City Council - Regular Meeting

Can you guys hear me okay? Thank you.

Yes. I guess I could share my screen and pull it up, or you could share your screen and pull it up.

Julie, you might want to mute.

Okay. Is Julie, are you there? Yes. Julie, can you hear me?

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes. Okay. I think we're at 10 o'clock, so we are going to get started. Welcome everyone to the city of Steamboat Springs. Council regular meeting number SP 2026-02, Friday, August 21st, 2026 at 10 a.m. And Julie, if you wouldn't mind with roll call, please.

Steve Mantine.

Here.

Gail Gary is absent. John Agosta. Are we expecting John to be here?

I saw John a minute ago.

He looks frozen, so he might be rejoining.

Come back to him at the end there, Julie, if you would.

Dave Barnes.

Here.

Michael Baccino.

Here.

Amy Dixon, I believe, is absent. Is that correct?

Yes.

And Brian Swintek.

Here.

And we will... We'll get back to John and when he enters again, we'll acknowledge his presence at the meeting. Okay, we're going to do the Pledge of Allegiance. And what I would ask everybody to do is just mute for this. So we don't have a number of voices competing with each other. And if we'd all rise and we will say the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, thank you. All right, as I said, welcome everyone to this meeting. I just wanted to make an opening statement here. before we get into our meeting. And we have one topic on the agenda today, and that's the Regional Transit Authority ballot measure. Since the start of the discussion on the potential for Yampa Valley Regional Transportation Authority, all the way through the formation of the RTA, the City of Steamboat Springs and City Council have been extremely supportive. One of our highest priority goals is around transportation and mobility. And we have supported advancement of the RTA and have through creating a transition plan for our assets has started and we have begun planning on possible shared resource opportunities with the RTA and our transit system. The city council has appointed Councilor Agosta as the city representative and Councilor Swintek as the alternate. They have kept us informed of progress on the formation of the RTA and subsequent activities. Councilors are not required to obtain approval or direction from City Council prior to voting on the Yampa Valley RTA matters. However, they are permitted to seek input or direction where appropriate, and that is the purpose of this meeting. The polling results on potential tax measures to fund the RTA led to subsequent recommendations to move forward. This occurred after our last Council meeting, And given the early September deadline to get this on the November ballot and the fact that we don't have another Council meeting until early September, this special meeting was scheduled. The purpose is for Councilors Agosta and Swintec to obtain input and direction from City Council with respect to the proposed ballot measure. The ballot measure I'm referring to is for November 3, 2026 ballot. and it is for an additional half cent sales tax for regional transportation purposes. The process for today's meeting is as follows. Councilor Swintek will bring us and the community up to speed on what has recently transpired and how we got here today. We will then have the opportunity as council to ask questions of Councilors Agosta and Swintek. We also have the town manager from Hayden, Matthew Mendisco online, who is also a member of the RTA board and who has a resource also if needed to answer any questions. After we have asked our questions, we will go to those people online who will have the opportunity to make public comment on this subject. Each public comment will be no longer than three minutes. Following public comment, Council will discuss and provide direction regarding the proposed ballot measure to our representatives. After we have completed that, we will open up the meeting to any other public comment on other topics that anyone has, and we will take that public comment. After that, we will then adjourn the meeting. A couple guidelines to ensure this meeting is as productive as possible. Since this is a virtual meeting only, Everyone should keep their mute button on. For counselors who wish to question or comment, please raise your hand and wait for me to acknowledge you before unmuting. We don't want to have more than one person talking at a time. It makes it very difficult for anyone to be heard. For those who wish to make public comment, the same process applies. When we get to that public comment section of either the RTA topic or general public comment, please raise your hand. and wait to be acknowledged before I'm muting. And please stay within the three minute time allocation for public comment. With that, I'm gonna turn it over to Councilor Swintek. Councilor Swintek, would you like to provide us with an overview of what has transpired and how we got here today?

Yes, thanks.

First though, Councilor Gost has joined. Do we need to formally acknowledge he's in the meeting?

Yes. Councilor Augusta, could you state that you are present? John Augusta, present. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Councilor Swintek.

Thanks, and apologies in advance. Some of what my notes that I've prepared repeats what President Muntean had said, but I think it's all helpful context. Over this past weekend, it came to council's attention that at the RTA meeting planned for this past Monday, August 17th, the board was being asked to vote on whether to send an RTA funding question to voters in the November 2026 election. As President Monteen had just said, as a council, we have established an expectation that our appointees represent the position of the majority of council. And we've learned from experience that significant decisions, particularly decisions involving requests for taxpayer dollars, deserve public discussion by council before a representative is asked to place a vote on our behalf. We do have this expectation for a reason. It's not intended to complicate decision-making or create unnecessary delay. As was already mentioned, council as a whole has been super supportive of the RTA to date. This purely exists to ensure transparency, appropriate deliberation, and an opportunity for the public to understand decisions that directly affect them. And as it turns out, this process has proved particularly important in this instance. At Monday's RTA board meeting, we received a presentation on polling regarding potential RTA funding. That material is in the pack for this. Those results had not been circulated to the board or the public in advance. So the presentation on Monday was the first opportunity for both the board and the public to review them. The polling showed generally positive results, which is great news. 51% of the 300 respondents supporting a half cent tax. We were told by the consultant that this is actually considered a positive indicator in today's electoral environment. Approximately 20 minutes after receiving this information, the RTA board was then asked to vote to advance ballot language for the November, 2026 election. As I wanted to honor our commitment to this process, I requested at that time that the vote be postponed so council could review their proposal, discuss it publicly as we are today. I also did recognize that the board may want to vote that day, so I offered an abstention. The board chose to postpone. That request for additional review was met with surprise. In hindsight, however, this surprise was misplaced, and the value of taking that additional time and honoring the process is difficult to dispute as the financial details clearly needed some more work. The purpose of today's discussion, as President Muntean had mentioned, is simple, publicly review the proposal, understand how we arrived at the language before us, resolve any outstanding questions, and then determine how Councilor Gostas should cast the city's vote on the RTA Board. With that, unless Councillor Agosta or Matt, who is the secretary of the RTA, I don't believe he actually is technically on the board, but is the secretary, would like to add anything, we can begin the discussion.

Okay. Well, thank you very much, Councillor Swintek. Councillor Agosta, you have your hand raised. Would you like to comment?

Yeah, thank you very much. Sorry, I'm still catching up to speed. I left town last Friday and actually just finished up some important family events an hour ago. So I'm still trying to kind of catch up with a number of things that have been happening here. But, you know, first of all, I want to thank the RTA board for actually the extra time that they're allowing city council to review the ballot measure. Obviously, you know, there was... some feelings of needing to to do you know to do that um but uh this is you know really in a critical uh piece of building vibrancy throughout throughout our valley and so um we want to make sure that everything is is um you know everybody is comfortable with the process we're moving moving forward here um counselor swintech made a comment there at the at the end talking about um we're still working through some numbers so yeah we we just uh you know We're a brand new authority within the state of Colorado, so we're still building things up. We just got our accounting firm in place. And so we're working through the numbers and we're working through the final numbers for the ballot language. And so actually we have our secretary and ballot measure committee foreman, Matthew Mendisco, online. And he can take us, you know, maybe through some of the financial sides that Councilor Swintek was mentioning here and to give some additional light to that. So, Matthew, if you are on, I would love to have you make a couple comments there.

I am.

Can everybody hear me?

