland urban interface have made wildfire mitigation a priority for Glenwood Springs Fire Department. And whereas wildfire preparedness month is focused on encouraging residents to learn about wildfire safety and take steps to reduce wildfire risk and in around their homes. Now therefore, I, Mark, mayor of the city of Glenwood Springs, do hereby proclaim May wildfire preparedness month in the year of 2026. In witness whereof, I have here onto set my hand and cause the seal of the city of Glenwood Springs, Colorado to be affixed the second day of April in the year 2026, wildfire preparedness month in May.

Thank you. Thank you, Robin, for being here. This is for you. Excellent. Awesome. You anything to say? You want to say anything about wildfire preparedness while you're here? Just for the members of the public, I did put out a public service announcement to speak. We've been enjoying the spring rain and the spring green up right now, but we know that we've been living in a drought this year. We know that wildfire is going to be a high priority. We are asking for everybody's help. Get signed up for the emergency alerts. Be ready, set, go. And as this proclamation says, get your homes ready because we can survive wildfires. It's something that we live with and we can continue to live with and it's just part of our daily lives. Sounds great. Thank you very much.

By the way, Robin Pit is our fire marshal for the city of So, thank you for being here. Awesome. Thank you. And our second proclamation is for Parkinson's disease awareness month, April 2026. And please ladies, thank you. Come forward. Suzanne, how are you? I'm fine. How are you? Excellent. And you Karen. Karen. That's right. You have small. Definitely. Yes, you are. Okay. He's on vacation. I know he's on spring break. Good for him.

Okay. Excellent. The proclamation for Parkinson's disease awareness month, April 2026. Whereas Parkinson's disease is a chronic progressive neurological disease and is the second most common neurodeenerative disease in the United States affecting almost 1,100,000 people in the United States with one person being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease every 9 minutes. The prevalence of Parkinson's disease is expected to rise to 1.2 million individuals by 2030. Whereas Parkinson's disease is and related health issues are the 14th leading cause of death in the United States according to the center for disease control and prevention. Whereas it is estimated that the total national economic burden of Parkinson's is approximately 52 billion each year. This includes the direct medical costs such as treatment, social security payment and lost income of 25.4 4 billion and indirect cost to patients and family members of 26.5 billion per year in the United States. Whereas research suggests the cause of Parkinson's disease is a combination of generic and environmental factors, but the exact cause and progression of the disease is still unknown. Whereas there is no objective test or biioarker for Parkinson's disease and there is no cure nor medication to slow it or halt progression of the disease. Whereas the symptoms of Parkinson's disease vary from person to person and include tremors, slowness of movement and rigidity, difficulty with balance, swallowing, chewing and speaking, cognitive impairment and dementia. mood disorders such as depression and anxiety, skin problems, and sleep difficulties. Whereas, researchers, caregivers, and

medical professionals are working to improve the quality of life of persons living with Parkinson's disease and their families through the research, education, and community support services necessary in finding more effective treatments and to provide access to quality care to those living with the disease today. In witness we're off, I hear her on to set my hand and cause the seal of the city of Glenwood Springs, Colorado to be affixed by the second day of April in the year 2026. Wow, that's a lot. So much that's a lot. Thank you. All right. And you're going to get this and I know you have something to say about I do. I just will keep you just a second. Please do.

Um, but thank you all. And uh you probably need a drink after.

I do. I do. just a drink of water. Um, I think this is not a news flash, but in the Roaring Fork Valley, we have over 75 to maybe even over 90 people here in the valley that are affected by Parkinson's. But the good news is we have uh some great resources. We have uh community center has several different classes for Parkinson's folks. On Monday, we have a Parkinson's exercise class. Then we do neuro pingpong on Thursdays. You can check on the city website for those things also. Then Parkinson's of the Rockies, which is headquartered out of Denver, but does have resources here in Glen has group meetings for caregivers and people affected by Parkinson's. Uh great support. Yeah, we do. We have great support. think of anything else. I do want to put a plug in though for September 12th this year.

That's going to be our walk again. Fourth year. So that's good. Yes. Yeah. And that's our biggest fundraiser. The vitality. So thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you too for being here. Thanks for raising awareness and help us make awareness. Parkinson disease. Can I say one more word? Parkinson sucks. There you go. Two words. Two words. Yeah.

All right. Excellent. Well, thank you very much all of you for being here tonight. Hope it comes um helping us with the two proclamations. Um, we are moving into our actions andor presentations of the evening. If I do this right, I did. Uh, item nine on the agenda is the charter commission update. And I know Charlie's here, Charlie Wilman and John Banks. Thanks. Please

appreciate thanks for the opportunity to appear before council. Uh talked to you all in a work session u I guess few months ago. Um as you may recall uh former mayor Russo asked the council to form a committee to look at the charter to determine what changes might be recommended uh to the charter which hadn't really been significantly reviewed since the early 60s. Um the number of people were asked to volunteer. There was myself and two other former council members on that. Mr. Banks has been involved. The city in a number of respects was there. Uh Ashley Moffett and some other citizens, Chad Lee, some other people were actively engaged. We met over the course of four months in the spring of 2025 last year and then we came I think and talked to you all October of last year. Um the result of that and you all have the report in front of you. The result of that was a number of recommendations. A lot of that was red light. And what we did is we cut we took each section of the charter from article one through article 13 as I remember correctly or 14 whatever it is. And we looked at each section individually. We talked about it. We talked about the wording and we came up with a consensus which ended up with the report that we sent to you that talked about what we believe to be the changes that needed to be made to the charter to modernize it and to make it internally consistent. Um, the other thing is is Ryan Muse from the city staff and and Carl from your city attorney's office and Steve Boyd as well gave us some input from the staff and and with that they said these are the things that we'd like to see you look at as you look at the charter. One of those that Ryan talked about it because it it's in his his office and that is um the issue of taking things out to bid I think and I forgot the amount. I don't have it in front of me, but the amount is fairly small and and so we recommended that be increased considerably. U and we talked about whether it should be professional

services as well as um uh actual you know bu building things materials that kind of construction type of contract. So those are all the recommendations we made on those. We think that by doing that we we will make bring the the charter into the the 21st century not the 20th century or mid 20th century. Uh and it wasn't the framers the people that did the original charter commission did do a good job. It was a outstanding document. It's been amended several times throughout the the course of the since it was originally adopted in the mid60s. Um and so those are the things we presented to you. The two questions I sent a number of questions to Carl. I don't know if he's ever presented those reans answers to you guys or not, but I think it's something to look at. They're just things that we didn't know and um even though years ago I was a city attorney, I don't remember any of that stuff anymore. So, I had to give it to Carl because I didn't remember that. So, we couple of things that we did think that should be talked about at a more um uh significant level for citizen input rather than the group of 10 or 12 of us. And that was the issue of do we have an elected mayor? And the other issue was should we change the elections from the spring to November. We had um as a former uh person that worked with VM mock trial used to say we had vigorous fellowship about those issues. Um and we did not reach a consensus among the committee on on what they should be. What we did reach was an idea that we thought that we should get we were happy to sponsor this and and to facilitate this with city staff and that is to have you know a public input session whether it would be both issues or just one issue but we'd have a public uh you know have a publicly announced meeting have people come in give their views on that try to take that and maybe make a further recommendation on that. Uh that was a while ago I think I probably get most that committee back together to talk about that if you want to if you want to proceed that way. Those were the

two issues that the elected mayor and the moving the elections that really I think precipitated the original asked to look at the the charter and we'll go through that. So with that and I probably violated my three minutes and I told Carl No, I'm just kidding. Um no, but with that I John, do you want to add anything? I'm done.

Well, thank you John Banks here. Uh I was on the committee and I was struck by a couple of things as we were working. We had some rather mechanical fixes to do in the charter which I think there was generally consensus on and then there were a number of issues where h you could get people one way or the other and and it there clearly wasn't a a direction to go. I don't know that you want to take a lot of brain damage here. Um, you may want to adopt no changes and that would be fine. You may want to adopt the boilerplate changes and and that would be fine. Beyond that, you may just want to be done with this and call it good and I think that would be just fine. So, you know, I I would maybe sort of say uh where there wasn't a strong consensus on the committee one way or the other, I don't know that you're going to find a strong consensus in the public one way or the other. So, maybe make a decision tonight and be done with it. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much to both of you for being here. Yeah. Presenting this.

Any questions you have for Yeah. Let's see if we have bring it back to council and we'll see if we have any questions to uh Charlie at this point. Council Smith, start with you.

Thank you. I I have a couple questions maybe for the the commission member, maybe for staff. Um one is basically why are we talking about it tonight? Uh actually actually in the reports that the commission presented um if I'm remembering the phrasing right there was a suggestion that as you just paraphrase Charlie uh that there be public hearings or public fora on actually three topics uh the state of the election the the choosing of a mayor and the possibility of atlarge elections for for all city council members were the three things listed. Is this the public hearing tonight or are we still talking about the idea of holding such a thing?

Um, if I remember correctly, this was really bringing it back so you guys could take some action if you wanted to do any of those things because as you'll recall, we had a discussion at a work session where you couldn't give any specific direction. Um, so it's really a question of if the council wants to move forward on any of these ideas or some of them or hold more public input. That's what you guys are talking about tonight and that could include moving forward on having these public or Okay. Um, also pretty sure I'm correct on this, but I just want to be clear for for all the discussion taking up these changes involves going to a ballot. Correct. This cannot be done unilaterally by city council.

Um, absolutely. Any changes to the charter have to be done by election. I have some other thoughts, but I I think we'll wait till here if others have questions. Thank you, Councelor Tanley, please. Um, I guess my question when I when I read through that would be um moving the election from April to November. I mean, I don't know a lot about elections, but it seems to me like we've got our we get more people, especially when I look at the election probably coming up. It's going to be pretty contentious. a lot of news, a lot of new cycles. Is that a good time or are we better off? Is is there some reason why we would want to move the vote to November?

I think the things that we talked about the pros and cons is I'll try to got to put my memory in there. Uh but I think the pros and cons were the more people might turn up at at a regular election than would turn up at a spring election. The numbers for spring elections, and Ryan can tell you I don't remember them, are are fairly small. We're talking maybe 10% of the of the people in each of the wards votes and and overall the and the atlarge positions the numbers of people that vote at the spring election isn't that significant. Uh that was one thing and maybe we get more interest. I think the the flip side of that is the city ballot questions or those kind of questions if you're on a November ballot particularly on a general election November ballot because they're the last thing and they're on page 15 of the of the of the ballot. I think that I'm embellishing by the page 15, but that was the the downside because it's at the bottom of that. But it might get more uh citizens to participate. It might get more interest in the issues and get more people to vote and and the issue of not having as many people vote if you have charter amendments at a at a municipal election is you might get the people who are interested that particular amendment out to vote. But people who say, "Oh, I don't really care or it doesn't make any difference or I don't really want it, but no, they're not going to put that in anyway." they're not going to show up. I think those are the things we talked about, David. So, I think that's that that kind of encompasses our general discussion. That's why we really didn't have a recommendation on that because those those pros and cons, I think that's something publicly have been put on that would give us more insight into that.

Thanks. Thank you, Council Shaper. Things one for Charlie or John, did I understand you correctly? the four main items. Well, one is cleanup. There really only three other major changes at the above the bar. Did I hear you correctly? There was not a strong consensus or recommendation from the commission. These are just things that ought to be considered or was there a direction and strong consensus? I I think my view of what the consensus was maybe a little bit different than John had, but my view is the red line changes are things that make it cons internally consistent.

I'm not talking I'm sorry, John. I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about the four the three highlighted items above the the election period um elected mayor and at large those three things. Was there a strong recommendation? No. No, there was not. No, thank you. I didn't understand your question. Thank you. And the other question would be for Carl. Um just clarification, the technical updates, even though they are technical and that were red and blue, those still would be we would require an election should we adopt. Yeah. Every change to the charter requires an election.