Yes, we can hear you, Matthew. Go ahead. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. And Council Member Swintek, thank you for clarifying that I am the secretary. I'm not a voting member of the Yards. I gave you a promotion, man. You know, depends on how you look at it, I guess. If you're a staff person like me, voting makes you nervous. So, yes, thank you for all of the coverage there. I think those I don't have anything to add. What I would like to do for everybody is just get some contacts, share my screen so that we can walk through some of the questions you may have in terms of specifically just to the ballot. But I'm here to answer any questions for the RTA. financially, just in general. I have our budget pulled up. I have some of the numbers that would flow into next year. Should you have them? So first I want to give some context. in terms of the ballot language for those who may or may not understand why this number of what you will generate in the first year has to be in there anyway. And that is a TABOR requirement because while the proposed ballot question is the language in there, if it was to be approved, does debruce the RTA, for those who know what that is, basically allowing us to go above the 5.5% limitations and collect all the revenue that would come in without any impacts. You cannot debruce yourself for the first year. Tabor does not allow that, especially when you have a new tax, you have to hit a certain, you cannot go above a certain number. And so that's why this number has to be there in the first place. So I think just, you know, given that context, what I wanted to walk everybody through was first and foremost, I'll show you guys, I'm going to show everybody two numbers. The first number is going to be more of what I would call more of an exact number. And then we're going to account for what I would call a margin of error vis-a-vis the economy. Because The economy could go up by 5%, the economy could go down by 5%, generally speaking, looking at both Routt County's budget and the City of Craig. And I'm gonna go over why we are using the Routt County budget as well as the City of Craig versus say the City of Steamboat. So if I, I don't know if I can share my screen, but I'm gonna give it a go and we'll see if it works. Can everybody see a spreadsheet? Yes. Okay, perfect. And here I want to try to adjust this so that it is not covered. Okay, so what you see in front of you is final revenue increase based on each entity's actual budget. What we are using here, just for clarification, is we are using the 2026 anticipated revenue Sales tax collection for Routt County and the City of Craig. That is very important because these numbers are still coming in. So we don't know yet whether or not this number, you know, the $13,714,000. Routt County has a sales tax rate of 1%. And the important reason to use Route County is for two reasons. One, it applies over the entire county. So every time you walk into restaurant, every time you walk into any place where you would pay sales tax, you are going to pay this 1% outside of the second reason, which is Rowe County does not tax consumables. It does not tax the groceries, I guess is the common term that we use, whereas the city of Steamboat actually does have a sales tax that applies to groceries. Town of Hayden is the same. Town of Oak Creek is the same. Town of Yampa is not, but the city of Craig is. Why that's important is because authorities are not allowed to, they have to be in line with the state of Colorado exemptions. And you'll see in our ballot language, it actually talks about that. So it's important to note that Routt County and I went through all of their exemptions and I spoke with their finance department. Routt County is basically a mirror image of what the state of Colorado is. So it is a really good number to use. And I've had this conversation with your finance director as well. We both agreed that this was, you know, the really solid number. I also sparked with our accounting firm who literally got approved on Monday. But we spoke with this and they feel they've went over these numbers and they feel that they are solid. So Rowe County was anticipating to collect $13,714,000 in the year of 2026. Their local rate, you can see here is 1%. What that has is an implied taxable value of just over a billion dollars. But 100% non-food share, because again, I went over those exceptions. So if you come over here and you were to add based on their 13%, and you were to add a half percent, which is what is currently being proposed by the RTA in the question, obviously not approved yet, so still under contemplation. That generates a number, an additional half percent generates $6,857,000. That is for the entire county. And the RTA encompasses all of the municipalities in the entire unincorporated areas of Routt County, obviously, as well as Stebo. What that means is that, you know, 1% to 1.5% is a 50% increase in the taxable rate. But it's important to note that that doesn't, the 50% increase is not, you know, it's not as big a number as it sounds because you're only at 1% to start, right? So it's a half a percent increase. half a penny on every dollar you spent, etc. So does anybody have any questions? And then finally, you'll see this category here. It says 5% marginal for economic increase. So the one thing that you don't want to do when you go out to ballot measure for this first year is you really want to try not to be... Over. Like if you under if you under predict what you're going to collect and let's just say, as opposed to 6.8 million. And you can see at the bottom there it's a 7.481,438 let's just say we were to collect 7,600,000 well. In that first year, we would have to figure out how to deal with that from a TABOR refund standpoint because that first year does not allow us to collect above what we said we were going to collect. Also, this is for 2026. I understand I was actually at your meeting where, you know, Ms. Weber, your finance director, was going through all of the predictions and that the city of Steamboat, generally speaking, was, if I remember, I think it was 2%, but, you know, 1% to 2% maybe increase overall. However, you guys have seen historically up until this year, the city of Steamboat and its past budget says, you know, I've been anywhere from five to 8% route county has been the same five to 8% overall increases and their predicted increase for 2026 was 5%. So what we're doing is we're building in a 5% margin. And increasing that by, you know, that $6,857,000 number by 5%, that takes it up to $7,217,895. That may or may not happen. But it avoids us. It is a good faith effort to not only avoid a tapered refund, but it's also a good faith effort that you can look at the economy. You could say, okay, you know, Rowe County sinks at 5%. That's predictable. That's reasonable. And there's no penalty if you don't collect that much money. There's just a penalty if you go over. So if you collect under, it's fine. So I want to go with that. And President Mateen, I do see that your finance director has her hand up. So I could stop before I get the city of Craig.

Matthew, you've frozen on my screen. Is Matthew frozen on everyone's?

No, I can see him. And he's fine.

No problems here.

Yeah, none here.

Okay. Let's give him a minute then hopefully. Well, I can hear everybody.

Matthew's coming through loud and clear and he is moving.

Okay.

I can hear and I see that the finance director has her hand up. So I wanted to give her time.

Okay. Kim, would you like to unmute and make your comment or question?

Yes, thank you, President. I just have a question on where the $13.714 million comes from for Routt County, because according to their budget book, it was $15 million. So I just wanted to make sure we weren't understating it.

I understand. I had this conversation, Kim, with Sean, the new finance director over at Routt County. Routt County, what they do in their budget is their total sales tax number, it includes three categories. What they do is they have just general sales tax. Then they actually have building use tax. And then they have car, you know, motor vehicle purchases. Sean and I both agreed that the use tax number should be pulled out because it's not actually a sales tax. It's paid on the value of a home, but it's not a sales tax. But the car rental, you know, the purchase of cars and things like that, that was. So it's a combination of sales tax, the car combined, excluding that use tax.

Okay, so this would not be on vehicles or construction material like the school tax, like the city sales tax, like the county tax. All of our sales tax are currently on those. The RTA tax will not be on those items?

Yeah, that's a good question. So the RTA tax can tax vehicles because the state does. And then just, you know, non-consumables, as I covered. I don't believe the state applies a tax to building materials. Therefore, we can't either.

Okay. They do, but maybe they have it in a different category. So we might want to look at that.

Okay. And that, you know, we could put that in. Sean and I, you know, when we went through it, we were, because that's a building, you know, like it's on the value of, it's not like, I should say, maybe I should clarify. If somebody goes and buys a two by four at Steeble Lumber, they're going to pay. And that number is included in Routt County's sales tax number. The use tax number is when I go in and I pulled a building permit, I'm paying that based on the value of the structure. which is a, you know, Sean and I have in the conversation, that was a separate thing, not necessarily a sales tax, it's use tax, not sales tax, but they lump it in, in their budget, therefore we pulled that number out. But it's a good question. And so I should clarify, yes, we are going to charge the sales tax. This will apply, you know, if you went to Steeple Lumber or whatever, you bought a bunch of lumber, of course it's going to apply. I think for clarifications that, you know, this doesn't include use tax, that it's strictly sales tax. So, I mean, from Brown County's perspective, they lump that use tax in. I know the city doesn't. Town of Hayden does not. We have a separate line item that says use tax. We don't blend that in with our sales tax, but in their budget, it shows the three. And that's why it doesn't include that number.

Okay. Okay. Does anyone else on council have a question for Matthew at this point in time? If so, I see Councillor Agosta, your hand is raised. Go ahead.

You're still on mute, John.

Councilor Augusta, can you hear me?

Can you hear me now? Yes. Yes. Okay, sorry about that. Yeah, so this is just a follow-up with what Matthew was saying there. Basically, what he's defining is the good faith estimate process, and this is part of actually putting together that final ballot language. We did ping the our polling firm, the New Bridge, New Bridge about this and about, you know, what is the impact of the fact that we didn't have that final number in in the proposed language? And basically the feedback was basically what people were focusing on or where their their opinion is, what people are focusing on is feedback. is the impact of their pocketbook, which is basically the half a cent piece. And so they felt the half cent piece was the most important piece of this and that the good faith estimate is something that we definitely need for our voters, making sure that that is accurate. That's it. That's all.

Okay. Councilor Pacino, go ahead. Okay.

yeah i just wanted uh as we go through this matt thank you very much for this and the spreadsheet you're looking at so basically with the rta you guys were considering um not a specific city tax for oak creek and yampa and hayden but just to do one global route county half cent sales tax to capture everybody um i think what i would answer with is it's not um

This is not a entity-specific tax. This is an authority-wide. City of Craig included, the authority is considering just one question, one rate, and that's what's currently in the ballot language. I want to make sure that, you know, that those questions have been raised in the past. But currently speaking, I believe the RTA board via this question has been considering one rate for uniformly over everybody. That way, you know, equitably speaking if you're in yamp or if you're in steamboat or if you're in city of craig you pay the same thing so that's what the conversation has been no i appreciate it you know i would uh i would just you know uh councilmember augusta is on here you know if he wants to fill in more details you know by all means you know please do so but well the the reason why i say is that i know that we had talked during the formation group uh when we were forming this

And I just want the public to know, we chose not to do a property tax because that was definitely uniformed across the entire district. That would be a harder sell. We did discuss the sales tax and that our attorneys at the time, Kaplan and Kearse, discussed that it could be different in each municipality. For example, we could do a at 0.1% sales tax in Oak Creek, you know, different. So during your conversations as the new form, new RTA board is formed, this does look like a cleaner option to capture that all doing a countywide sales tax. So I do appreciate this conversation right now because it's a little different than what we talked about during the formation, but it does seem simpler.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor Pacino. Councillor Swintek, you have your hand up.

Thank you. My question, Councillor Agosta, you had mentioned on the process, and that's one of the big questions I have. My understanding would be that the process would be to finalize these numbers and then agree to the language on the ballot and then vote on it. But what you just shared with us is that the process was we're going to approve the language in the ballot. and guess the number that we're gonna use for polling to decide that language. Then once we have that information, we're going to agree on the number, we're gonna vote on it, and then we're gonna agree on the number. Do you mind pointing to me when in what RTA meeting that process was agreed that that's the best way to handle it and that is appropriate?

Okay, Councilor Agosta, do you wanna respond to Councilor Swintek?

First of all, there's multiple questions there. So, Constable Pacino made a comment about the variable rate, sales tax rate. And that way, actually, we did discuss the different options there. And we felt this was a cleaner model. And we didn't see any – we couldn't identify any rationale or reason behind to make it different per municipality when we're talking about an entire overall region. So that was a discussion, but we couldn't come up with a good rationale for making that difference. In terms of Counselor Swintek, you know, basically which meeting, which I don't have all the media agendas, you know, locked in my brain about when certain things were discussed. But, you know, I am certainly learning through, you know, basically, you know, let me back up. This is an iterative approach of finalizing the... uh, ballot language. And, you know, this is, you know, I, all I can say is this is part of the process is you're, is, and that is why you have different dates that you have to hit upon. Uh, the initial dates is basically that we were actually going to go to ballot. And when we said we were going to go to ballot, we didn't have the final, you know, language. And so we've been rather iterative in our, in our processes here, um, as we, you know, step through, uh, and, uh, As soon as you started asking your question, Tom Leeson, you raised your hand. I don't know if you raised your hand because you had a better insight of what that process is, but I'm not that process expert outside of the fact that um, you know, we're, we're, you know, we are, as you see now, you know, working through still the final numbers and, and the most important piece is basically when we go to ballot, we actually have, um, the, the true good faith estimates.