So then my related to that based I don't know if you've reviewed it all yet or not. Are we in as a city in in any kind of jeopardy without those technical updates? I don't think we're in any kind of jeopardy necessarily. I mean, there's always I mean, anytime you draft a document, you can always go back 50 years later and go, I should have done that,

right? Which is essentially where we're at with this with this document. Um some of that cleanup would be great um in places like procurement just because the world operates a little bit differently now than it did in 1965. Um but I you know we we've operated with it the way it is so far. We probably can be fine moving forward. It just you know and with procurement specifically the item 139 or whatever it was that can't be changed by ordinance. That has to be changed.

That has to be changed by an election. And I do think one of the things you might want to consider on some of those technical changes is to just bite them off a little bit at a time. Um because one of the things that is tough is that if you put in a ballot and it's changes to seven different sections and you're only changing a word here or there, I think there's a bit of fatigue around that sometimes for, you know, people just not wanting to read through it and figure out what's going on. And you know, I know my inclination is to vote no if if you know, it it's going to require like I just I'm not sure where the city's going with that or why. So, we may want to bite them off in small chunks over a couple of upcoming elections on some of just these technical cleanups. Um say procurement amount might be a good one that we could throw on the ballot next spring.

Thank you. And Senator, I think the commission probably if you're going to make any change in the just the general body of it, leave out those big issues. procurement probably is the one that we all identified. Brian was real clear that it makes it just be a whole lot easier for the city, a lot less costly for the city and you might get more bids and things like that if you increase that number. You always could you always can determine as a council you're going to put something else out to bid. You don't have to just because it's under that you don't have to put it underneath that staff and come to you and make that decision. So we would highly recommend at least make that change on the procurement. Thank you councelor Smith.

Thank you. kind of a corlary to councelor Townsley's question about the possib one of the highlighted topics of changing the date of municipal elections. I'm sorry, say again. Councelor Townsley highlighted one of your one of your highlighted topics, changing the date of municipal elections. Yeah. I've got a correlary question.

Yeah. the timing of an election to consider changes to the charter. When we had a work session with this group in a few months ago, um there was some kind of a sense of of anxiety. Let's get on with this so that we can finish in time for the November election. Would it be be would wouldn't it be better to have a city charter measure on a municipal election date as it currently stands? That is wait till next April.

That's up to you guys to decide. If you're going to try to get the November election, you probably if you're going to talk want to have these public hearings about input on the elected mayor and the other issues, you ought to do that sooner rather than later because you'll have to get stuff to the ballot what by the end of August if you're going to go to the November the general election.

Okay. Okay, I guess I'll switch that question to to an assertion that it would be better to have municipal items on a municipal election date. So, not rushing into this in time for November. Um, another highlight in addition to the three that councelor Shakar helped highlight election of mayors at large election of counselors, date of the election. I would add for the council. Another one to consider if we do pursue this at all is the recommendation that was in the packet for the process of replacing u missing council members. Council members who leave the council by resignation before their term is up. Uh currently that's an appointment by the council. Uh, I think there was a good point made in the materials that if it's a long time till the next election, um, you ought to have an election to fill that seat. Um, I think that's a good idea, but in any case, if we're going to consider major changes, I would suggest we put that one on the list for discussion. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? No, we'll see none. Thank you, Charlie. Thank you, John. No, thank you all for taking the time to think about this. uh you know the the group really did work hard at this and and we appreciate your your attention to it. So, thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. Thanks to the group as well. Yeah, I was say I appreciate you all. I'm sorry. I I appreciate the work that you all Oh, you're welcome.

Uh anybody from the public here that'd like to voice their opinion on the charter commission update? We'll see none. So, um I think I'll bring it back to council and we'll see what we want to do with this. Um would we actually need a formal action to move this forward? Can we can we stop it tonight? What what Yeah, I mean I think it's up to you guys um how you want to handle that. I I could see any number of iterations of this. You um could direct staff to come up with a you know a plan to engage the public on a couple of these issues if you wanted to. You could leave things as they are and

um recogni you know on those let me break it into two groups. the the those larger items if you wanted to to go out and get some public input or not. Um I think on the technical amendments um that's something that you may I mean you know we may want to look at maybe for spring next year so we're not necessarily like in a rush to get to a ballot. Um I can see some value in that if that's the direction council wants to go. I think you guys can just give direction from the dis to start working on that or working towards that on the technical cleanup. So any of those, but some formal direction from you guys at this point would be good. So that um and I think thanking the charter commission too for all the work they did to get it start.

Okay. Excellent. Let's let's try that. I'll bring it back to council and we'll start with uh councelor Small to see if uh if we have some sort of direction to where this should go. Yeah. I I thought we were going to be asked to make a motion. So having not to do that, I I suggest I think I want to have a little discussion. This is a little not ordinarily, but I want to talk a little bit about it first and then we'll see what the direction is and then we'll take a motion, a formal action in that direction.

I I maybe jumped to a conclusion though. I thought that council's direction had been given that we were not interested in the four major topics revising our charter for the four major topics that we were comfortable leaving them the way they were but that we Could you please say what the four are just so we soothing a mayor moving the election making all council people at large elected officials And I've added Steve's process of replacing council members.

Cleaning up the language was something that we thought probably should be done but wasn't urgent and that's the conclusion that I thought we had reached and transmitted, but maybe we need to do that another way. Well, I think tonight is a good time to do that to move it forward. So, councelor Shakar.

Well, In reflection, those top-of-the-line items, the only one I would I sitting up here would consider and like to hear the public would be the change to November eventually, not right now. Um because I think there is enough information that the turnout is significantly higher. there's some risk that it might get buried by national events, but I suspect the sheer numbers and the heightened awareness in a November election might lead to a more representative election. That that's one. The technical ones um the other things I think are working well. The technical ones I would be um I would consider an April election next April. We have one anyway coming up if we don't change it that we consider um the technical the procurement the procurement and would be one and what councelor Smith said perhaps a replacement that might be enough appetite for the general public uh initially and and good rationale.

Thank you. Quick question for you uh senator. Would you would you want another discussion about these details or can you can we do this tonight and move it in that direction? I feel it can be moved tonight if the rest the rest of council does. Thank you, Councelor Townsley.

I I would just I think I agree with councelor Smith about you know one you know kind of the opposite of what uh what you say as far as November versus April. It just seems to me and I'm also like Carl said, usually by the time I get to the ballot, if there's two pages of items, you know, and I get down to the Supreme Court judges, I'm like, "No, no, no, no, no. These lawyers need another job." But, you know, I just really think that in April we would have better attention to it. That's just a different piece on there. But, I'd be I'd be comfortable too picking one or two and saying, "Let's put these changes on there. Maybe have public hearing if we need it and then, you know, pick something at that point, maybe after some public feedback on it." To me, I don't think I think like Ray said is pretty much none of us felt really strongly about it, but maybe there's somebody out in the public that does. So, we should hear from them if they want to want to talk.

Thank you, Mayor Prom Solinski. Oh, I thought I did. It is green. Let's do it again, please.

Um, so yeah, I agree with Councelor Schmail. I I think that we discussed it before and didn't find anything too compelling. Um I do recall the discussion around the April versus November. Um and I I think there's some validity to us getting lost in the sauce when you're on the November ballot with a lot of the other issues. Um, I think it's nice to keep things really local, hyper local, especially I'm thinking of like even just uh running a campaign and your message trying to compete with all the national messages. I think that it could get I think we might miss some things. Um, I read through about the process to replace a missing council person and it to me I think makes sense the way that we're doing it rather than having an a special election because you're the way that it says if it's a short term like close to the election date it just is a void. So it's not that we're electing somebody to fill a short-term position. We're just leaving the position empty if I'm reading it correctly. Yeah, I um just for the mechanics of that. So if it's within a certain number of days, 90 days of the election um you leave it vacant and it just goes on the ballot.

Correct. So um if it is longer than that, um the charter requires you to appoint someone, but then they need to be elected at the next that it's not to serve out the term. It goes to the next regular election. Correct. So, the longest that you can conceivably have somebody appointed is if somebody were seated as a new council member, resigned the next day, it would be a two-year appointment until the next regular election, the way the charter currently. Got it. So, I I agree that it's a little messy to do it that way, but I think it could get more messy if we changed it. So, I am not in favor of um changing that for that reason. Okay. Thank you, Council Ry.

Question for Carl. You just turned him off. Something's up. Something's up. Let's do it again. Something's up. Question for Carl. For some of the technical cleanup, if you know, we put an S at the end of a word and you change correct a spelling. If there is each one of those corrections a ballot item?

No. I I think what we would do is try to take them in reasonable chunks um that would be understandable if somebody read them as to what the changes were. Um so I don't think we can really do what like at the state level you'll have a ballot question that says miscellaneous cleanup to whatever and you have no idea what the miscellaneous cleanup is. Not super comfortable doing that at the local level. Um so I think we would there's no requirement they all be in separate questions. I think they probably just need to be grouped together so that it makes sense to people. There's there's enough context.

There's enough context around them and it doesn't create too long of a ballot. I think it's just it's more of it's going to be more of an art than a science.

Okay. So, I would I would um be in favor of the procurement question uh in April of next year and and maybe some other some of the other technical cleanups that make sense to Carl's point enough but not too much. Um, and then the big four, not super passion. We don't always have to be passionate about things. Like sometimes it's just work to be done, but I don't it's not for me it's not a lack of passion. It's just that I think things are probably okay where where they are. Nothing nothing was burning as far as needing uh change around that stuff. But I, you know, the I'm not p I'm not passionate about the technical cleanup, but it's just it's it needs done, right? So, um I would I would say the the procurement thing and then a handful of other other changes and let's just start knocking it off.

Okay. Thank you. Um councelor Shaker, but this it's not working. So, make me work. There you go.

I have a question and then then I'll make a comment again. Carl something you just said um about the technical stuff. Is there enough for your opinion like are there enough technical items whether they be the red omissions or the blue additions that have no bearing on our legislative process at this point? They are just fixes, updates or technical that don't affect the citizens or how the city is generally running. You think we could you think that they could be parsed out as such?

Yeah, I think that you know if we have grammatical errors I'm probably okay just like fixing the grammatical error. Sure. But but in terms of um there again um we have to go to an election to change the charter. So it it just like

I understand that. Well, but what I'm getting at is if there are enough items that you and Tim and others go through and say, "Look, these are technical, these are grammatical or punctuation or updates that have no bearing on our cit on our residents per se. Maybe that's a big lump that could be done all at once with the caveat in the PR that says hey we are making changes to update the charter to reflect correctness but doesn't change the operation of the city that may able to knock off not just one or two at a time and then the second one would be as I'm just wondering if that could be lumped and and conveyed.

Yeah. No, I think it absolutely could. I think I think why I said it's a little bit of an art is like how long is that question? Will people even read it or do you just check no? Right. Like I mean there's you know ballots are depends on what language we can put in the ballot too about the effect of these. Yeah. Exactly. And so I think that's just where you know if you guys have some direction that we want to bite off some of these technical ones. Procurement I think is one that from a staff perspective we would like to do. Y

um then we'll just work on on what that looks like. Right. I don't I don't I don't think we need to kind of solve for it tonight. We'll try to make it as uh user friendly as a question as we possibly can so that people understand what we're asking and why and just, you know, not trying to sneak something in. We're just trying to make it as clear as possible what you're voting on and why it makes sense when you read it. I would just suggest over time that we do that ladder and see how many we can lump together easily. In the meantime, Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion if I may. I have one more one more quick little Oh, Erin. Uh, I think you're green. Mayor both.