Um, okay. City manager, Lisa, do you have a comment?

Uh, yes, thank you. I just, I guess two things. One, I would say if there's no more questions for Matthew Mendisco's spreadsheet, we probably take that down. Yeah. Thank you, Matt. And then secondly, I just wanted to, for full transparency, I just wanted everyone to know that council Member Barnes did send counsel an email right before this meeting that's with respect to this meeting. And it's not in the rainbow agenda, but we will try to get that in the rainbow agenda as quickly as possible. And I would ask that at some point, President Muntean, that you call on Council Member Barnes so he can give a brief synopsis of that that memo that he wrote to you.

OK, thank you. Councillor Barnes, would you like to give a brief synopsis of that at this point?

Sure. I'm a little confused in the process of what we're negotiating here, talking about. I understand that the number has to be what it has to be for the ballot, and I'm sure the smarter people in the room will figure that part out. I thought we were talking more about just the initial ballot going forward and the ballot language. My memo just addresses the... paragraph about public safety and that I figured that it should be tightened up so that We have seven jurisdictions that are all weighing in on the RTA and just want to make sure that they can't sidetrack the RTA process, which has been formed for their own projects within their own communities, as well as wildlife crossing, passing lanes on Highway 40. So my memo is about changing that ballot language. The one thing I think the public deserves to understand if they're looking at the polling presentation is how did the financial numbers get so skewed or what is the difference in that? And I haven't heard anybody mention that. So the public information that was brought forth was based on a 1.25 number. It looks like we're looking at raising more than $7.5 million now. And not that it's material to the vote today. I'm 100% in support of the RTA, just not the broad language on what the money can be used for.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor Barnes. Councillor Agosta, you want to respond to Councillor Barnes?

Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. So, yeah. So, Councilor Barnes, you know, raises some, you know, interesting concerns. What I did notice in most of the items that he highlighted is basically that was part of the IGA language and not. And so basically the ballot, the ballot is coming forth before you in June. in the execution of the IGA agreement. And so the actual language that you're seeing there actually comes from what was agreed upon in the IGA. And so the ballot is not meant to change the IGA agreement.

Okay. Counselor Swintek, you want to follow up on that?

Yeah, to clarify though, the IGA states what is allowed. The ballot is deciding of those things, what are we going to implement? Is that correct? Because there's aspects of the IGA that are not part of this vote.

Okay, Councilor Augusta, can you respond to that?

I am, it's going to be difficult for me to basically, you know, so I don't have additional comment on that. Yeah, it's going beyond my area of expertise. In terms of how, in terms of, because these are asking, these are getting into legal questions, and I'm, you know, so I'm not prepared to answer from the legal standpoint.

Okay, Consular Barnes, a follow-up?

Yeah, I just believe that the spending requirements can be constricted by the ballot and don't have to be reflective of everything that was in the IGA. Maybe I'm wrong on that. I'm sure Dan Foote or whoever could weigh in on that. I thought the purpose of the discussion today was to talk about the ballot language and moving forward. That was my only concern on this is that you could have seven jurisdictions all wanting pet projects within their own communities about doing this sidewalk or about having this infrastructure done. To me, the RTA that we're selling to the public is about providing safe, reasonable transportation back and forth between the communities. And it's not about wildlife crossings. It's not about passing lanes. And it's not about other things that are pet projects of other counselors, commissioners, or other entities. And so I just want to be real clear that my support is for the RTA in figuring out transportation for humans and doing that safely on the I-40 corridor and the other surrounding things that are identified. Okay.

I'll weigh in. Just Jennifer Bach here, Assistant City Attorney, filling in for Dan Foote today. In the IGA, there is an Appendix C that includes eight initial service goals. And so the bullet points that are in the, I think perhaps folks who worked on the language can speak more to this, but I believe that the four bullet points in the ballot language are a subsection or a condensed version of those initial service goals that are in the RTA.

Okay. Thank you, Jen. Matthew, you have your hand up. Do you want to follow up on that, on Councillor Barnes' comments?

Yeah, so also I just wanted to clarify the role I'm the designated election official for the RTA or I've been designated as that so I'll be, you know, just in coordination with the county and everything else. Council Member Barnes, those four bullet points were reflective of people's, there was a, if you took the poll, there was a whole bunch of like reasons that came out of the IGA that are authorized in the IGA as possible uses of the RTA and obviously everybody, you know, approved that IGA and we have formed the RTA. Those were the four most important reasons that people felt the RTA should be moving ahead. But I did also want to clarify that the RTA, everybody just has one vote. And so when you talk about like pet projects or anything else, obviously the RTA board as a whole would have to vote on any specific thing, any specific project, et cetera. The ballot language, those points I think are meant to just convey, hey, we heard you through polling, here were the most four important things, but I don't believe legally speaking it is limit, you know, and I would be interested in the city of Seaboard Springs attorney the iga sets what the rta can do with its funding and whatever's in that iga is an eligible expense unless the iga was changed obviously and then you know that would be you know you could go through that process so um i think those bullet points were not meant to be legally bunny so much as just saying hey these were the four important points and here they are and we hear you and here they are so i just want to clarify that's how they ended up in the ballot language itself the RTA could easily pull them all out. That would not restrict the IGA and what allowed uses are in the IGA. They could easily just pull those reasonings out. So, yeah.

Thank you, Matthew. Councilor Swintek?

If we're referencing the polling, are we able to say with 100% certainty, though, that the fact that it says 1.25 has no effect on the results? I appreciate the numbers are getting finalized, would be getting finalized. We can't expect that to be a perfect number. But we're not talking about a small rounding error. We're talking about something that's five, six times off. So are we able to say with 100% confidence that the results were not influenced by this? Because otherwise, how can we 100% rely on the results right now?

Okay, that's a good question. Who feels inclined to answer that question? I'm not getting very many supporters for that. I will say this, that all I can throw out

In my opinion, you know, looking at that, this was the inherent reason why we needed to get together for this meeting. The polling was something that came late and it was incorrect on the assumptions of the dollar amount. So to me, the survey that we looked at is void for that purpose. And when it comes to the dollar amount, however, I still support this on a half cent sales tax because what we're doing differently is this becomes a Instead of generating 1.25 million, it generates a whole lot more. And so we just need to get that number corrected. The half cent sales tax to those that are voting in the poll that was went out is hopefully going to be somewhat similar because we're just generating more money with the exact same revenue stream of a sales tax that the county would impose. So I understand that the survey is now, in my opinion, less valid because of that incorrect number. It doesn't negate the fact that we're here today to talk about a half cent sales tax, which is needed to fund this RTA. And remember, about a year and a half ago, as the formation chair, we brought up a half cent sales tax that was in the newspaper regarding, hey, city of Steamboat Springs, this may come down the pipe. so to me the half cent sales tax is more the important aspect of it the actual numbers that are generated i think are less important but it would affect the polling but i think for our discussions today there was a couple things in the ballot language that Dave Barnes brought up regarding infrastructure that would be non-related to RTA, that we really need to consider not having that in this and use those funds for something else. When any infrastructure on the road should really be done through CDOT and Northwest TPR.

Okay, well now we're getting into kind of deliberating a bit here. Councilor Barnes, another comment?

Yeah, just final thing I'll say. On my proposal, it wasn't about removing the language. It was about limiting the amount of money that could be spent on those. So it wasn't about redoing the whole ballot language. It was about limiting the percent that could be used on that in any given annual year.

Okay. Thank you for that. Councilor Agosta.

Do you hear me?

Yep.

Okay. Okay. I have to take issue of anything of 100%. Is something 100% going to happen or 100% non-influence? No. Can you guarantee me 100% that you'll be able to fill up your car at a gas station in Steamboat today? Most likely, but it could be all gas. I think that's a pretty... off-track question. What we did ask Newbridge who are the polling experts is what they, what they felt as, you know, as the impact here. And they also said, I cannot, you know, we cannot a hundred percent, you know, tell you that that number being, you know, different when that impact, however, based upon their X, you know, their experience in polling as the, as a polling experts that they, that number is not the number people look at. People look at the impact to their pocketbook. So I just want to raise that is basically we did ask that question to Newbridge and they felt that the difference would be insignificant. If the council wants to say that it's totally invalid, well, that's council's decision, but the polling experts see this otherwise.

Okay, thank you. Jen Bach.

Thank you, Council Member Muntin. Just a clarification. So the ballot language is binding. However, it's been written very, very broadly. So I believe that's the intent is that it captures, I think it could capture all of the service goals of the IGA.

Okay, thank you. All right. Counselors, are we ready to entertain some public comment at this point? May I ask one question? Mm-hmm.

How, where did this 1.25 number come from? Was this approved by the RTA board and how was that calculated? And when was it approved?

Matthew, go ahead.