I I don't know if this is appropriate to say this now or not, but I just really wanted to express my appreciation that you all went through this. This is a this was like a nightmare for me to have to like read a document like this in such depth. And so it's so reassuring to know that with some minor changes for semantics and modernizing some things um as far as like you know allowing for an electronic process that this document has basically remained relevant for I can't do math. Was that 60 years? So that's it's pretty impressive. So thank you very much for for that reassurance to know that this is still a good guiding document for our community.

Thank you councelor Smith. Thank you. Uh since I think I'm reading the trend of the conversation heading towards some select items to suggest for further preparation for a possible future ballot. I I wonder if we should put into the mix along with procurement and select technical changes a topic that we on which we heard in a different context. Um, not so long ago there was a public election amending the charter as regards land use, land sales and such things. Um, I think it was called initiative a

two or two I don't remember

whichever one it was. Uh we learned not long after that that there were some unintended or at least unfortunate consequences from that in terms of things as simple as a lot line adjustment, some very small land ownership adjustments that technically are were constrained under this new amendment. Is that a cleanup item that ought to be considered? you know, I I don't think it's one that I think I think I would like to see a few more years of of that list of what works and what doesn't. Um, that's a great example of unintended consequences and I don't want to create other unintended consequences trying to fix an unintended consequence, if that makes sense. And so I, you know, we've we've seen where it has been problematic um on some simple stuff that would normally be able to get done, but I think we need to kind of build that um case study, if you will, of where it is working well and where it's not working as well um before I'd ever suggest going back and and proposing any changes because I think it it just feels a little odd to do that so quickly after it was just adopted.

Thank you. Thank you. Back to Council Shack. So, I think we got some consensus for directions for clean up of the technical, but I would make a motion tonight that we um get um wording and changes subject to our feedback for the procurement item of the charter on the April 2027 election. Motion. The motion was to change the procurement change get yeah change proc get we need to get the changes change the procurement item on the charter for the 2027 April election

and you don't want to include technical fixes and not well I don't know if they're going to be ready to so 2027 yes okay then likewise to try and consolidate likewise to try to consolidate as many of the technical changes they can that they think can be digested and sent to the public. Thank you. Okay. Excellent. Does everybody understand clarify Tim's doing that work? Not that's fine. Um we have a motion to move, let's see if I got this. We have a motion to move the procurement update forward with some uh technical changes as well in the charter. Everybody understands that where we are? Okay. Excellent. Do I get a second?

Uh councelor Smith, I'm poised to second if the The original maker of the motion would add consideration of the process on how missing council members are replaced. I would take that as a separate motion. Okay, then I'll wait. Okay, so still the same motion and I still need a second. Councelor Sinski, please.

I second uh councelor Shatner's motion. Okay. So, at this point, we have a motion to move forward with I say it again, I'm being redundant, but everybody needs to know I'm moving forward with the procurement update and the technical update to the charter commission. Any discussion? Councelor Smith, I'll be glad to move an amendment to that exist current motion to include in next preparations uh change to the charter uh as regards the replacement of missing council members.

I'll try if I if I may. I think what he did is he made a substitute main motion which you have to consider first to amend the current motion. I just want to get a sense of the whole council at some point here and whichever mechanics you want to use. See if I get a second on this. Is there a second? I did amend my second as well. But but he hasn't done the first one yet. So, but we don't get a second. It just dies. We'll try it again later. There's no second. So, wait. Council Towns. So now we have a so now the to amend the context changed right and now the whole motion's different.

No you still have to vote on it. So it's a main motion. So the motion is to amend the previous motion with the addition of the one item. If you take a vote on that if it passes then the motion you will be voting on would include that that item. Okay. So we don't do this very often as you can tell. Um, usually we just say yes and no. We move on. U, everybody clear on what we're doing? Okay. Now, we have a subsequent motion, so everybody should have a chance to discuss the subsequent motion. Anybody want to say anything? Mayor Pro Tim Sins,

I'll just reiterate my former point, which is um I feel like that unnecessarily muddies the waters and adds a burden of expense and staff to have a special election. So, I don't Okay, thank you, Councelor Smith.

Thank you. um the the logic that was presented in the materials from the charter commission are there to read, but my kind of paraphrase sense of that um as something that seems logical is that while there is some extra burden and expense in holding a special election on any topic, this is kind of at the heart of governance and that is representation. Uh going to a little bit of extra expense and effort to ensure um elected representation for a for a longer period of time seems responsive to the citizens. Um the example that was offered during earlier discussion that this might be as much as two years minus one day. Um, but it might be a year and going a year um seems like um an opportunity to to honor people's chance to pick their representative. So, I think it's worth the extra trouble. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Shar. Well, I would say the maker of the original motion um and encouraging this to be a separate motion. I would hate to muddy the waters uh because we seem to have strong consensus for the first one, but a lot of questions about the second of many of which we haven't discussed the ramifications or the alternation. So, I would I won't be supporting councelor Smith's amendment to the motion. I'm trying to clear the way for the motion to pass and then discuss it later. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mayor Prom Silinski. Yeah, I just want to clarify. I'm not in any way diminishing the value of an elected uh representation. I would argue that by an elected council selecting somebody to fill that role, you are still provided an elected representation because the body is what's making that decision. Um, having sat through that process one time and also observing the process in the past, I can see where, you know, it's it's they're well vetted. It's very public. It's very in-depth. Um, I feel like we're honoring the intent of fulfilling that role by doing it the current process without unnecess like adding an unnecessary complication. And for that reason, I'm comfortable with the way it is. Thank you, Council Schmall.

Carl, I didn't I haven't apologize. I haven't read that part. Is there provision for a special election that might be held exclusively by the city with uh in-person voting that could be done fairly inexpensively, quickly, and easily? um any election, um we have to follow the statewide election laws. Um pretty much we're at about 10 grand on the low end for any any election. We can't bypass that. We can't really bypass it. It it just winds up being that we're we're required to follow a certain set of rules every time. So, it just is what it is.

Thank you, Council T. Carl, follow-up question on that because, you know, at first I'm like, well, it makes sense to go ahead and have another election, but what if somebody leaves with 100 days left, right? So then now all of a sudden we've got to do an election. Is there Yeah. And yeah, it's I think this is part of why the charter is actually written the way it is is because you get into these weird spaces where the reality is um there's probably a window of about a year where you could have an election to replace that position if that's when it went vacant because we can't have an election closer than 90 days to the next regular election. So,

by the time you back out from that with enough time for candidates to put in um you know to to be eligible um to get on a ballot, put an election together. You're about 180 days out from the next regular election. So, you just you just keep kind of backing up and so just it's awkward in that two-year period to get it done is essentially the the reality of it. Okay. Excellent. Well, anybody else on council? Sorry, John. I have a clarification if you don't mind. Just a clarification.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. You don't need to have a special election. We have elections quite often. Elect the councilman at the next election that occurs, be it federal, local, or whatever. You don't need a special election. Isn't that already? Um, no. Well, no. I mean what it is is it's the next regular municipal election and so essentially it's term of art. You would be calling a special election on the same date as the whatever the federal election whatever

it would be a November election, right? So the it would it would add a November date that you could call an election and and elect somebody at at that date. So um otherwise it would sit vacant until that date. So by way of example if in the spring of 2027 uh somebody was elected day after the election they resigned the next regular election the next election that was being conducted that would be available would be November of 2027. So either that seat would remain vacant or you would appoint somebody until the next election. Right. So

I just have a Can I ask to clarify each and then Okay. So you just kind of touched on what I thought was the fact. So if somebody leaves, we appoint somebody. You said they still have to be elected the next election, regular municipal election, which would be the 29, which is why it could go up to two years. Only thing that's different because we'd still if if there's going to be a vacancy, we're not going to want to necessarily leave that and have six of us up here like splitting votes. So, we'd appoint somebody and then it still could be two years of appointed until they are elected. See what I mean by complicated? It feels complicated,

right? And so to John's point, I mean John Yeah. So John's point was um and it's well taken is that you could set that at November, but then there's a question, what do you do between April and November or whatever the date was in November, right? Like so does that another $10,000, but it is well no it's still another probably $10,000 to participate in a coordinated election with the county, which is what we'd be doing in November. We're required to coordinate. So that just is what it is there as well. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. So real quick counts the towns be confused. So is is it one year or two years? Because if if they if somebody quit on the day after the election then you would be going to the next year which so it would only be one year.

No, it's two years because the next municipal election is every two years. Ah okay. Sorry. All right. So now that we're confused clarify it before you call. Well it's very simple. This is the call for the question on councelor Smith sub subsequent main motion subsequent main motion that's the term not used to it um and with that I think everybody's clear on what it is so uh that's what we're voting on call for the question right

no councelor townsley no mayor prominsky no mayor dam no Councelor Wymer. Yes, Councelor Schmall. Yes, Councelor Smith. No, Council Shar. It fails by two. Okay. Thank you. Thank you everybody. We got that one out of the way. Now, back to the main motion which councelor Shaker made to update the procurement uh uh clause in the in the charter and some some cleanup around the charter. And that motion was to approve that with a second by Mayor Prom Solinsky. And again, if I see no more discussion on that, I'll call for the question.

That passes unanimously. Excellent. Thank you, Ryan. So, at this point, I think it's pretty clear we're going to move forward with those two items. And um I mean if if the appetite arises for the other four, should we just bring it back? Yeah, I was going to say your council, you can make that call at a later date if you really want to come back and revisit those. I mean, I having gone through the work session with you and this evening. I don't I don't feel like there's really much of an appetite for that. Um so, you know, if something changes in the next year and a half, I'm sure you'll let us We'll do council comments and get support and bring it forward. Okay. Excellent. Moving on. Thank you for everybody's patience.

Yes. Thank you, Charlie. Thank you, John. Thanks to the commission planning file arc 0000130 2025 minor site and architectural plan and h ro28 2026 210 8th street. Maybe I should have just said 2108 street. Lot of numbers. Emry, please.

I'll be Emry Alson Community Development Department and I'll be sharing my screen. Okay. Um, so this item, um, there's going to be two items tonight. One is a minor site and architectural plan, and then the second item is a rightway encroachment license. Um, they are for the same project. Um, so again, action item one is considering a minor site architectural plan for the construction of a 30,000 square foot mixeduse building uh with 24 residential units and two groundf flooror commercial spaces. And so this went to planning and zoning commission in February. And the planning and zoning commission made a recommendation for approval with 40 vote. And so council action items tonight would be to approve the item, approve the item with additional conditions, uh deny the item with providing findings or continue the item. And so that's the first item. And then the second item is a rightaway encroachment license associated with the project uh specifically for an awning that would go over the uh sidewalk to the north of the building. And on this one, staff is also is recommending approval of the license with the findings and conditions in the staff report. And then the actions are similar to the first and what your options are. So I'll get into the application. And so again, the site of the application is 2108th Street. Uh so it's currently a surface parking lot downtown uh where the Bumbo food truck is currently operating. Uh it's 7,500 square feet and it's adjacent to the alley. Uh so here's a picture of it as it exists today. So you can see it's this site right here. Uh this is just a different angle of it uh facing east. Uh it is located in the

M2 mixed use zoning district which is that pink area. Uh so this property like most of the properties around it are in that zoning district and then as you get further out of downtown you do get into residential zoning districts and commercial zoning district. Uh one unique thing about the property is it's in four different what we've called special districts. So it's in the downtown overlay district. It's in the downtown development authority boundary. It's in the downtown core. And then it's also in the general improvement district boundary. So those all have different impacts on the property. Um some of which I'll discuss in the presentation and some of them I mentioned in the staff report. Um so just kind of an overview of the project. Again, there's 24 residential units uh which are going to be in the three floors above and then you have a ground floor commercial. So, for example, downtown overlay district requires that we have the ground floor uh commercial. At present time, they don't have tenants for those spaces. Um, but any tenant that would go in there would have to adhere to the downtown overlay uh uses. Um, so again, there is also a basement too, which would mainly be storage uh for the residential units above and then also the commercial spaces. And then here in this rendering, you can see right here that's that awning that's subject to the rightway encroachment license application. So that extends uh out over the sidewalk. So as far as criteria for a minor site and ar architectural plan, you have four of them. One and two is that the plan is consistent with general purpose and intent of the code, consistent with the standards of the code. Um three is that it's consistent with anything previously approved for the property and then four is consistency with the comprehensive plan. So I'll go through these four. Um so the first two just that it's consistent with general purpose of code the standards of code. Uh so again the M2 zoning district your downtown area does not have any required setbacks. So you can build out to that lot line. You have a really strong connection with the streetscape and the sidewalk which is

exactly what we see here and the two existing buildings on that corner. And then another aspect of it too is your height. And so the maximum height in this district is 40T. And that's what this building is. It's 40 feet. And then you also do get some minor exceptions for things like a parapet wall. So this right here can go a little bit more over 40. And then same thing goes for an elevator shaft. Um so more more or less most most of the buildings are at that 40 again with the parapet and the elevator shaft. Um that's all within what's allowed by code. Uh it is also required as it has more than 10 residential units to have some deed restrictions, some inclusionary zoning. And so that's at 20% uh for what's called resident occupancy and then also affordable. So in total there'll be five units in this building. And again just as a reminder O resident occupied uh basically means local workforce. So there's certain qualifiers for what would be a qualified resident basically that they work they work here in city limits for an employer in city limits. And so that's one aspect of the destruction. And then the second is price. Uh and so if those five units the average rent cannot exceed 100% AMI and none of the individual units can be more than 120% rental. So this is 2025 table that's used. So again five units in that building uh would have to be both of these as RO and then also portable. Um, another aspect of the downtown districts, this is in the general improvement district. And one thing about that is it any property in the general improvement district is exempt from off- streetet parking requirements. Um, so this building does not have any off- streetet parking on site. Uh, parking in the downtown, there's a variety of uh, you know, public options um, as shown on the map here. And then also, which the applicant can explain more, um there's also other private options both on properties that they own and then with some nearby property

owners. Um so number three, for criteria consistent with any previous land use, there's no previous land use approvals for this site. So this not really applicable. Again, this is what it's currently used for. And then number four, consistent with the with the comprehensive plan. Um so it's located here. So you can see downtown is called out in that maroon kind of red in the comprehensive map. Uh the proposed project aligns with a number of goals from the comprehensive plan. Uh being it's close to transit. You have a rafted bus stop and then ride Glenwood Springs both within about 500 feet of the the property. Uh it's also you know it's a existing site so um there's no all the infrastructure is there for development. Uh it's also the comprehensive plan calls out identifying opportunities for vertical mixed use. So where you do have you know for residential above commercial on the first floor. Um so again number of goals um are supported in comprehensive plan. Uh the project did go through the public notice process. Um so that includes letters posted sign on property and then also published notices in the post independent. The developer also chose they were not required to do this, but they also held a neighborhood meeting at the Glenwood Springs Public Library in February. Uh in addition, they also met with the Historic Preservation Commission that was not required. Uh but just given that it's in the downtown, that was kind of a cursory uh review. We're just some discussions about the building. And then they also went to the downtown development authority. They are located within uh the DDA's boundaries. So they went to that meeting in February where the DDA had some questions about the building. Um trash um aspects of the project. Uh so in total one public comment was received and that was included in the packet. Um so again the action items in front of you tonight uh the first is the minor site and architectural plan and then the second is the rightway encroachment

license. Um if you do have any alternative motions um you do need to minister your reasoning for the four criteria for the architectural and site plan uh as well as rightaway encroachment license and then of course there also is the motion to continue. Thank you Emry. We'll bring it back to council for questions to staff and we'll start with councelor Shaker. Thank you, Emry. For clarification, um because the discussion and motions were happened quite a while ago, could you explain what the commercial requirements are and limitations on the first floor of this building?

Sure. So, it would have to um with the downtown overlay district, there are certain uses. Let me actually let me back up for a second. M2 zoning district establishes all the uses for that zoning district. Then on top of it is the downtown overlay that specifically identifies certain uses um such as food and beverage, uh retail, uh personal services. Um so it's a smaller list than what is normally allowed across the larger zoning district. And so the idea is to kind of uh encourage a very active downtown. So a lot of retail uses, a lot of food and beverage.

Is there a requirement for certain type for sales tax generation? Uh essentially yes those all the categories that are allowed do generate sales tax. Yes. Thank you. And just a suggestion that might help us unless I'm missing it. Could you all put page numbers on your document so when we refer to actions and conditions that might be helpful instead of just looking up above at our rolling. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any other questions?

Councilor Smith. procedure question first. If I remember right, we're asking questions now of Emory. Be a separate opportunity to ask questions of the opponent if if they come up. Correct.

Um, thank you. I note in your summary that the that the particular meeting of the planning and zoning commission that considered this and forwarded their recommendations on February 24th had only four members in attendance. a quorum but barely. Has there been any sense of misgiving among the planning and zoning members or staff that that needed a larger group or is everybody satisfied that four people could do it?

I should add I realize that was not included in the staff report uh that one of the commissioners did recuse themselves from the vote um due to knowing the person who submitted public comment. So that originally there were five. Um, and then as far as your question, um, I mean, Cororum, had planning and zoning commission not felt they wanted to move forward with that, they could have had the option to continue it.

The parking provisions, this may be a hybrid question for staff and then later. Um the parking provisions that you summarized basically there's no off- streetet parking required for a proposal like this in this location but there's mention of other parking opportunities. Um existing parking lots are over at the the sister development hotel. Um, does the fact that the parking is not required mean that we don't actually scrutinize those arrangements either? I mean, how how assured are we that those arrangements with other private parking lots or otherwise are actually going to come through?

Jump in here. No, you don't. Thank you. That's basically the answer. Sorry. Um the does the planning zoning commission or the rules consider the fact that there are parking spaces off street that exist now they're going to have a building built over them the loss of whatever number of parking spaces are in that lot now is that something to be considered?

No, not really. I mean, keeping in mind that this is um property owner is developing their property for a use that's permitted in the zone district. Um so I I think it would be suggesting that you Yeah, I mean you just can't consider whether or not those parking spaces are going away or not because you're looking at the proposal that the property owner is um proposing that is a use permitted in the zone district.

Thank you. Um, down in there in the kind of quiet part of the memo, it says that a signing plan is not yet prepared and is to be completed later, I think is the phrase that's included. Why later? Why the delay? Uh, are there is there any indication of what signs are even contemplated and whether they're necessary at all? um at this time. I mean, they don't have the signed permits come in at a later date. Um if at that time when they submit signage, it doesn't comply with code, they'd have to apply for a variance, uh go forward with whatever approvals there. Um so just the signage is not part of the site site and architectural plan.

So by doing it later, that sounds like that would be primarily a staff exercise to review whether they comply. If they seek a variance, it would go to P&Z and maybe come here. Correct. Yeah. If they down the road submitted a sign that didn't comply, they'd have to get

So, there's another opportunity to for for administrative or even um procedural re review of that. Thank you. Um, the BMZ report and the staff report note a reported feature of 21 bicycle parking spaces in something called a storage space. Uh I didn't see any any renderings or any description of where that is, how convenient it is, how assured we are that will actually happen, how assured we are that won't get let me back up. Um because do I understand correctly that one of the motivations for the general encouragement of infill development like this and the removal of park car parking restrictions is that this is an area where other modes of transportation could work and should work. It's close to transit as you note in your report providing bicycle parking spaces as mentioned but not described in specifics. Um there are services and activities close by a walking pedestrian atmosphere is the intention of the four overlays that you describe. Am I kind of following that correctly? Um, so bicycle parking spaces kind of seem co con consistent with that. Uh, where is the assurance that those will actually be built and and retained?

So they're located Yeah, they're located in the basement and it is part of the plan that's in front of you. So if that plan is approved by council tonight and the applicant wants to change that in the future, that would be a minor change to their approved plan as represented. Do you have any sense of how convenient those parking spaces are for a cyclist to get to the street?

I think I'll probably let the application I'll save that. Yeah, they can bring up the floor plan. Um the in other sorts of housing basically condominium where I think the city code requires or even encourages a homeowners association where you've got common o common common structure but individual ownership. you want an HOA to be able to take care of common needs and common maintenance. Is there such a creation in a building like this where the units are rental?

Um, so I think, and again, this might be something the applicant can answer more, but they'll probably have a have a property manager on site um to deal with that both for the commercial tenants and the residential ones, but there's no city requirement for a a residence council or anything like that. Correct. No.

Okay. Um the 20 20% um special apartments there's 20% noted as deed restricted so kind of a financial consideration 20% residential occupied kind of a geographical consideration. Are those two sets of 20% or do they overlap? uh they can overlap and typically what we see is uh developers do have them overlap where a unit will be that RORO deed restriction and the affordable one. They don't have to though. They could if they wanted to have these five units be resident occupied and at market rate and then these five be affordable. So you don't have to. A lot of times we see it though they do get combined.

Thank you. I think that's all I have for staff kind of questions. All right. Thank you, Councelor Small.

Having having been through a little bit of a thought process about our charter and what's in there and what's not in there and what is in there that probably needs to be revised, I have to ask, did somebody think it was a good idea to have a 24 unit apartment without any parking? Is that intentional or is it accidental that that that happened? Intentional.

I can answer that. Historically, it's been intentional since 1985. That's when the G was formed and the parking requirement Danttown was removed for development. So, it has been um over the course of whatever number of years that has been um uh pretty much an permanent component of how the downtown develops.

Council Townsley, uh, two things, actually, three things. You mentioned in there that DDA had some comments, but I maybe I just misplaced or can't find them on here. Are they in there somewhere and I just not seeing the DDA comments? No, they're pretty much just uh paraphrased in the section

which main questions um were so they had some questions about how proximity to nearby buildings. Um they had a lot of questions on construction methods downtown. how's how he accomplished that and then um also options for making the buildings into condos. So that was the general nature of their comments. So they didn't have concerns about parking or that they weren't allowed. They brought it I mean similar similar questions is how does that work in the G? Okay.

And then and I guess these maybe wait for for the developer on these but the one other question I had like Councilman Smith brought up. We we do the 20% we allow is who who's in charge of whether or not those overlap or don't overlap. Is that our decision or is that the developer's decision? Uh it's at the developer discretion, but like I said, typically what we see is that they do have those overlap. It's not required.

Thanks. Thank you. Additional questions? Okay, we'll see none. I just have a a quick question about the planning and zoning process. Were there any variances? Uh yes, there were a number of design variances for the design that were approved by planning and zoning commission but only design variances. Correct. Okay. Excellent. Um I think that was it. And the height is the height is within use of is is within the the 40t. All right.