Thank you, President Muntean. The $1.25 million number came very early on months ago when we were talking about this. I think it was reflected in thinking about process, possibly what could be generated But I will say that, you know, I heard the other day, Council Member Swintek, you said, you know, when somebody asked, you know, why this was coming up now, whatever else, and you said that human error happens. I'm just going to say that the same thing happened here. And to be quite honest, that's why, you know, When I, you know, was designated the election official, you know, I started looking at all of the things that would need to go into the, you know, the ballot with our attorney, recognized the issue, and I believe we've resolved it.

Thanks. I really appreciate that.

Okay. With that then, not seeing anybody else's hand up, I'm going to Robert Underwood, Open it up to public comment and again the public comment is regarding our particular discussion today around the regional transit authority ballot measure. Robert Underwood, If anybody online would like to make a public comment, please raise your hand, I will acknowledge that and then you will be able to unmute and you will have up to three minutes, is there anybody online, who would like to make a public comment. Okay, I see Tony German, I believe, hand up. So if you want to unmute, state your name and your address and you have up to three minutes.

Great, thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Great. Good morning. I'm Tony German. My address is 27405 Brandon Circle. I'm actually a West Steamboat resident and representative of the Safe Crossing Committee. This group of concerned neighbors was formed in 2022 to secure a safe pedestrian crossing at Brandon Circle and Highway 40 to connect the neighborhoods and schools on both sides of the highway. I think it's one of the pet projects that was mentioned earlier, but I'm not here to speak on that. While we are still working on that, our committee has since broadened our mission to advocate for increased multimodal connectivity for the West Steamboat neighborhoods of Heritage Park, Steamboat Two, Silver Spur. And so now in addition to pedestrian safety improvements, we are also advocating for expanded bus service and core trail extension for our neighborhoods. I'm here today to urge you to put the RTA funding question on the ballot. Multimodal connectivity for the West Steamboat neighborhoods is long overdue. The Steamboat 2 neighborhood was built in the early 70s, over 50 years ago. Today, nearly 2000 community members reside in these three neighborhoods, just two miles outside of the city limits. West Steamboat was the original workforce housing for this town. Our neighbors are the firefighters, ski patrollers, nurses, mental health professionals, and teachers who keep Steamboat running. And for decades, we've been isolated. We don't want to be reliant on cars to get to the town that we work in, shop in, and serve. Multimodal transportation infrastructure would be life-changing for these residents. Being connected to our broader community, the downtown core, our jobs and recreation amenities is what brings quality of life to all Seamboat neighborhoods. The lack of infrastructure and connectivity is what you will find neighbors talking about as we meet at our mailboxes. And while we reside outside of the city limits, we do pay into this town. We contribute through sales tax every time we shop here, which being just outside of city limits is essentially our only option. And RTA gives us a real shot at changing that. So today, or sorry, changing our lack of connectivity. So today I'm asking for two things. First, refer this measure to the ballot so voters can decide. Second, as new routes are planned, please prioritize West Steamboat and the other unserved neighborhoods around the Valley. We would be proud to be among the first to gain connectivity and it would meaningfully improve the lives of the people this town depends on. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Tony.

We appreciate your comments.

Okay, Sarah Jones, you have your hand up. Would you like to unmute and give us your name and address? And you have up to three minutes, please.

Hi, Sarah Jones, and I am 31410 Willow Creek Road, so I am out of the city of Steward Springs, but I am here. I have been involved in the RTA formation since 2020, and I am currently acting as a volunteer to support both administrative and grant writing for the RTA. I obviously care very much about the RTA and in support of moving forward with this valid. And I am also encouraged by the fact that our current 0.5 sales tax would raise as much as it does, because that is what is necessary to create a robust regional transportation system. I know all of you are aware of how government works, but I wanted to just, you know, we have a lot going on as the RTA, the board of directors for the RTA. And I'm actually really proud of being part of it for the amount of work that we are actually able to accomplish in our short seven months as an organization, establishing a board of directors, getting our DOLA certification, retaining legal counsel, setting up all financial procedures and policies, securing initial funding through SCICOR and grant funding. We are now in the process of hiring an executive director. We have just hired a firm to support the creation of a website, branding, and logo. We are now currently working on determining the ballot initiative for funding at 2026 as part of this discussion. So in just a short time, we've been able to do quite a bit of work. So just to be aware of what's happening behind the scenes. I think Tony Germans said it well of the importance to the RTA, not only within the city of Steamboat Springs, but also across the region. And it's important as the largest city in the region to keep that in perspective. I also wanted to say that I am happy. I am the person who is putting all the documentation together, putting the packets together. I've done quite a bit of work in making sure we have all of the historic documents accessible through Google Drive until we have um an executive director hired and a formal system for the storage of those documents so if anybody is looking for information i am please reach out to me i'm always happy to provide additional information that might be needed so with that i ask you thank you for this discussion today and i ask you to to please support the resolution thanks thank you sarah

Okay, is there anybody else online who would like to make a comment? Please raise your hand. Okay, I'm seeing Matt Cooker. Matt, you want to unmute and you have up to three minutes. Please state your name and address.

Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes.

Awesome. So I'm Matt Kirker. I am the policy director at Western Resilience Center. We are located at 602 Oak Street in Steamboat. I also and my family and I are Steamboat residents. We are at 1103 Village Lane. I'm providing public comment on behalf of Western Resilience Center. As you all know, we're a nonprofit based here in Steamboat. Our mission is to serve as a leader, catalyst, and resource for building a sustainable and resilient Yipa Valley region. And central to this work is, of course, advancing local solutions. that not just increase resilience, but actively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So let me I'll get to that. I'll just start Western Resilience Center. We do support moving forward with this half cent sales tax funding ballot measure to help fund the Regional Transportation Authority. As many of you are probably aware, last year, the Route County Climate Action Collaborative completed a county greenhouse gas emissions inventory for 2023. And we compared this against the 2018 greenhouse gas emission inventory. So between that time, between 2018 and 2023, Route County saw a 32% increase in transportation emissions. and a 26% increase in our vehicles miles traveled. Vehicle miles traveled means emissions generated by cars and trucks driving in the county. So this emissions growth, what does it mean? It certainly reflects that our transportation needs really are come down to our workforce. We know that our workforce is geographically dispersed across the valley. So we believe that we must curb, we must ultimately reverse this growth in transportation emissions. And the RTA, if properly funded and implemented, can absolutely provide greater low emission transit alternatives that are convenient and are accessible. And this could include all types of multimodal connectivity. So at the highest level, we need to reduce our car dependence, and this would help us meet our regional decarbonization and resilience goals. I also want to briefly touch on three other key points, I believe, that relate to this measure. First, it's about the long-term health of our economy, right? Our workforce needs safe and affordable options to transit the valley. Study of the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority that serves communities between Rifle and Aspen found that the system generates between 67 million and 88 million annually in economic benefits, reduces household transportation expenses by more than $1,600 per year. So it's economic growth and sustainability. Second, it's about improving our road and transportation safety and reducing our congestion throughout the valley and on Highway 40 in particular. This is not a silver bullet with regard to traffic safety, but it will absolutely reduce the number of serious vehicle collisions and traffic related fatalities. Lastly, Western Resilience Center recognizes, and I know this council does, that affordability is top of mind to every local resident and every voter. So we recognize we have an affordability crisis. It's impacting everyone in this valley. So it's imperative that our local voters recognize that the purchase of groceries, prescription medications, and utility costs would be exempt from this proposed half-cent sales tax. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Western Resilience Center looks forward to continuing to actively support the RTA and have approved this RTA funding ballot measure. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Matt. We appreciate it. Paul, Boney, you have your hand up. Would you like to unmute? Give us name and address and you have up to three minutes, please.

Okay, thank you and good morning and I really appreciate your time and thoughtfulness on this topic. Today I'm representing the CAP Transportation Working Group, which serves under the direction of the Climate Action Collaborative Board and I facilitate that group. As you will recall, a key recommendation from the CAP Transportation Working Group back when it was formed was the formation and funding of a regional transportation authority and bringing the vote to the people for that formation of the RTA, which was done. And then obviously the final last step to make that important recommendation a reality is the funding of the RTA so that it can go from formation to actual implementation. So the CAP Transportation Working Group supports moving forward with the RTA ballot language and funding measure. So thank you for your time today.

Okay. Thank you, Paul. Bill, you have your hand up. Would you unmute, state your name and address, and you have up to three minutes.

Yes, good morning. Bill Jamison, Burgess Creek Road. I'd like to talk about your survey. The lack of, well, let's put it this way. The confidence level is what, 5.6%. So that's not exactly a screaming recommendation to go forward based on that survey. And the amounts, some may dispute the amount raised, but somewhere the RTA board thought that one and a half or two and a half million was an appropriate number to raise the paper in their article announcing this meeting put out the half percent and raising one and a quarter or one percent raising two and a half so given the time frame how are you going to sell seven and a half million dollars of revenue generated by a half percent sales tax. My proposal would be a quarter percent would be a whole lot easier sell and would still raise almost double what you were looking for, even with a 1% level at two and a half million in your survey results. So I think you need to think real hard about what that survey, the polling gave you and how much confidence you have going forward with a ballot measure with an error rate of polling of over 5%. And the sample wasn't exactly large of 300 across the county. So I think you're talking about the wrong thing here. You ought to be talking about how much revenue, not how much revenue you can get, but how much you need based on what you've put out publicly, both the RTA and their polling and the paper. As Councilman Swintek said, this isn't a rounding error. you know, 1.25 versus seven and a half million, excuse me, you got a credibility problem on a lot of issues. And the RTA didn't help themselves by coming out with these revenue needs in the polling. I urge you to consider carefully before you go to the ballot because a failure would be worse outcome than anything. Thank you.

Thank you, Bill. Okay, I see another hand up. Bill Pass, would you like to unmute and state your name and address? And you have three minutes, please.

Bill Pass, 1875 Hunter's Drive. I've heard a lot of positive comments today regarding moving forward with the RTA and a lot of laudable goals for the Valley. What I have not heard from anyone, including city council, is a serious deliberation about the benefits to the people that are going to be tacked in Steamboat Springs. I hear a lot of things about the benefits to, and it's very obvious that there's lots of benefits to the Yampa Valley at large, to all of the outlying jurisdictions that approve this RTA program. to the people that live in West Steamboat, as the one person spoke of earlier, that are not inside the city limits. However, what I have not heard anywhere is how this RTA benefits the people that are going to end up providing the vast amount of funding to the RTA, which is going to be the people that's here in Steamboat Springs. and the voters of Steamboat Springs. So while I agree the RTA is a good idea for the Yampa Valley, I just want to hear our leaders really sell it to the people of Steamboat Springs and how it's gonna benefit the people of Steamboat Springs. I certainly understand how it's gonna benefit the businesses in Steamboat Springs, but they're not being asked to pay this tax. You're asking through a sales tax for the people that are least able to pay this tax to be the one to bear the burden. you're not asking businesses who are the ones in Steamboat, at least, that are ones that are gonna really reap the rewards of the RTA. So I would urge our city council to really sell this to the people of Steamboat Springs if you want it to be successful. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Bill. We have one other hand up, Luke. You wanna unmute, state your name and address, please. And you have three minutes.

Yeah. Good morning. My name's Luke Phillips. I live on 619 Mountain Vista Circle here in Steamboat. And as my favorite journalist would like to say, I'm a vocal RTA supporter here with friends of the Yampa Valley RTA. I'd like to certainly just ask council to give Councillor Agosto and Swintec your support to refer this question to voters next week and let the valley decide for itself. Once the RTA refers the ballot issue next week, I hope perhaps council will consider a resolution of support. There's been a lot of great topics discussed today. I had some prepared statements, but I'm going to kind of break through those and relate these to some of these other comments. We'll see how this goes. Certainly how we all live and transit throughout this valley is going to be complex. Steamboat relies on people who live throughout the Yampa Valley. Thousands of vehicles come and go through the city, whether those are our teachers, our nurses, our workers, our patients, our customers. Every one of them is one car breakdown away from not showing up. We know Highway 40, safety issues, and the complexity of how do you build a transportation system across US 40. It's going to be complex that we're going to need a lot of experts help as far as how do you build a safe bus pullover, and is there going to be fences for wildlife around that bus pullover, and how do you build the station for snow, things like that. It will be complex. And obviously this is, you know, for our whole area, it's even impacted way worse when say Glenwood Canyon gets closed. So there's a lot that goes into this problem thinking about our region as well. Third, I like to think about a lot of the people I've met over the last year as I've been doing a lot of this advocacy work for RTA. A couple of experiences that I wanted to share, certainly a little while back in Oak Creek, I'd met a retired postal worker, a widow who told me about how getting around is a lot harder now than it used to be for her. And something else shared with me recently, when I think about Rock County, Rock County has, I think it's just over a thousand veterans. The regional VA clinic is out in Craig. How people get to appointments, finding a ride, that is a difficult process for this group. If we can make life a little easier for these groups and these people, this would mean the world to me and to them. Certainly affordability is on everyone's mind. Others have commented already. This tax is exempt from groceries and prescriptions, home utilities, things like that. As we see from our own Chamber's tourism dashboard, the majority of commercial activity, restaurant, retail, things like that, is money spent by those out of town. A good share of what's going to be collected here is paid by people who don't live here. What's raised here in the Yampa Valley stays here in the Yampa Valley. Even though Steamboat Springs is this commercial center of the Yampa Valley, a lot of the transactions and commercial transactions here are coming from people in the Yampa Valley as well. And so this money will stay in what's going to be considered really just our whole Yampa Valley community. And every community in this Yampa Valley has a seat on the board. And as well, none of these funds will ever be swept into anyone's general fund. It will all be managed by the RTA board itself. And as we know here for the city council, they have the goal of supporting the advancement of RTA. 9,400 people in this valley, 81% last year voted yes to build this thing. Just asking you to let them all decide how to pay for it now. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much, Luke. Is there anybody else online who would like to make a public comment? If so, raise your hand. Seeing none, I will close public comment and I'll bring it back to council for discussion and deliberation and understanding that our goal today is to provide direction to our council representative on the ballot recommendation on our recommendation in terms of the ballot. So. Councillor Augusta, did you have your hand up first?

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah. So, yeah, I like to comment on the public comments, a couple of things, because bottom line is we hear you. These are really valid questions. These are questions that we deliberate with within the board and on a regular basis. And so I just want to address some of those concerns that may be lingering. So, you know, I'm going to go back to, you know, first of all, I'll start with, you know, Councilor Barnes' concerns about the ballot language. And one thing I want to highlight there is that this is a multi-year agreement. This is not an agreement for a single year. And we are building out. And the multi-year agreement needs to tie back to the IGA. So we don't – the bottom line there is our priority is safe human transit. And that – and we want to make sure that we provide safe human transit. And we don't want to make – the IGA does not tie our hands – and try to limit the best solution. So if we need, as part of safe human transit, if we need to build a safer way to cross Highway 40 or to cross 131 so that people can get to the bus stops, we want to be able to do that in the most economical way possible and not have our hands tied as we've had with other tax entities. um there was a comment about um the you know the validity of the polling um there um the polling you know company um uh new bridge you know highlighted to us basically they felt that this was this was a very valid um uh poll and and the reason they they decided that 51 you know positive was a strong indicator is that because there was still 19 undecided and so because of that there was a strong belief that this was the the right direction to go and then there's a question about you know the value to steamboat seamless pain a lot of you know there's you know as i think luke phillips highlighted a number of those very well and it comes down to direct benefit in terms of the larger Yampa Valley versus indirect in terms of the steamboat residents. I always talk about the health of our small business and basically the lack of employer and lack of employees for our small businesses to hire is actually stunting our small business growth. And also people talk about housing, you know, and we want to build more, you know, they don't want to build as many houses. Well, having a good, reasonable transit, you know, provides that. And we will be talking about that over the next couple of months as we lead up to the, you know, up to the ballot language. And make sure that people are clear about the right about the choices that they're making for this as part of this ballot measure. So thank you.

Okay. Counselor Barnes.

Yeah, first, I'd just like to start off and thank everybody that's been involved in the RTA and especially Councilor Augusta and Swintec. But everybody that's had the ability to work on this formation, Pacino, who was there early in the process, I just want to thank him for all the work. And they have done an immense amount in the last seven months. Just speaking to Bill's comments, you know, these people that are coming into our community, they are the people of Steamboat Springs. They're the people that build, clean, and support, and serve all of us. And the benefits are just too limitless to list them all. The fact that the numbers were grossly misrepresented in the poll doesn't change my support. Although these numbers were readily available, in the fair and pairs report as patino pointed out on page 83 how those got lost in the translation not sure i am in support of this half percent sales tax and bring it forward i just ask that my um limitation on the ballot language be taken into consideration just to make sure that we are providing with the we are selling to the taxpayer which is all about transportation and not necessarily about wildlife crossings or passing lanes on Highway 40. I would just like that language tightened up. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Barnes. Councillor Pacino?

Yeah, thank you guys all, and thank you for the public comment. Although some of those public comments I do not agree with, I think that one thing that was very paramount is the 89% of the city of Steamboat Springs voted to form the RTA. And again, this is partly when, you know, as the formation chair, having that half cent sales tax discussed a year ago, we know that there was a fee attached to this some way, one way or the other. So, you know, what we're here today is we want to get something on the ballot in 2026 so we can start having a robust system. What we recognize, what I recognize is that it's going to be more expensive for people to live in Steamboat Springs. A half cent sales tax may not mean a lot to some people, but it could be devastating to others. The benefit that I think comes from this whole thing is having a robust transit system. And one of the public comments asked to ask for what's the benefit to those that are paying this tax. Bill, I asked myself that before the first formation. um vote was put on and what i was surprised on was that 89 i've never seen a ballot measure pass with 89 we have a understanding of the community that knows a robust transit system outside of the city of steamboat springs is vital to our whole yampa valley economy plain and simple You may not agree or they may not agree that it's, you know, what's the benefit we're going to get. It is so indirect that we can't sit here today trying to give you reasons that it's going to be a benefit from. Because there's people that have a benefit to it because they're in Oak Creek and they want to get here. There's people that want to live veterans. There's a lot of benefits that come from it. Overall, 89% of our citizens voted for it. So I'm going to stand on that 89%. and really step forward with the sales tax at 0.5%. We know we need to fund this. We need to get a robust transit system. That's going to change the economy of the entire county. So I do have a support. I would like to have a discussion a little bit about the memorandum that Mr. Barnes put out, kind of limiting the amount of infrastructure that's in this ballot language right now, because it is broad to the point where I know that it crosses over on some CDOT and Northwest TPR infrastructure that they can pay for. What we really need to keep focused on is the core service of an RTA. The core service is buses and moving people around. So individual jurisdictions, we can address it along the way, but I'm kind of one to pull that out, but I don't know if we're here to wordsmith it right now, Steve.

Okay, thank you, Councilor Pacino. Councilor Swintek.