Excellent. Thank you, Emry. With the applicant care to come forward, present your item. Please state your name for the record. Good evening, council members. My name's Chip Whipple. I'm the principal of Whipple Development. My uh lovely assistant here, my daughter is also a partner and she's head of uh what is it? Construction management. No, project project design. design, management, day-to-day,

all of the above. I have my wife here also who's works with us closely on design and uh logistics and edit. She's the editor. On the screen, my son Alex is here who's the instruction manager. Uh joining him is Steve Hopkins, our chief designer, and also Sven Alstrom, who is our architect. that is our primary group. So, thank you for taking the time to listen to us tonight here. Um, yeah, this is Oh, it did come up. Okay. This site is centrally located in downtown Glennwood Springs, surrounded by existing commercial, residential, and civic uses. It benefits from immediate access to public parking, walkable streets, nearby retail activity. It's also served by public transportation, reducing reliance on the automobile. The property has strong connections to the river corridor and downtown amenities. It sits entirely with the M2 district with mixed use, development, and urban density are not only appropriate, but encourage Architecturally, the building presents a thoughtfully modern interpretation of the traditional character of Glenwood Springs. The design incorporates a refined material palette of brick, limestone, stucco, and metal accents, resulting in a facade that's both contemporary and contextually appropriate for the downtown core. The ground floor retail activates the street

and supports a vibrant downtown environment. This project will provide meaningful benefits to the Glenwood Springs community, mo most notably through the addition of 24 new apartment units, offering a balanced mix of one and twobedroom layoffs. The development also includes two streetfront retail spaces along 8th Street, each with separate entrances and expansive glass storefronts designed to foster an active pedestrianoriented streetscape. The project will substantially upgrade the underutilized vacant property with a four-story mixeduse building, significantly increasing access or assessed value. Importantly, this building supports economic vitality and housing needs while generating a net fixed positive for the city of Glenwood Springs through increasing taxable value and ongoing retail sales tax revenue. Street level includes two retail spaces of approximately 2200 square ft and 2540 square ft each with a private office and restroom. A dedicated residential lobby and secure mail room for tenants. A property management office. A fullervice laundry room. Trash area for all household garbage and recyclables. a transportation garage designed for 20 or more ebikes, e- scooters, bicycles, etc. along with electric recharging stations. Two stairwells plus a fully accessible passenger elevator. The lower level,

basement level. So, just to clarify what Emry had mentioned as the bicycle access being in the basement, it is not. It's on the main level, making it easily accessible for our tenants. Lower level, the basement level provides tenant storage area for each retail store, private storage units for each apartment residence. Each residential floor, that's floors 2, three, and four, will include five one-bedroom, one bath apartments ranging from 532 to 643 square ft. Three three two-bedroom apartments ranging from 804 to 912 ft. In accordance with city requirements, five units making two twobedroom and three one-bedroom uh units will be rent restricted and the building is also uh ADA compliant for all the apartments. So this is a representation. This is a a representation of uh the twobedroom units. Can you go back one more?

And this would be a one-bedroom unit. So Candace is going to speak a little bit about the parking situation

for the project. We took a close look at parking and traffic to ensure it fits appropriately within downtown context. Development is located in the core of Glenwood Springs, an area where walkability, access to services, and transit naturally reduce reliance of personal vehicles. From a parking standpoint, we're intentionally using existing down to downtown resources. We've secured 10 off- streetet parking spaces for residents nearby, and the city and CMC parking garage is within walking distance with free overnight availability. There are also multiple public parking lots and on street spaces close to the site along with bike storage and ebike charging to support alternative transportation using a conservative downtown plan planning assumption of about three quarters of a vehicle per household based on the site's downtown location mixeduse nature raft to access bike infrastructure and our operating experience at a recently completed project at the Western 24 units translates to roughly eight 18 vehicle total. That demand is easily supported by the secured offsite spaces and the large supply of existing public parking in the immediate area. To put that into context, there are 400 to 450 available public parking spaces nearby. So this project represents only a small fraction of the existing capacity. On the traffic side, a study by Apex Consulting Engineers using it standards showed the project will generate about 201 trips per day and a roughly 15 trips during the peak hours. When distributed across a downtown street network, the impact is minimal and no roadway or intersection improvements are required. Overall, this is a low impact project that aligns with the city's goals for a

walkable, efficient downtown and makes smart use of parking and infrastructure that already exists. Thank you. Awesome. Take questions. Excellent. Thank you guys. Back to council. Any questions? You got another one? Does that make you good? I got one more. Okay.

So, we respectfully request your approval of this design and our application as submitted. We believe the project substantially meets the intent and standards of the M2 mixeduse district, enhances the downtown core, and will contribute new housing and commercial vitality to Glenwood Springs. We've made every possible reasonable effort to comply with the city's design requirements while balancing constructibility, durability, energy performance, and long-term urban quality. Thank you for your time and consideration.

All right. Thank you very much. Back to council. Questions to the applicant. Council Townsley, can you expand on the the 10 units of parking that you've looked at? Are those permanent? Where and whereabouts are they? Yeah. Yeah. Um so Maxwell Anderson has given us use of 10 of their parking spots that we'll be renting from them. Is that behind the Western? Yes. And across the street. Okay. So they haven't told us exactly where, but they will be giving us 10 rental spots.

Yeah. That was one of our biggest questions when we did the western and it was how is it going to work out not providing any parking and as it turns out we had never had a complaint from one of the tenants in there.

Most of them were work and I guess yeah one to two block radius. It really has worked out well and I think the intent of uh of the parking limitations for the downtown core is actually worked out quite well at least from our experience. So we um anticipate the same type of uh parking situations here and hope that most of the tenants will not need cars and they don't need cars. and we do have rafta, you know, within half a block away. So, I think it it's an interesting concept that you guys have come up with. And I think it was two years ago on our first pre-planning um uh goround, we actually had a plan that proposed parking on site. Now, we were told that go back and redesign the building because we don't want park here on this site. The concern there was 8th Street and 9inth Street which twice a day is quite congested and they didn't want to see the egress or ingress of cars going out there and further clogging the street up. So we we did we went back and redesigned it. This is the result of it. Good. One one last question on that same thing. Just since you're the developer on both of them, have you

got a number for in the western? How many cars are actually assigned to the people that live there? And do you know how many cars are within that unit? Yeah, within the 11 units. Um there I know of five five units that have cars and six that don't. Yeah. Cool. Thanks. Okay. Thank you, Mayor Prom Suinsk. Councelor Towns just answered or asked a question that I was about to ask. So just for clarification, your experience with the western has been like the your tenant is drawn to that because they're already kind of living working downtown and don't need that. Is that is it more of like a correlation that you found?

I think that they're expecting more city living being downtown and with that comes restrictions with cars. But they've never come back and said, "We don't want to live here because there's no parking." And we we have offered them also those same rental spaces and not one of them has taken a rental space. And how long have those 11 units been occupied? Two years. Two years. Thank you. Turnover. Has there been much turnover or consistent? Um I would say that we do one year leases. So

people have been there a year. We've had some turnover after a year, but their studios in one bedroom, so they're a little bit smaller, and I think it's just plate for most people. Okay, thank you. Any other questions, councelor Smith? Thank you. Um, among other things, thank you for already addressing the one question that I had raised. Want to be sure I understood your your your clarification about the bicycle parking area. Um the charging outlets is a nice bonus. Um it's on the ground floor. Again, easy to get a bicycle in and out without stumbling over stairways or

No, it's has outside access. Okay. So there'll be a code for the tenants and they can just enter the bike corral right on the alley alley and just roll straight on out. Yeah.

Thank you. Um the you highlighted what what we've seen in in the city's own provisions with these overlay zones that there's lots of accommodation for mobility without a car. Um and but you also mentioned that it's not only available because of the location but it's encouraged I think the word you use. What other encouragements are you offering in addition to what's already inherently in place? Spaces that you

Oh, yeah. Just that they have the opportunity to rent their own parking spot if they would like to. That way, um, so you're not giving away free raft passes or anything? Oh, no, nothing like that. Um, we could think of, you know, some other bonuses to people if they um don't have a car, but as of now, I think just the walkability and the less having less cars in the area.

Thank you. Um the I don't think this is a part of the application consideration, but I might get away with asking it. Do you have a sense of who's going in the commercial or what are you recruiting or have commitments?

Well, again, we really wanted to make there were there was two reasons for looking for a tenant that would not only be able to use the um retail space as walk-ins, but we al also wanted to increase an amenity of the overall building. So, we're thinking of a coffee shop with a seating area and a place that tenants can get out of their apartments and go down and meet with friends um work work just enjoy this enjoy the space. Thank you. Um

we don't have a uh for the second one. Do you guys have any suggestions? Um, I pose a kind of clumsy question to staff that they said maybe you would handle better. Um, is there anything comparable to what would be a homeowners association in an owned location? Um, you have a tenants council or anything like that? And do you do you need that? Well, generally comes with condominiums, the home office, right? These are not homeowners. They're just tenants, right? Do you have anything parallel for renters to to coordinate or

Well, we do. We have a management office and the management kind of a resident site so that the tenants need any type of assistance, it'll be there, you know, easily accessible. As far as I know, could we have uh card games at night?

Sure, that's all possible. There's a pretty nice group that are at the Western and they've gotten to know each other and it's a friendly atmosphere. We provided a a lobby where there's congregation there, you know, irrespective of the retail space. So, there's opportunities.

Thank you. Last question, I'm pretty sure. Um, at at either of these locations, but this one, which is what we're considering, um, what factors prompted you to make these rental residences as different from a an owned condo arrangement? Is there anything about in particular about city structure, ordinances, code that encourages you one direction over the other?

I think as everyone knows, housing is difficult and as young professional, you know, you might not be ready to buy anything. I think for me at least, you know, this it's a great start for people and an opportunity to come to Glenwood and, you know, try it out, not necessarily buy. Um, and I think I just looked at someone like myself and, you know, not wanting to like get roommates or something. So, these spaces are smaller. Um, and having access to everything like the farmers market you can walk to, you know, this the stores and being close to people in the downtown area and trying to be part of your community. I think I think that was kind of the vision behind it. But you know, but with that being said, we are a bill tossing around the idea of if we get say a request, we could condominiumize one of the floors. You see that many times in cities where it'll be rental units, it be hotel units and then the top floors will actually be condominiums. So there is a you know a slight possibility that we could go that route where the building's being set up from a utilities point of view.

There's the question structurally that question it can be done. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Um part of my motivation in asking that was that question part of it was the one public comment that we received where at least one person in real estate here says rental market's overloaded. Have you done enough market research to feel comfortable that this is the way to start out?

Yes. If you I know we don't feel there's a real comparison with our location, our building with what's happened by Target and up on the hill there. Um, I've had very good luck posting at the Western and maybe for only a couple days and getting people responding to it. So, from our market research just down the street, we don't see it as being a problem. Yeah, we've really never had a vacancy. No, that's a good measure. Thank you very much. Appreciate helping me with those details. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Council Towns. Uh, real quick question is is when you build out, you know, we've got community broadband here. Did you use community broadband in your other building versus We did. Thank you. That's been great. They were quite persuasive. Okay. Any other questions to the applicant?

Okay, we'll see none. Thank you. Thank you guys for being here. Anybody from the public like to come forward and comment? We'll see none. will uh close the public portion of this hearing and I'll bring it back to council. I'm entertaining and these are two actions by the way. We got to do the uh yep minor site and then the architectural plan. So, we'll do it separately. Uh entertaining a motion in the minor site review first and planning file arc 0000130 2025. That's next. Councelor Shack,

I would move for approval of the um minor site application ARC 00001302025 um with the findings on I believe page 17 and the conditions on page 18 what wherever they are on the staff report. So we have a motion to approve based on the findings. Emry Yeah. Motion to approve. Okay. Excellent.

Do we do we care about the page? I mean, they're in the report, right? Yeah. It's um I think only to the extent that um you identified it as as contained in the staff report. Okay, good enough. Okay, thank you. We have a motion to approve and uh mayor prom Solinski. I'll second that motion. Motion in a second. Any discussion? Start with council shar.

I just want to quickly say two things. Number one, not everybody up here was involved. There was a lot of work for encouraging this type of project with retail downstairs and mixed use. Um, so I'm glad to see it here. And I believe the applicant has addressed parking in a way that generally exceeds most of residential development capability downtown. So I appreciate that. Um, I would also remind if if my memory is correct, and it usually isn't, that site has not always been blank. There was a savings and loan there, Majestic Savings and Loan on that site during the 60s,7s, 80s, I believe, um, next to, um, Hock and Barn. So, it hasn't always been a vacant site. So, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Prominsky.