Thanks. I am supportive of the RTA and I would like to see this progress to a ballot this November, but I am, I guess the best word is surprised. I am surprised that this has progressed so far with such serious gaps in financial figures. As was mentioned during the public comment and other counselors have highlighted, this $6 million gap is, over $6 million gap, is not a rounding issue. The county is basically asking for a 50% increase in their tax base. This is an outright error that was incorporated into pulling data that is then informing our decision and a decision that will directly impact constituents' wallets. And we have not even addressed other questions that are outstanding. Why weren't the polling results shared with the public and the board sooner than 20 minutes before the vote was placed? There is a discrepancy in the total number of yes in the presentation. It shows 51% support on the main page, 46% on other pages. Who and when was it decided that one half cent should be chosen over one cent as these results were presented to the board the same day this vote was placed? How was the 1.25 calculated and what is being done to prevent a similar error in the future? This speaks to process. This error and other outstanding questions tell me there was a prioritization of speed over process on the RTA board. And it makes me seriously question whether the board leadership is right for the job. We on council have been reprimanded for less. Our not following process resulted in Commissioner Macy's demands that our rep step down and be replaced, which did occur. And thanks to Commissioner Macy's advocacy and leadership at that time, I have learned through that process how important it is to respect the process. This jeopardizes credibility and our ability to deliver this needed service for our constituents. These missteps do not jeopardize my support for the RTA. And in the spirit of a supportive working relationship between the city of Steamboat, our county, our other municipalities and the RTA board, I would recommend either a rushed approach or a process-oriented approach. If we wanted to rush, I would recommend a support or approval today on the condition that the changes Councilor Barnes recommends are incorporated. A more conservative approach. Fund what the uninitiated would consider RTA, transportation funding only. If we did want to respect the process, as I know we all care about that a lot, I would recommend that we ask members of the RTA board for transparency for us and the community and come and present again with all these details during our September 1st council meeting to explain all these discrepancies and why this is the right time to do this and that despite these missteps, we are in a place for success. And those are the two things that I would advocate for.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Swintek. I did also want to raise here to Bill Pass's comments. As I look out on the Yampa Valley, I see almost everything now in a regional focus. It's not Steamboat, it's not Craig, it's not Hayden or Oak Creek or Yampa. You know, we have to have a regional focus on housing, on healthcare, on the workforce, on childcare, and on transportation. And, you know, it is we are so interdependent on each other in this valley and i think um you know we have to continue to focus that way so i think the benefits Tom Frantz, To steamboat in terms of our workforce in terms of our even our parking in terms of the stress level that people have given this. Tom Frantz, How many come in from so far away and and unsafe conditions and whatnot so what i'm hearing right now is i'm hearing, there is that we want to provide some direction. to move forward. I'm hearing a lot of support for moving forward with the RTA this November. I'm also hearing potentially some concern about the scope of what RTA funds could be allocated for and I'm going back and so I would like to at this point have someone make a recommendation here about the direction to proceed. I think we have two things I'm hearing. One is we can support this as is or one we can support this with kind of tightened up guidelines around what money can be spent on. I'm not sure though if the time frame is such that we can get that in or not, but I'd like to hear Which way should we proceed, Councillor Agosta?

Yeah, I'm taken back here. Because, you know, bottom line is what people are asking, what members of Steamboat City Council is really asking for is the change in the IGA agreement. The agreement that, you know, Councilor Michael Pacino has mentioned in terms of, you know, it was an 89%, whatever, 83%, you know, agreement across, you know, Steamboat. And what you're asking for is basically, you know, changing what, you know, the residents of Steamboat, of Coke Creek, of Craig, of Hayden have all agreed to. And so I'm, so, Instead of, you know, I'm struggling because instead of pushing forward of safe human transit across the valley, we're trying to limit ourselves. And I'm going to go back to the STR tax. I know, you know, people have, you know, this is way off the other side, but the reason I'm bringing STR tax is the way that ballot was written is really limiting some of the solutions that we could have. And so we're talking now as council is how do we loosen that up because it's so limiting in terms of how we're using those funds. And so, yes, the board is very committed to and its top, top priority is basically The human transit, it's really about buses. But we don't want to basically limit any type of solutions that will allow us to move forward. So I am in 100% agreement for moving forward in the current language and the current proposals that we have of today.

Okay, thank you, Councilor Acosta. Councilor Pacino.

Yeah, John, I appreciate what you're saying. And I don't want to change the IGA. That's not the intention. That is much not in intent. If the ballot language came from that and we need to include the wildlife crossings and stuff like that, I'm fine with that being in the ballot language because I trust... the elected officials that's gonna be on the RTA board and allow them to be able to make that decision whether we use the funding for wildlife crossings at that time. It was brought up in a public comment that that would be nice to be able to have the funding that is not tied to CDOT so we can get things done. I know as Northwest TPR and working with CDOT, some of our projects just take forever and sometimes years to implement, exactly like the Brandon Circle underpass that's going over between Steamboat 2 and Heritage Park. Much needed, working with CDOT, years in the making. Yes, having some funding mechanism on there to at least how the RTA can create that, I understand why we put that in the IGA. If it needs to be in the ballot language, I'm fine with that. I just want to make a point that we have to trust the board of the RTA, which is one elected official from all the jurisdictions, to divvy up and make that work when the priority is transportation. So I do have support for this, Steve, and I would make a motion that as written, I would move forward with it. and brian when you talk about the discrepancy on the fiscal um polling yeah that was a complete misstep by uh you know the direct whoever's leading that right now i think sonya is and it was a and she's she's fessed up too it's not a big deal i think overall we want to make sure that we have a funding mechanism to get an rta off the ground and we cannot We cannot depend on Ski Corps' $1 million a year to get a robust transit system. The entire Yampa Valley needs to partake in this. So this is why I want to get it on the ballot this year so we can start getting transportation for our citizens in the Yampa Valley, not just Steamboat Springs. So Steve, if you need a motion, I would move to approve the current language and move forward.

Okay, well, let's hear two more comments, and then we are going to provide direction here on that. So I had Councillor Barnes, I think you were up first, and then we'll go to Councillor Swintek and Councillor Barnes.

Yeah, again, just to reiterate on that amendment to the ballot language, it wasn't removing it completely. It was limiting it to 10% in any annual budget year. So those funds would still be available to do that. I just want to make sure that the taxpayer is getting what we're selling them, and we're not selling them wildlife crossings and passing lanes on Highway 40 and sidewalk improvements in local towns. We're selling them transportation alternatives.

OK, thank you. Councillor Swintek.

Yeah, I just want to address first, I am not trying to amend the IGA. I think it's great how it is. It's followed. It's come to us. We've all agreed to it. That is the wish list. This is a vote of what are we going to fund initially? And to address Councillor Buccino, I also I support getting this on a ballot in November. My recommendation would be, let's get it on the ballot this November, just if we're going to rush it, we should be limiting it to what the uninitiated would expect out of an RTA. Funding increased transportation, access to affordable public transportation. If we are trying to accomplish such a large thing like what we've outlined in the IGA, where we need public trust in our ability to properly allocate funds, then we should be having clarity of what's happened here and what are we doing to prevent this in the future. And we could do that during our September 1st meeting, and it still could get on the November ballot. That needs to be certified after the 1st. So that is why I'm recommending one of those two approaches.

Okay, so what I'm hearing, I think, is that Councilor Agosta and Councilor Pacino are in agreement of moving forward with the ballot initiative as stated. I'm also hearing, Councilor Barnes, that you, are you in favor of that or are you in favor of more Councilor Swintek's approach?

I guess I'd be more in favor of Councilor Swintek's approach, either or. I mean...

Okay, well, either or. I need one or the other from you at this point. I'm not sure we have the time to do that. I understand Councilor Swintek's September, but any changes like that would also have to go back, I believe, to every other jurisdiction and municipality and everything else. So I'm really questioning whether that's realistic, Brian, but could be. Yes, your hands up.

Yeah, I mean, I almost view it as we could decide on both. We could give direction that, you know, our representatives should vote in support, advocate, explain to the RTA board how we're feeling and place a vote if they agree to change it. If they don't agree to change it, that's totally fine. Then they can, our elected can abstain. And then in that same meeting, and we could agree on that as well, that we would like our representative to also ask for a presentation on the first. And that way the RTA board can decide how they would like to address this.

Okay, I got you. Counselor Pacino.

Oh, and I agree with that. Sorry.

No, yeah, I agree with you, Brian. And I don't have a problem with it. The only thing that I would like to give to John Augusta, our representative for the RTA board, is to really go back to limit that funding. Dave's idea of a 10% max per year gives me a lot of confidence that we're going to spend more money on buses and bus stops and things like that than we are underpasses for wildlife and safe crossings. There's other buckets of money for those elements. We do not need to include that. So limiting that gives me a lot of confidence on the ballot language. That said, I would still like it to go to ballot this year. So if that's a sticking point with the rest of the jurisdictions, I'm fine with the way it is. So I don't know what you want from us, Steve, except for a little bit of direction on that.

I want to give Councilors Agosta and Councilors Swintek direction on this. It's more of a thumbs up, thumbs down. But before we do that, I will go to our city manager, Tom.

Yes, thank you, President Montien. I might have Jen Bach weigh in, because I believe that when we talk to Dan Foote about this, we cannot abstain from a vote. So I think we want to clarify that, whether that's accurate or not.

OK. Jen?

Yeah, I'm looking at the IGA, and I know that The RTA needs four votes to pass any items. Four out of six members need to vote. And I'm trying to see if there's any abstention provision.

And maybe we can, if you need some time, Jen.

Yeah, give me a minute, I'll get back to you.