So, for comments, I just want to say I what I really like about this is I think it's really very aesthetically pleasing. I like the infill idea. Um, I see the opportunity to create some vibrancy with increased like foot traffic and activity downtown. Um, I love the idea of the expanded commercial space for future businesses. I would ask if we could look at our parking policies. I have experienced firsthand as a neighboring business when residential goes in um there is some overflow. I don't think there's a ton of commercial right there or but you know, people who park and pop in and pop back out at those quick spaces. I think um those are fine. It's the longer term lots that get clogged up. And so I think if we could just look at that and make sure that that policy still serves us well, I would ask that we could put that on a feature. Um and then additionally, I had one other question and that I forgot to ask of you, Emory. Are there any of our development fees that would go towards like a I guess a parking solution should a concern or problem arise? I know there I I can't remember.

Sure. And so the as Carl had mentioned the G was established back in the 80s and that is a annual basis. It's a taxed amount. So that and part of that money for example I think was on consent agenda. and money that went to pay for those repairs to the parking structure I believe came partly from the G fund. So it's kind of built in already whether so this this property has already been paying into it. Um now as far as like is that enough money to support what we want to see in the downtown. That's probably a bigger question. Got it. I just I I knew that there was something and it was like the value of a parking space and I legit couldn't remember. So thank you for that. Not a development fee. Uh it's just built into the property taxes.

Yeah. It's ju just so everybody is um clear, it's a mill levy that is assessed within the core downtown. Yeah. Um goes into the general improvement district. It's probably not nearly enough to actually solve the any of the parking problems, but that was the intent of it in 1985 and was put in place um was to address parking through a property tax. So there aren't any additional um fees attached to a development that would address that? No, there there's not. And I do think um from what I'm hearing from you guys, I think there's a couple of areas that we unrelated to this because obviously as a as a criteria to determine this application, parking isn't one of them. Y

but um in terms of larger policy consideration, is that parking policy in the downtown? And then also is it tied in some way to you know a paid parking program and is it tied to uh uh parking payment and l fees that might be more on an equitable basis with what's actually necessary to put those in place. I think those are all big policy considerations we probably should be talking about and I think are on trends horizon for this year anyway. Outstanding. Thank you. Thank you council ts.

Um I I think I would echo that. I I think the the general improvement district that was done 40 years ago is sooner than later. I would like to see that come up before, you know, I like this project. I like what you did with the western. It makes me feel a lot better about how you constructed that, what it looked like. I think you did a great job with that. So, my concerns are all with parking, which doesn't really affect you here, but I would like to move that up. I walked around and talked to some of the downtown people down there and a few people had mentioned to me that when they started their businesses down there, had their businesses that parking behind them next to the county building, we had mentioned something at some point about maybe doing a parking structure there, a parking garage. That would be something I'd also like to have some, you know, input come back to at some point. Maybe sooner again, sooner than later. What scares me is that there's a lot of other neat little spots downtown that a project like this would look good and I'm sure it would be a developer would look at it and go, "Hey, this is great. Before we get all of the parking spots taken downtown, I'd like to address it while we still can." I think those were my Oh, the the other question that I had because I think it's going to be a real issue with where this building is. I know there's a certain number of licenses available because I used to work on the block next to this where you could get a license and keep it going. And I don't know if there's anything we can do about it, but if we give two licenses to this building, you're going to have two parking spots on 8th Street taken up. I mean, if I lived there, I would in the heartbeat, I would try to get one of those. I would just park there permanently all the time. So, that's a real concern to me.

Okay. Thank you, Councelor Smith. Thank you. Um, this is a marvelous project. It it it fulfills explicit provisions in documents already in place, whether they're zoning districts or strategic plans. it. But the more practical sense, the notion of infield development versus sprawl, the notion of not merely coincidentally being in a walkable, bicycle, transit oriented. It it it enhances that by providing the housing at that location. Um it's um creatively designed just in the physical appearances that from what we can see from the from the renderings. Um and it really is again not just uh technically in compliance with these important communitybased goals. But it but the people involved in it seem to be embracing the spirit of that, trying to actually enhance our downtown as a diverse and livable space. So, um I'm very enthused about this. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other discussion? No. Just real quick. Um so, this project, you guys did a great job with the Western and and I I feel looking at this, it's going to be another success. So, I have no doubt. Uh, design is fine. I have no problem with it. I wish the windows upstairs were just a little bit bigger. Just a little bit bigger. A little more light, but that's fine. Yeah.

But but what what really matters here is is this building hits pretty much every single plan and every single study and every single overlay and every single whatever we've ever done hits it to 100%. It's an infill project. Um it's in the GIV um which will create tax for parking. It's uh the downtown overlay that we did. It has retail on the bottom. It's extremely important. It uh supplies five deed restricted housing which comes from the housing uh strategy. Um it fits the comp plan to the tea. Um, I mean, this is this is exactly what we're looking for. And and to be honest, any building that will that will eat up a surface parking lot is a plus for downtown Glenn Springs because a surface parking lot is a dead spot and dead spots are detrimental to downtowns. This is an infill. It eats up the parking lot. It creates space for people to live and shop and hang. And again, that fits the bill for the comprehensive plan. And I am 100% in favor of this. And with that, I will call the question. Yes, Councelor Townsley. Yes, Mayor Prom Zinsky. Yes, Mayor Dame. Yes, Councelor Wymer. No, Councelor Schmall. Yes, Councelor Smith. PS council shaker. It passes 61.

Thank you, Ryan. Thank you very much. Thanks for all the info. Moving on to second action. Yes, we do. Second action in this, which is the rightway encroachment. Thank you for the ro. I couldn't think what it is, but yeah. Uh 00028 2026. Um, you want to do it? Okay, Mayor Pro Tim Sinsky. Uh, so I'd like to move to approve the rightaway encroachment um article 000028-2026 at 2108 street with the findings that are included in the staff reports and conditions.

I know it's land use. We don't do this too often. So u councelor shter please. I second the motion. Thank you. All right. Excellent. Any uh discussion on the uh right ofway? Council Smith,

this seems to make sense to me. I realiz I forgot to ask a question. Reading the report. Um whereas sidewalk width requirements in this location are a minimum of 8 feet and the sidewalk contemplated here is actually larger than that. I think 12 feet. Does anything about this overhang or any other aspect clutter that 12 feet to make it unusable? No, it' be the awning is uh elevated above where most pedestrians would be. So, no.

Thank you. Okay. Any other comments or discussion on the rideway? I just have a quick comment. I find it silly that we have to do an encroachment on the on an awning. Um, I could see I could see surface level but airspace. I know. I know. I know. I know. I'm just to change the policy. I know. Which policy would that be? Uh, that would be your code. That's development code. Yeah. No. Yeah. It's in It's in the rightway. Oh, my favorite. Right. Yeah. So, yeah, you can absolutely make that change. Okay. Because it would also be easier to do larger awnings and stuff in front of restaurants and you know

Yeah. I mean that's a whole different discussion. I know. I know. But things like this trigger these these points, right? Like like counselor said about parking. I know all of you are this is great. That's what we do. Yeah. Excellent. Okay. If there's no more discussion, I will call for the question. The motion is to approve. It passes unanimously. All right. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, Whipples, for being here. Great project. Looking forward to it. Thanks for the process. It's going to look good. Thank you. Thank you, Emry. Uh, thanks everybody. Do we need All right, I'll call a fivem minute break.

All right. Call to order the second half of the city council meeting for tonight. The second half, not the first half. Second half. Item 12, which is employer based rental assistance program. and Watkins is gonna tell us about it.

Good evening, council. Watkins Folk Gray, housing development manager and senior planner. Um, let me get this started. So, what we're talking about tonight is our employer-based rental assistance program, uh, which is kind of a mouthful, so if it's all right, I'll be calling it just the rental assistance program tonight. Um, this was a, uh, a a brainchild of the Workforce Housing Fund Advisory Board. Oh, do I need to share my screen, don't I? Yeah. Okay, now we're on the right track. Um, it is a it was created by the Workhorse Housing Fund Advisory Board. Um, and it's one of their two signature programs. Um, city council, you all approved it in 2024 and November of 2024, and then it went into effect in April of 2025, one year ago. Uh, it was approved as a pilot program, a one-year pilot program. So, here we are in April of 2026. And so, that is why this item is before you tonight. The purpose of the program is to reduce employee turnover at local businesses, fill vacancies, uh do things like minimize commute times and distance traveled to jobs in Glennwood. Um this was kind of a surprise to to some employers when I talked to they said, you know, I have someone who'd be interested in this program, but they live in Sils. I said, perfect. That's exactly what we're looking for. They need to move to Glenwood. Then we will subsidize them because that's what we're trying to do is get people to commute a shorter distance. Um, we also want to reduce the share of cost burden renters from our what we measured in our strategic housing plan of 44% total renter households that we think are cost burdens. Uh, and so this makes a a small very small dent um toward that problem. I'm going to try to give you guys a little bit more data and um context with

those numbers. A lot of numbers here. Um, as I just mentioned, 44% of our renter households are costburdened. That means 44% of renter households pay more than 30% of their monthly income on housing expenses. And so here are some raw numbers. Um you know in terms of AMI ranges, how many um vacant jobs there were in these AMI categories you're seeing. Um, just to give you a little bit more color, people that are in this 30 to 60% AMI, people who make between 30 and 60% of the median income, we're talking about people like fast food and counter workers, dry cleaning workers, um, veterary assistants, cashiers, some health and personal care aids. Uh, in the middle we have things like um preschool teachers, social workers, male carriers, other levels of teachers. And then once we get toward the higher ends, um, we have professions like dietitians and nutritionists, graphic designers, construction and building inspectors, police and sheriff patrol officers, chefs and head cooks, loan officers, and some of the the key guidelines of the this program, uh, the rental assistance program, is that businesses need to be in good standing with the city. We do one-year contracts with employers. Um, it's available only for workers who make less than 120% AMI. We require pretty thorough documentation when they're applying for the program so that we know exactly how much they're making and that we know that they've been with their employer for a year. That's another one of the requirements. Uh, the city is also not a party a party to any leases. We don't interact with landlords at all. I administer this program and I don't interact with either the landlords or the the renters themselves only the businesses. Uh and the employers provide payubs as proof of participation. I should also add that um the employers one of our our guidelines

is that employers can only have one employee that's involved in the program. So each employer means right now one employee. So looking back on this last year, um modest numbers, six total participants, um and this is April now, so we're four current participants. Um the folks who exited the program, one bought a house and so they no longer needed rental subsidies. Um and then one moved out of the area to be closer to family out of state. Um you we re we really saw a pretty good variety in what kind of businesses participated in this. Um many of them were in the tourism focused industries, but not all of them. Um, I'd kind of prefer to not say specifically who these employers are unless anyone's tuned in um and listening. Um, just they didn't ask to be identified here. Um, but as I'll get to in another slide, um, I did engage them in the last month to ask if they had feedback and invited them to show up tonight to speak if they want to. Uh, the total funds that we spent on this program in 2025 was about $16,000. So, that's pretty modest numbers. That 16,000 was leveraged uh because the way this program works is that um the the city plays pays 50% of the subsidy and the employer pays the other 50%. So that 16,000 was leveraged. Average monthly subsidy that we paid, so that's half of what gets paid to the employee was $386. The average cost burden of participants before they enrolled in this program was 40%. So they were paying on average 40% of their monthly gross income on housing costs. And of course after they enrolled in this program that went down to 30% because that's what this program does. Uh the average AMI or income of the sponsored employees was 91% of the median income. Um and a word about the numbers. Um I was kind of reluctant to advertise this program as April approached just knowing that this is a pilot program and it could end. So, I didn't really feel the

need to try to press for numbers. Um, if you all do want to u make this permanent program, this this program permanent or to extend it the pilot, um, I think it'll be a lot easier to get more people involved. Some of the feedback that I received from employers were that it may be worthwhile to offer smaller subsidies, but spread them around to more people. Um, the program is helpful, um, but they were uncertain if the program alone is the reason for their employee retention. Anything that helps people helps keep people in Glennwood is a win. Also, it was useful in retaining their employee and is a good use of funds. However, the high cost of living is still a challenge for long-term employee retention. Um, so our the staff recommendation um which is also the WHB recommendation is to approve the employerbased rental assistance program as a permanent program. Um, and I did update the uh the budget for WHAB that was in your packet. Um, so this is where we are right now. We're projected to have more than enough money um to cover this program. Um, you'll you might notice in your packet might have raised eyebrow that we budgeted $250,000 for this program in 2026. That is just from the adopted budget. So I do not think we can scale it up to $250,000 at least in this year. And if we did, we'd probably be looking at, you know, doing something like contracting out some of the administrative work for this because that would be 50some people and that would be a big jump. Um, but even with that $250,000 budgeted, we're still looking at um having a budget at the end of the year of about 969,000. And that is all I have for y'all. So, I'm happy to take any questions.

I should also mention that we have the chair of WH5 here tonight. Um, he's been waiting patiently, too. Might want to speak to you'all. Okay, excellent. Thank you, Watkins. Any questions to staff at this point from Counsel? Councelor Smith.

Thank you. And and indeed, thank you, Matt, for sticking around. Maybe we may take advantage of having a representative from the board. Um, Watkins, one of the uh one of the basics that you described in the program guidelines is a one-year contract with each employer. Is that because this was only a one-year pilot or if this is made more permanent, could that contract period be extended?

The intent, I'm not actually sure. Um, I wasn't wasn't too involved in the creation of this program, just tangentially. Um, but I do think it is a good thing to have contracts of a certain term and not just indefinite because even though what we're doing here is creating some stability so people can stay in their jobs, we know that people do change jobs and you know, so I think that kind of revisiting these things periodically with with a term is not a bad thing.

Part of why and that probably does make sense. It just maybe not necessarily one year. Maybe it's coincidence that it was with the one-year pilot program, but we heard in the work session earlier with the advisory board that that having this program declared permanent may make it more appealing to more employers because it feels less ephemeral and and that contract term may or may not help with that. So, it's worth considering that I'd suggest. Um you mentioned the budget amount compared to how much was actually spent in this first year why so little why so few participants what what keep kept more people from stepping up

well I think part of the discrepancy is also just that when we started this program we didn't know what the demand was going to be we didn't know how many people were going to enroll so we um we wanted to make sure that we had enough to go around And so we picked a number 125,000. Matt, maybe you have more insight into how we pick that. Um, and you know, we we probably could get a lot more participation and we hope to in the future. Um, but you know, some of our guidelines are limit who can who can enroll in this and that's that's intentional, too. You have to have worked for your employer for at least a year before you're eligible. um you know not all employers are willing to you know kind of partner up and and and and be a partner the way this program is imagined because they're contributing half of this stipend also.

Thank you. Um we have Yeah, that's fine. Why don't you come why don't you come why don't you come up Matt state your name please for the record. Yeah, Matt Matt Spyel. I'm a city resident and a business resident here. Thank you.

The reason why I don't think we had a huge pilot group is, you know, we were going through a change with our housing director, Kevin. Um, we we got a number of businesses. I think we did the lotto, him and I did the lotto, like 11 businesses just to start us out. Not all of them stayed in the program. and and then it got to the point where we're like, do we really want to try to go solicit more and put more work now on Watkins? He was just getting into the his role. So, that's why we didn't really maximize that, but we I think we got a good cross-section of feedbacks.

Thank you. Um, many people here and many people around town can site examples of employers doing this on their own. Some of the big honkan employers definitely do it, but even small individual businesses will buy and then rent buy residences and rent them back to their employees. There some some of this has been going on for a really long time. Why do we need a government program in in addition to that private initiative?

This helps out smaller businesses. I think smaller businesses that may not have the same means to go out and buy real estate, which is which is really expensive. Um, and it's just another tool in our arsenal. You know, it it it signals to the community and the the businesses that that we have here that we're willing to be a partner, city's willing to be a partner. Um, and so we can leverage our money that way and leverage their money also. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Prom Slinsky, please. Is there any limit to how long an employee can participate in this program? Like,

no, there is not. So, if you've got a valued employee that works for you full-time for seven years, for seven years you can kind of help them supplement. Okay, cool. And then um do you have like if we vote today to continue the program, what would be the plan to kind of um court better participation and get more businesses on board with this? Got a couple leads for businesses I think might be interested. So, I'll be following up on those. And then I think it's just um you know boots on the pavement walking around um spreading the word. Thank you.

Counc um and this could be for Carl as well. Um if we approve that this become a permanent program, ambitious budget or not, whether you hit that number is less important. I think that you have the program have the number. If during this process you the commission, hey, you know, we need to tweak this, we need to change some of the terms, we need to maybe extend the program, maybe we have to bump up the amount or change AMI. Do we have to approve all those internal programmatic changes or in our motion are we if we approve are we giving approval that yeah they will pursue the rental program within their proposed budget and do their best to make it work.

Uh probably a little bit in between on that. I think that there are some core pieces of this that council would always want to approve. I think the things that Watkins is presenting as far as AMIs and things like that, I think that probably would come back to you guys. I think, you know, how how do we do advertising, how do we chase businesses, how do we increase the numbers, that kind of thing. I think that's, you know, probably more just programmatic work for the staff to do, but I think those core pieces of the program would always come back to you for tweaking. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Townsman. Um, most most everything I've got is comments, but I do have one question and it could go to you or Matt, either one. But, you know, I'm looking at this as a as a business subsidy more than as a helping of a person. You know, when I've got, you know, I've got one person that was, you know, really needed to be helped, but then went out and bought a house. I kind of question that. A couple other people didn't use it. We only put 16,000 out. Is I guess my question is is why do we need to subsidize businesses if if an employer is out there and he's this is This amounts to $2 an hour. So, we're subsidizing a business since they take one employee. Are the businesses that tight that they can't pay their employee an extra $2 an hour? I mean, you you've talked to you've talked to the people. So,

for the new council members again, Matt Spel, so you guys didn't know where this this came from. This came from me having amazing retention at my Jimmy John's and I was funding about a third of six of my current staff members mostly managers or right below managers and I was getting and I also do anniversaries and I was like man so I started seeing that this really working for me and then I I thought wow if you know we have this 2C fund if and I'm not looking to to benefit from this I could recuse myself to the end. But um I was thinking well this money if this could be a broader program one we could have a lot more retention throughout the entire community. And to me retention is everything when it comes to quality of service. So why is it important to subsidize it when you could just pay more money? I I look I I work with my employees to say, "Hey, I'm paying you about as much as I can pay you, but if you can commit to me at this level of of management or what have you, I can help you out with your your rental. And I also don't want to shut my business down when the canyons either side close, which is quite quite often. It can be quite often." And so I'm always looking at as business owner, I want to be in business. I want to be open. So that was my selfish reason to do a lot of this rental and have Glenwood people and work and live where they in the same place. So I think it's a great program from a lot of aspects. It it keeps people if it encourages other businesses to to have people living in Glenwood and working in Glennwood. We can keep more cars off. We can keep businesses open. I think the last time that South Canyon closed, it was it's been a while now, but I heard like you couldn't go to Alpine Bank and

you couldn't get a change order that day. Starbucks wasn't wasn't open. So, this is like my attempt to have a program that is not just a giveaway. It's a partnership like Watkins mentioned. It's a 50-50 match, but to me, it's a winning program that helps everyone succeed, including retention and having open businesses. And a lot of the people that we do count on, and we talked about it earlier, whether it be a nurse or, you know, you you need those people here, and the more we can have those key key people and those key businesses open, the better off off we all are. Mayor Proan Solinsky, please.

Crap. Crap. Oh, I I thought Sorry. Gosh, sorry. I got distracted. Um, one of the things in the uh uh staff report was mentioned about the kind of sticky wicket with the taxes. Is there a way that like how does that be addressed because that seems like kind of a negative.

Um, yes. Yeah, the double taxation. Um, we are pursuing some options that I don't think we can talk about yet because they're not real. Um, we in the work session we talked about the impact development fund as as a group that we might work with to help administer our stuff and we tried to see if they could help us with this problem. They couldn't. Um, but we have some other ideas. So, you know, that that's something that we're trying to figure out. I don't think those are big numbers that that that were, you know, that are causing the inefficiency. Um, but it's kind of like an irritant, right? Yeah. Matt, do you want to add anything else? Yeah, raise them up.

I knew this might come up and we we've gotten in the weeds on this and I just don't think it's worth getting into the weeds. Um I ran a one of my managers I just cut a check to say, "Okay, I got $500 in from the city. What are those taxes?" And you know, it's like $40 of of Medicare and Social Security tax. Um it wasn't it wasn't a lot of money. So, but I'm getting a a $4,600 value of the year of having rental assistance, but I'm not paying that much in tax. So, I just it seems like one of those things you could get caught up and worry about. And I think we can come up with solutions, maybe a trust down the road, but all the we'd have to talk to people like how do we develop a trust and how do we develop a nonprofit to run this money through so it's taxfree. It was a lot of work and a lot of expense. So, got

it. for a little bit amount of taxes and it's you're paying taxes on free money so it's not like I know it's not like that much so that's all I got on that yeah I so I guess I wasn't struggling so much with like the employee being taxed on like additional compensation but it was the double tax that I didn't understand so maybe that's coming from that's what I'm that's what I'm trying to figure out yeah so from the hotel to well it's so it's taxed when we contribute to the employer, then the employer contributes to them. So that's twice. Got it. So the employer is paying taxes and then the employee is paying taxes.

I think it it's going to be covered by the employer in both those cases. Um so that's why it's a little bit of an irritant to them, but that's Got it. And again, this is a little bit outside my wheelhouse. I think it's called a taxable event. Is that right, Carl? Yeah. And so and the bill of tax is only for the employer. It's only Medicare and Social Security. Got it. Okay. That that's what I was trying to understand though. All right. Got it. Counc in the the presentation right that you currently had four participants total in the program and that there were there were six currently. That's right.

So the total subsidy that was paid out was somewhere between 18 and $25,000. No, the the total was that $16,000 figure. 16 approximately. We did have 11. No, we might have had 11 applicants, but not everyone qualified. So, how does that equate to a $200,000 budget? What What am I missing?

That was the $250,000. I I just copied that from the approved budget. So, I I don't think that's realistic for us to scale up to, at least for a long time. Uh, but that's I I just try to be consistent with the budget. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, staff? No. Excellent. Thank you guys for being here. So, um, right. Anybody from the public like to comment on this item? See none. Move on. Um yeah, we got to give them direction of what we want to do if we want to continue if we want to make it permanent or extend the pilot. So entertaining a motion to go forward with this and we'll start with Mayor Pro Tim Zinsky, please. I uh would like to make a motion that we move the employer-based rental assistance program from a pilot to an ongoing program within the city.