Just get back. Before Councilor Barnes goes, I want to just throw something out here. What I'm hearing is that there is support for moving forward with the RTA in November, on the ballot this November. And that is part of our direction. I think we have a majority here who would proceed under that based on what I'm hearing. The question is, we could also offer a recommendation around some of these other thoughts that Councillor Barnes, Councillor Swintek have around how that money might be allocated. Jen's checking on if you abstain, does that really mean a yes, a no, or an abstention? But I guess I would ask as she's looking into that, do we have support for going ahead with the RTA and also making recommendations around some of these comments made by other counselors, but not hold that up as going to be, withhold our support. Councilor Swintek.

So I would not support going and just making a recommendation. And if they deny it, we vote yes. Purely because we've learned with this, we've been admonished for much less on the RTA of sharing a piece of paper and speaking to a paper. So I'm really concerned. We're talking about dollars here. So I don't think that it's appropriate for us to make that recommendation and for it to be disregarded. And then we just vote yes. So I would recommend if we do that, I would like us to vote no in that case. Okay. Counselor Barnes.

I would agree with Councilor Swintek. I think it's a really small ask, but I think it's a really big measure for the people that are going to be funding this so that they understand exactly where their dollars are going to be spent. And I think if you asked anybody in that 89% poll, if they were wanting to fund wildlife crossings, the answer would have been zero. So I agree with Councilor Swintek.

Okay. Jen, do you have any update?

I don't see any mention of abstention in the IGA, but I do see language in there that states that resolutions are passed upon the affirmative vote of four out of six members. So I don't think that if the city's representative did not vote, it would be counted as an affirmation. You need to affirmatively vote yes in order, and they need four votes, four out of six, two thirds majority to pass any item, including this resolution.

Okay, so could I have from either Councillor Swintek or Councillor Barnes, what are you advocating specifically? Because we're not in a position to recommend here direction to, unless we're specific around what this includes. So both of you have thrown up different avenues for that. Can I have more specificity around what you are really recommending?

My recommendation is to ask Councillor Agosta to ask the RTA board to present on September 1st and get us comfortable with these gaps so that we can move forward with the ballot language as written. Secondly, I would ask Councillor Agosta to recommend limiting the language only to, if we are going to move forward with that vote on that next RTA board meeting, to remove the language related to safe crossings and public safety and just purely focus it on transportation. If they do not support that, and they do not want to come on September 1st. But then we vote we abstain or we vote. No.

Okay. Council of Barnes is that your understanding as well?

I agree with that.

Okay, so we have 2 people who agree with that perspective. Counselor Augusta. Councillor Pacino, you're raising your hand that you also support that perspective? Is that what I'm seeing? Yes. Councillor Agosto, right now we have three out of the five who are supporting Councillor Swintek's recommendation as direction.

Yeah, I don't quite understand half of it. And that is basically he wants the board to present on September 1st. So he's asking... So it sounds like he's asking the board to convene as a joint session with the city. That's what it's coming across as. And so I need to, I guess I need a clarification of what is meant by, you know, he wants the board to present. The second thing in terms of limiting language and you want to remove safe crossings. Well, safe crossings is critical to any transit system. If you cannot safely cross Highway 40 or Highway 131 to get to a bus stop, then you are not providing safe transit. So I'm really confused by what is being recommended here and how that helps our community in its transit. I understand the aspect of the wildlife crossings, but basically what Constance Swintek said is safe crossings in in and that's what he said um i strongly disagree with that i can clarify okay hold on counselor swintech go ahead and respond

So you raise a good point. Let me bring up the specific ballot language, but it's the second or the third and fourth bullets in the ballot language of what is being proposed is what we're talking about limiting spend on. You do raise a good point. It's a critical part of this. So maybe what we would change that to, Councillor Barnes' recommendation, cap that at 10%. So recommend the RTA board, we vote to approve. As long as bullets two and three, the spend on that is capped at 10%. I view that as the prioritize rushing over process option for the RTA board. If they want to prioritize process over rushing it, then my recommendation would be, please come and explain these gaps that I highlighted. And if they rewatch this meeting, they will understand what's going on. How has this happened? This is not simple rounding error. And how can we be assured this won't happen in the future? Rebuild that trust and transparency and confidence with the public. And if they would like to go to ballot with the way it is written right now, then please come September 1st and let's have a community discussion and I'll get on the same page so we can all stand behind the language as it is.

Okay, so your latest recommendation now is that if they cap it at 10% on bullet points two and three. Three and four. Excuse me, three and four. Yes. Okay. And we have the support of Councillor Pacino for that. Councillor Barnes, I imagine you support that as well.

Where are you at, Steve?

I'm getting there. Counselor Barnes, do you support that? He got his thumb up. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see. Yes. Okay. So we have three for that. Now, if they come back on September, remember this, we will be back to, again, does that give enough time for them to turn it around? I don't have the answer for that. Do we have any feel for that, Tom, if that gives them time to turn this around? No.

I do not know. I'd have to defer to Jen on that for my timing or Matthew and Disco.

Okay. Jen or Matthew, any thoughts on timing around that if we do this approach?

I would just say the ballot language needs to be submitted on September 4th. So I suppose what's on the table is the RTA meeting with council on the first, and then the RTA would have to subsequently vote on their ballot language after the first, and they would also have to be able to properly notice that meeting. I don't know if that's anticipated by the RTA.

Okay, so we're unclear at this point. Councilor Barnes, one final comment on this?

Just to be clear, if they were to adopt the 10% limitation on that, they wouldn't have to come to the council meeting on September 1st, correct? If they took that recommendation, or am I misunderstanding that? That's correct. That is correct. Okay. Well, they have a very easy path forward to getting this on the ballot. Okay.

And I would recommend just a point of order here. Recommend that we share a screen with this 10% language because I don't believe we've been able to post it yet. So would you guys mind if I shared my screen so that everyone in the public can see this?

That's a great idea.

That would be great. Thank you. Please do that, Jen.

Okay.

I hope I don't see.

And just for the public knows, this is something that Dave Barnes put together just in the last 24 hours or so. And it was emailed to council today before the meeting as an alternative.

That is the wrong one. Okay. Let me, I'm notoriously bad at tech. So let me stop sharing my screen and get you the right one.

Okay.

Do you guys just see my desktop right now?

Yes. We saw a word, but it just went away.

I don't want you to see.

Okay.

One second. Are you guys seeing it now?

Yes.

This word document with the, I'm trying to zoom in on this 90% language.

which is under which one number? Oh, I see number 4.3.

I believe I'll let the council members clarify if that is what they are discussing.

Yes.

So I have to say, I don't know a lot about the ballot language, but it looks like this is going to take us beyond the max wording of the actual ballot language and that you can get into more detail in the detailed resolutions. But in terms of the actual ballot language on ballots, on the ballot, um, this exceeds the, I believe this will exceed the, the, the word limit.

Well, I mean, I think the RTA board, if they listen back, they would be able to hear what we're trying to articulate and make words.

But you, but you have to be very clear on, on, on what you are agreeing or not agreeing to. So if you, if you are, so are you saying that we can come up with our own language and,

No, my recommendation is to limit the, so in the ballot language as it's currently written, there are four bullets that's including improving transportation options for local workers, providing affordable regional transportation.

Can someone put up those four? Instead of just hand-waving, I think we need to bring that up onto the screen so we all can see exactly what we're doing because we need very exact information.

Okay, who has that? Who can share their screen on that? Matthew, why don't you go ahead while we're trying to sort through this?

Well, one, I can bring up the language if you give me a moment. um because i have it being the designated election official i could show you the actual ballot question as it's drafted currently with the revised you know uh with the revised number in it and then you guys could see um you guys could see that if you would like um did you have another comment on this discussion um I was, okay, I have the ballot language up, so if you guys would like me to share that, I can.

Please.

Okay. Here, I'll just share it. One second. Does everybody see my screen? Are you going to zoom in at all? I can do that. One second. Okay.

Is that better? Yeah. Okay, so let's look at those four bullet points, correct? Correct. So the first one, enhance public safety, decrease accidents, provide safer alternative residents and workers. We're all fine with that, correct? Yes. Improve transportation options for workers, seniors, visitors, residents. We're good with that? Yes. Well, that's you, John. Is everybody else... I assume participating in regional planning for future commuter rail between Craig Hayden Steamboat. Are we okay with that?

A max of 10 cents on every dollar could be spent on that bullet and or the fourth bullet.

Provide affordable options to, and the fourth, but does that satisfy everyone? Wait a minute.

I want to make sure you guys are clear. You guys are want to limit. commuter rail? So I'm going to clarify, because this is spiraling.

Wait, this is out. This is one person, please. May I clarify once again? This process has been rushed. This has been rushed. It has not followed a clear process. If we want to rush without the guardrails of process, I'm fine with that, but we should not be asking for everything that we want on the RTA. So therefore, we should take a more conservative approach and tell the voters we are only spending these funds on what the uninitiated would expect out of an RTA. Busing, public safety, public safety, the one and two, transportation, buses. If we want to follow this process and not rush it and ask for what we want and build the confidence with the community that when we get $8 million, we will spend it appropriately. I'm on board with that, but then we need transparency and what has happened and why, what has, what gaps in the process have happened so that this won't happen in the future and the community can trust us that when we spend dollars, they will be properly allocated across these four items. We're addressing a process problem that has happened. That's what I'm recommending.

Okay. I can... So I cannot... I mean, what I heard from, you know, Councilor Barnes was basically the limitation of things like wildlife crossings. And now we're limiting... that no funds could be sent on, or only up to 10%, I guess you're saying, could be sent on computer rail and spent on affordable regional transportation options in the area. I'm sorry, I'm wrong.