Okay. Thank you. We have a motion to move forward to make it permanent and council shaker. I'll second the motion

and a second. Any discussion? Councelor Wymer friendly amendment. I'm trying to be cognizant of Watkins needs to uh kind of be able to talk about permanence and stability within the program, but at the same time um I'd like to be able to re-evaluate this. Could we say could we give this like a fiveyear runway with a three-year go no-go decision? Something like that. So that if we do say go, you know, we say go at that point it's a go in three years. In three years if we say it's a nogo for whatever reason, it could be just too much of a hassle, too much of a

you know, too much trouble for us to to administer versus what what you know benefit perceived benefit. Watkins then at least at that point has two years to sort of wind things down. Not that it may take that much, but at least some some grace. You think he has to say to that, Mark, if you have anything to say to that. Yeah. Yeah. Um, what your what your discussion is totally y'all's prerogative and that's fine if you want to do that. I was just going to offer that we can have, you know, yearly check-ins, yearly, you know, presentations to see how it's going. If that alleviates any of your concerns, that's fine, too. I would also note that you guys will have to approve a budget every year. So, there's there's also I mean, you have explicit line item.

Um, yeah, I think it would be it is in there in the WAB in that fund, you will see that item budgeted. That's where the 250,000 comes from. Not to say that from a policy level, you shouldn't have what you described, but just I was suggesting you get a bite at the apple every year on the budgeting cycle as well.

I just don't want any I don't want any surprises either, right? Like at the last minute, we we tell them, you know, no dice or something. But, um, my and again, it's it's what just tossing out there as an amendment. You guys can play with it or whatever, but like I don't know that I need to spend time on this every year. It's not that big of a deal, but like in three years maybe we come back and kind of just see where we are and make a decision. That's my barely two cents. Okay. So, so he did he did ask for friendly amendment, but Right. Oh, yeah.

Um I'm comfortable with that. The reason I made the motion is that I don't feel like the first year was enough time to fully vet the program. I think that there's u value in it. Um so I I'm super comfortable with setting parameters for re-evaluation. Um so yes, I'm happy to amend my motion. two, um, we continue with the employer-based rental assistance program for a period anticipated to be five years with a re-evaluation at no less than three years. Three year mark. Perfect. You going to amend your second?

Sure. Excellent. Okay. We now have an amended motion. I hope everybody's clear on it. I had that question. And yes, um, Mayor Potener, please. So, I'll fix you. Don't worry. I got

Okay. So, uh, one of the reasons that I wanted to, um, kind of vote to move this forward is first of all, I don't think that I think there's value in it and I don't think we've fully been able to like really fulfill the value of that with it being a pilot and kind of tentative. I can see where a lot of people maybe weren't fully ready to take advantage of that. Um, I like that this shows a partnership between our business community and the city. Um, I can see where you could make the argument that this is a a stipend or an augmentation to the businesses, but I think that it's a little bit we're asking businesses to try and employ people that live within the town to address some of our concerns and this is a way that we are helping push forth that goal. Um, so we are making an ask and then we're meeting in the middle. So I I like the idea of that and I feel like this shows an investment in retention and the quality of workforce in Low Springs, which is something I don't think we talk about a lot. But turnover is um costly not just to businesses, but I think it's costly to the community. So, you know, I like the idea of, you know, making a little bit deeper investment in people.

Thank you, Council Townsley. Um, I I guess a couple things, you know, just I look at this and I if I was a private business person and you'd come to me from one of my departments and said, "I've got this great idea for a program." And I listened to you and I say, "Okay, that's great. Let's try it." And you came back to me with these results. Then I would say, "This program's a failure. Let's let's just cut our cut our piece and go." um the the work that you guys put into this and coming up some ideas. I appreciate that because you're trying to come up with some ideas and you know that's that's what you're doing on that on that board and commission. So I think that's that's admirable. But you know when I look at what probably is the cost to run this, you know, whether it's Watkins time, somebody's time, I mean it's a four-page document of everything that you're going to report and check and do all those things. Pretty soon we're hiring somebody else. whether it's a third party person outside like we talked about in our work session today or whether we hire somebody else staff-wise on the city because you can't take this program and that program and this program it's just there's a lot of administration to this a lot of cost and I just I really don't see a benefit to it that went through here um it to me it looks like an employer subsidy you said your average debt to income ratio was 40 of the people in the project that's 40 is is normal for where we live I mean people going out and buying houses. They're all over that. They're not The 30% number that we throw around a lot is just not a supported number in our community. I've talked to a lot of of other people, citizens around here. I've not yet talked to one person, and maybe I should have talked to the six business owners or somebody on the board and commission, but I have not talked to one person that thought this was a good idea. They're like, "You're kidding me. We're doing what?" And so I just, you know, if this is something that had taken off and run and we're getting a lot of people use it, but I just don't see that it's a, you know, it was a good stab. It was a good try. You know, at the worst case scenario, I would support maybe doing it for a shorter period of time again, but it's just not used. It's one more thing that, you know,

government's getting bigger, government's getting involved. You know, it just doesn't make any sense to me. So, for that reason, I I would not support this in any form. Thank you, Council Shack.

Well, I'm willing to support the program. I've seen it since its genesis. I know how much effort Matt's put in. That's not enough reason to support it. But we're not the only ones that do it as well. Um, we've used some, didn't we use a pilot or kind of a overlay from Eagle County? Did you not get help from them or something? Anyway, but my point is I agree with everything I've heard, but I still want to give it a run and see what happens. And based on the workshop, in addition to Councelor Wymer's motion and Councelor Townsy's reservations. I'm expecting, as we discussed today, a much more detailed impact report every year that this will be part of it and it doesn't preclude us from cutting it off sooner, even at your own recommendation. So, I'm willing to see it grow. And I hope also along the way, even though you might need our approval, that you guys look at it dynamically and if you need to tweak it, we need to up this, lower that, expand that because we think it'll work in line with what the workforce housing fund was designed to do, which this is part of it. Um, that you come to us. So for that reason, I will support it as amended.

Okay. Thank you, Mayor Prom Sinsky. I wanted to bring up one other point. Um, we're also asking the businesses to bring up the other 50%. So, you're not going to cut somebody's salary and then say, "Oh, but I'm going to give you a housing assignment." So, we they are there is a meat in the middle. Um, this is this is us helping them offer one more enhancement like we keep saying one more tool in the toolbox is how I see it. I might be biased because I was a small business owner that struggled with staffing um over the course of my business. I saw that change over the course of the 15 years. What it was when I started and what it was when I sold it. It was a different landscape. And so I'm probably a little bit more personally connected to those struggles and what it would feel like to have like one more like assist. And so I think I might be a little bit biased and take that with a grain of salt.

Thank you, Council Townsley. I was also a small business owner here in Glenwood. We hired people. We employed them. We paid them enough that they could do their job. You know, they they competed with us with other banks that they could have gone to. It was not retail, so they were getting a little bit higher salary. But again, I just I never looked at that and said, "As part of my business plan, being a business owner here, I need the city to participate in paying my people." So I just respectfully disagree with you. That's we

Yeah. Okay. Great. Any other discussion? See none. All I have to say is this is a great tool for the toolbox. Um I I kind of wish it was more successful. Um the the six is great, but 18 be better. Um so whatever we need to do to push this forward, I'm willing to support the money. The 2C money is there for that kind of thing. Um and and and we owe it to some of our businesses to do this if we want to stay open. Um the point you made, Matt, when the roads closed, you couldn't even you couldn't even go to hospital at that point. You couldn't even get your blood pressure taken because we had nobody staffed there at that point.

If this helps us to avoid that, I will fund this any day. So with that, I will call for the question. No, Councelor Townsley. Yes, Mayor Prom Zillinsky. Yes, Mayor Dame. Yes, Councelor Wymer. No, Councelor Schmall. Yes, Councelor Smith. Yes, Smith. Yes, Councelor Shakar. It passes 52. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you for being here. Watkins, Matt, thank you for what you do in the commission. Um, I think this concludes our discussion and our actions for tonight and we'll move into a council comments and we'll start with council Smith.

Thank you. Um I think mo most immediately previous meeting at a previous meeting I suggested that we be more deliberate about some sort of appreciation effort for uh members of boards and commissions as they finish their service. Uh to that end, I have drafted a letter and that might become a a standard format or or could be a draft to be enhanced by I'd like to pass that around for your consideration and maybe that'll keep conversation going. Um did you also submit this to Steve Boyd? I'm going to.

Okay. Or uh Tim has one. Sorry, Tim. Didn't mean

there's enough in that pile for everybody. So, I'll pick up the extras and get them scattered around. Thank you. Um, occasionally we'll have in addition to the very helpful and typically very extensive meeting packet materials, we sometimes have um graphics as well as memos. Uh, then sometimes we'll come to a meeting and there's a new slideshow that proves very helpful to the presentation. And often we'll have a council member who say, "Can we get a copy of that?" And sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. Um so if we could find a way to be a little more systematic about getting those last minute slideshows forward on to us, it would be very helpful. Two examples. Um at our March 5th meeting, we had a very helpful um visual slideshow update on uh construction projects. And at the March 19th meeting, we had a very helpful um after after the packet slideshow on housing data. It' be nice to get those two in particular and then somehow we can follow up on those last minutes. Uh and then finally, I noticed this week that the state legislature passed and the governor signed some housing legislation, including one that had gotten our attention when it was first introduced. um that BA, if I'm reading it right, basically exempts certain entities who want to do housing development from our planning code and review.

Yes. Uh significance for this for the city's what what's the impact

uh that you could have housing projects without public review um or parking and very minimal height restrictions. So, we're going to be coming back to you with um we're as a firm, we're building out um some legislation to try to address um the worst impacts of this. I think the the biggest problem with the SAVE Act uh along with not just generally being well thought out and and not or the Home Act, sorry, not the Save Act, getting them confused, uh the Home Act is um that it's unclear what entities will qualify. Um, it is clear to a lot of us in mountain communities that the entities that qualify will be for-profit developers that have nonprofit arms. Almost all of them do for a variety of reasons. Um, and that there is no uh by statute there is no requirement for affordability in the bill. And so it has kind of taken off the limitations. there's no local review really and there's no requirement for true affordability and um through cast we argued for those provisions through both the house and the senate on this bill and so now as is often the case at the local level we're going to have to um try to work around the situation. So bottom line is you're probably going to be seeing uh some draft um legislation in the next probably month or six weeks um for you to consider to update the code on the affordability side because I think that's the place where we have the most leverage underneath the the new legislation.

Thank you. I'm glad glad we'll be seeing that again. Yeah. Thank you, Council Sher. Councelor Wymer Council Town Council Small Mayor Pro Tim

RFOB has put out their um 2026 list of projects. Uh there's an opportunity for people to uh volunteer. There's a great laundry list and then there's several that are kind of right in our neck of the woods. There's um a few evening and weekend work sessions at Abish Gulch, uh Lynwood Cemetery. There might be a Wolfson. Um, so there's some good ways that you can uh contribute to our outdoor spaces, shared public spaces, and do a little give back. And I think that's about it. Should I announce? Oh, you do you have anything?

You got something? No, we're not there yet. There's more. No, there's more. Okay. No, just I'll let you know. Okay. I got nothing. Yeah, it's all good. It's all good. Report uh city manager. Don't just I got it. Yeah, that's you. It's been a pleasure and honor to serve as your interim manager. Thanks for being here, city attorney. I don't think I can top that. I think um maybe some of us are wondering if we if we're going to have an executive session on some updates.

Uh we are we I sorry it got kicked. Steve asked that we kick it to the next meeting because he was going to be gone as was Matt and they're both integral to that discussion on both Mitchell Cooper and the um lawsuit regarding the access um says Rob. Yeah. So, we did file an answer in that case today. Pretty standard stuff. Um, but as far as more talking legal theory and things like that, we just felt like we kick it down the road. Um, so those two guys could be here to have that conversation with you. Okay. Thank you. Any correspondence? Nope. Not tonight. Excellent. Social amendments may approach. I think we might have to talk to you again.

All right. Excellent. Thank you. And I'm entertaining a motion to adjourn this meeting. So moved. Have a motion, a second and a second. Uh, we got a vote. Sorry. Call for the question. You journ. It passes