I read this wrong.

I mean, that's not the whole thing we're doing.

Wait, apologies. Councilor Gosta, let me apologize. I am wrong. You are correct. I was assuming these four bullets were the same as what was presented in the polling data. So I am very sorry. I read this wrong. You are correct. Let me just read through this. It would be the commuter rail. The third bullet should be limited.

There is no mention here of some of these other potential projects in these four bullets.

Right. Okay. So it would be the third bullet. I'm very sorry. I was wrong. You're right, Councilor Gosta.

You are suggesting that you're fine with this, with the removal of the third bullet, or if only a certain percentage of the money can be allocated towards mountain rail? Removal of third bullet. No participation in mountain rail. So now, okay, let's... Let's try to zero in on this page because I think we have two examples here. What are two possibilities here? We can look at this page and we can say we agree with this, these four bullets. And if we agree with these four bullets, then the direction is to proceed with the November ballot. If we agree with three of the four bullets and want mountain rail out to move this forward, are those the two options we're talking about now? Counselor Swintek says yes. Yes. Sorry again for the confusion. Okay. So with that... This is different than what was in the polling data.

So it may interject here, Councilor Routine. So this language is very different from what Councilor Barnes had communicated. So what I heard from Councilor Barnes is basically if we remove the animal crossings, then we're good. This doesn't say anything about animal crossings here.

That is correct. We are confusing two different documents. at this point in time so so does that mean that well hold on this is the document that is in this is the proposed language correct jen matthew yes yes this is the part of this is on the back side of that resolution that you all have right this is what the voters will see and this is how the money would be allocated It doesn't say anything about wildlife crossings or whatever. So if we agree on these four bullets or three out of the four bullets, that's the direction we provide. And I think Councilor Swintek agrees with that. And I assume the rest of you do. So the only question is, Do we want to proceed with the four bullets as is? So I would ask right now, how many people want to proceed with the bullets as is in this document? Was that a yes from you, Michael? Was that a yes? You want to proceed as is? John, you want to proceed as is? As is. Counselor Barnes?

Yeah, I mean, again, we have so many different documents floating around.

Well, this is the document that the residents who are voting are going to receive.

I understand. It's the very first bullet point was where all my information comes in under. And that transfers over to the wildlife crossings, the passing lanes on Highway 40. That's where the broad language in this, to me, does not dictate... What we're going to be spending money on. So, I mean, I want to move forward with the RTA. I ask for the consideration of what I put forward by the RTA board when they meet. I will vote yes to move forward.

I do not see anything in these four points that speak to what you're talking about.

The enhancing public safety on Highway 40, when you go into the resolution document of the Regional Transportation Authority 2026-026, it states right in there, transit enhancing public safety by maintaining and improving pedestrian access, crosswalks, wildlife crossings, and participating in the future commuter rail service. That was the point that I was speaking to. I understand, but that very first bullet point is what gives all the latitude to use money. I mean, it would just be a travesty if we allocate $4 million to wildlife crossing in the first year of this transit authority. That is my concern. I am not going to hold it up. I'm just asking for consideration in tightening that language. Okay.

And Councilor Swintek, you're fine with this except for bullet number three. I agree with Councilor Barnes.

It's except for bullets one and three. One is too broad and three is not in scope.

Okay. So Councilor Pacino, you're in agreement with the four. Councilor Agosta, you're in agreement with the four? Yes?

Yes, I'm in agreement with the four.

And Councilor Pacino, you're in agreement?

Yes.

I am. I'm in agreement with the four points as stated as well, but I would like to suggest that we offer up our recommendation on some of the thought that Councillor Swintek and Councillor Barnes has around that and see where that goes. But I think at this point in time, we have a three to two majority to give Councillor Agosta direction to proceed. But I would throw in that wording of Councilor Barnes and Councilor Swintek to see if there is any movement or interest on the part of the RTA Board.

My ask is to be very clear on what is being asked because we already had a misstep here in this ballot language that we go and bring up the resolution and be very clear about what you're asking for as a change in that resolution.

Do you want me to outline it based on this language?

I want to see what exactly what you want changed.

If you could delete bullets one and bullets three in that language, that's what I would like to see if we're not getting a presentation on September 1st.

From the current proposed ballot, you want to remove one and three?

One and three.

okay uh tom yeah i just i just would remind um council that the four bullets that are in the ballot are the exact same bullets that were in the polling so you're asking you're asking them to change what was in the polling so they were asked yes the 1.25 was was a different number But they were asked, the voters were asked whether they would support the ballot language that included these four bullets. So if you're going to change those four bullets, then you're changing what was asked of the voters.

I just would like to respectfully push back on that, though, is that we have a lapse in process. What was presented to the voters was not accurate. So I totally hear you. But that's the stance that I'm coming from. We have majority on council. That's fine. I think we're on the same page.

Yep. Okay. Are you good, Councilor Augusta?

I'm good with the part one of what you're asking me in terms of giving me guidance. What I'm hearing is giving guidance and approving of the ballot language as listed here. But it sounds like there's a recommendation that you'd also like to have as part of that, and I'm not clear on what that recommendation is.

Okay. I don't know how we get more clarity on that, given the fact that it would be changing what was in the polling. I think where you have direction at this point in time is that with three out of the five support to vote yes on Monday. Is that clear? Correct.

Is that clear? Yeah, that's clear. Yeah.

So if we want to also consider some of the comments made by Councilor Barnes and the Swintec, I'm certainly not against that bringing up consideration for the entire board to discuss. I'm just not sure if we do have clarity around exactly what that is or is it what Consular Barnes says around not more than 10% to be spent on certain things.

President Muntean, I would suggest you go ahead and have a motion and move forward with whether the council supports the ballot language and giving direction to Councillor Augusta to vote. And then I would then say if there is a motion by council to ask the RTA board to change some language in the resolution, that would be a separate motion.

Okay. So would somebody like to make a motion, please?

I'd like to make the motion to approve ballot language as listed and as presented.

Okay. Do we have a second on that motion? Second. Okay. We have a motion by Councilor Agosta, second by Councilor Pacino. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay.

but really we're voting on whether how councilor goes to place a vote. We're not really voting on the language, but I think we all got that.

Was that just one nay I heard? Was that correct? Councilor Barnes, did you vote yay or nay on this? I missed. Yay. Yay, okay. So motion passes four to one. Is that clear, Councillor Agosta?

Very clear. Thank you.

Okay. Now, is there any interest in a second motion as more of just a recommendation to the board at this point in time?

I would totally agree and move to add a 10% max on that area. on that one bullet point and see if the RTA board would wordsmith that in the last run of the ballot language.

I'm going to weigh in here. What Councilor Barnes drafted appears to be a limitation, I believe, that would need to go in the ballot language. If you're talking about The resolution is talking about sort of recitations about how this works, but the ballot language is actually, that's where you're asking the voters what we're spending this on. So I would say that I'm not sure that changing the resolution would get what you want. It might belong in changing the IGA. I think the RTA would have to talk to their attorneys about how to make that happen. I don't know if it's the right place in the body of the resolution, at least the way that Counselor Barnes drafted it in his memo. So that's just a note of caution. On that, not sure it's possible to do that in the resolution rather than in the ballot language. So just wanted to be clear before you guys just debate that. Okay.

Thank you for that, Jen. Councilor Swintek, you have a raised hand?

Yeah, just in the interest of time and simplicity, since four to one approved the language as it's written, I guess what I would ask, counselor goes to recommend would be to consider postponing the vote again to then come and present, just to speak to all these gaps that we've talked about in the process at the September 1st meeting. And if they decide not to do that, he can place the vote for yes. If they do decide to do that in the interest of transparency, then wonderful, they can postpone the vote. rather than us carve up the language, I think that may be the easiest and most simplistic way to address these concerns. Okay.

Thank you for that, Councillor Augusta.

The resolution that we just agreed to did not call for me to call for a postponement. It called for me to agree. So we'd have to cancel this resolution in some form or fashion to do what Councillor Swintuck is asking for.

Councillor Barnes.

I was just going to pile on to Michael's resolution, but since that doesn't seem to be in order, yeah, I mean, I'm confused at the process. Like Brian has said, this has been super rushed. I think we're doing a disservice to everybody at this point, but... not going to change my vote at this point i'm on the record as saying that if if they're spending money that they should be spending it in places where they shouldn't be spending it they'll be they'll be the ones that reap the rewards of that and i could just add in thank you jennifer buck for saying what you said i think the ballot language is written uh well enough

The 10% is something that the board can allocate accordingly, and that could be done on an IGA level and not necessarily on a ballot level. So I would prefer to not keep that even 10% in there because that would limit the ballot language.

Okay. I am not hearing overwhelming support for moving beyond what we already have agreed to. Is that fair? Councilor Pacino? Yes. Councilor Barnes?

Yes.

Councilor Agosta?

Yes.

Okay. And I feel the same way. So I think we're just going to proceed with the majority as to what we've already, the motion we've put in place and we'll leave it at that.

I'm just glad we've had this conversation, y'all.

okay so with that i'm just going to close off that discussion we have one more thing on the agenda and that is opening it up to anybody online who would like to make a public comment on any other subject that we did not discuss on the agenda today so is there anybody online who would like to make a public comment on any other topic please raise your hand at this time seeing none i will close public comment and ask for a motion to adjourn our meeting Motion to adjourn. Okay, motion by Councilor Pacino, second by Councilor Barnes. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All right, everyone, have a great day.