City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Please find your seats. Welcome to the Westminster City Council meeting of September 4th, 2026. Please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you all for joining us this evening. Please remember that our meetings are governed by the rules of decorum posted inside the chamber doors. We ask all attendees to maintain a respectful environment. No disruptions, threats, or audible expressions of support or opposition are permitted. Signs and placards are prohibited and all attendees must remain seated in designated areas. If you wish to speak during public comment, please sign up in the lobby. Sign up closes at 6.45 p.m. Roll call, please.

Councillor Barajas.

Here.

Mayor Carmelia. Here. Councillor Azadi.

Here.

Councillor Haught. Councillor Ireland. Here. Councillor Johnson.

Go Broncos.

And Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela. Here.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to excuse Councillor Haught? Councillor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to excuse Councillor Haught from the September 14th City Council Meeting.

Mayor Pro Tem? Second. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela? I move to approve the minutes of the August 24th, 2026 City Council meeting as presented. Thank you.

Councillor Brahas?

Second.

Thank you. Any further discussion on the minutes? Nope. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Excellent. That brings us to this evening's presentation and we have one presentation this evening. Councillor Ireland will present the proclamation for Constitution Week.

Can I have the ladies up that are gonna accept this proclamation? Okay, we're gonna get a picture at the end too, right? Wanna introduce yourselves?

My name is Joyce Thomas. I've been a member of Front Range Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution for about 18 years. I have with me Mara Nelson, who's the regent, and another member, Linda Blanchett. And we've been doing this every year. We try to get all five cities that are in our area, and that includes Federal Heights, Thornton, North Glen, and Broomfield.

That's great.

Mm-hmm. This is a pleasure for me because I have actually extended family that are Daughters of the American Revolution. So it's in my genealogy anyway. So thank you for letting me do this. Whereas it is a pleasure and duty of the American people to commemorate the 237th anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America with appropriate ceremonies and activities, and whereas every American shares in the legacy of liberty, and we are grateful for the courage, conviction, and sacrifice of all those who have helped preserve and uphold the principles of free society. And whereas we remember the enduring importance of the Constitution, we also recognize our responsibility as citizens to respect and defend the values of our founding fathers and participate in the unfolding story of freedom. And whereas in the celebration of signing of the Constitution and the recognition of the Americans who strive to uphold the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, the Congress, by joint resolution of August 2nd, 1956, requested that the week of September 17th to September 23rd of each year be recognized as Constitution Week, with Constitution Day being on September 17th. Now, therefore, I, Claire Carmelia, Mayor of the City of Westminster, on behalf of the entire City Council and staff, reclaim the week of September 17th through September 23rd 2026 as Constitution Week 2026 and urge all citizens to study the Constitution and reflect on the privilege of being an American with all the rights and responsibilities which that privilege involves. Signed the 14th day of September 2026. Thank you so much. She wants to add something.

I'm sorry, I want to thank Mayor Pro Tem and Council for approving this proclamation. We strive every year to get all five from the cities that we represent. And also I wanted to say that anyone can join DAR, any woman can join DAR. There's an organization for men called Sons of the American Revolution.

um i've been a legacy member for about 18 years my patriot was from pennsylvania and he served in the pennsylvania militia as a colonel thanks thank you you want to share about yours i'm linda blansat and my patriot was in the revolutionary war out of new hampshire so it's very interesting to study your genealogy and find out all the interesting things that your ancestors have done.

Thank you.

And my patriot was born in Ireland, but he got here in time to fight with Washington's army in New York.

Thank you for sharing, and thank you for accepting the proclamation.

Thank you very much.

We'll gather for a photo real fast.

Oh, okay, yes. Do you want to join us? Sure.

Thank you so much. This brings us to public comment. Public comment is an opportunity for the public to address City Council on any issue or items pertaining to city business unless there is a public hearing on the topic. Tonight there are three public hearings. A public hearing amending the 2040 comp plan to establish a density bonus and revised definition for affordable housing and establishing a parking reduction. a public hearing on the proposed 2027 budget, and a public hearing on the proposed 2027 and 2028 stormwater fee changes. If you are here to speak on any of those three items, please hold the comments until the public hearing is called. During public comment, each speaker will have up to three minutes for their comments. Staff will follow up with questions and outstanding issues. City Clerk, would you please report the number of email and voicemail comments received, the number of individuals signed up to speak, and call the first speaker to the podium.

Yes, we didn't receive any voicemails. We got two emails, and we have 13 live speakers. The first speaker is John Herman. Perfect. Thank you so much. The next speaker is Genesis Lee.

Welcome. Hi, guys. Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Sorry.

Just making sure that's not too loud. Hi, my name is Genesis Lee and I've been a renter in the city of Westminster for seven years and I'm part of the United for a New Economy. I wish I could say it has been great, but in the seven years, my family and I have dealt with inhabitable living situations, some that are life-threatening. Some of the locations we have lived at are Bradburn, Westbury, and Mountain Terrace. While living at these complexes, me and my family lived through mold, water leaks from our ceilings, AC units catching fire, and plumbing issues that caused flooding in our main areas. Honestly, the list goes on. My point is, my kids shouldn't have to go through this and no family should. Sorry, I have three kids all under the age of six that have disabilities. Disabilities that require proper living conditions, which the apartments of Westminster are not providing. That's why I'm here tonight to share my story and bring this power to the vote. In the end, every person, every family deserves a safe home regardless of where they live, what they make or what they look like. The update to the residential rental code and IPMC helps give renters like me the protection needed to hold unresponsive landlords accountable to safe living conditions. After reviewing the ordinance draft, we did notice that there were some elements that raised some questions and concerns, but we do have questions about the fine structures, self-certification options, and the possibility of relocation assistance. I urge the council to support the IPMC adoption with these amendments, especially adding language about mold and also to later pass the city rent escrow. Thank you and have a good evening.

Thank you. The next speaker is Tony Torres.

Welcome.

My name is Tony Torres, I've lived at the atrium for nine years. I am a retired Vietnam military veteran, a unit steward for AFL-CIO, and a member of UNAID. I'm a proud community member, always working to support my family fellow workers, and country. For most of the nine years, I was embarrassed to welcome my seven children, my 17 grandchildren, and my 40 great-great-great-grandchildren, and three great-great-granddaughters. into my home as I was dealing with flood, pests, unsafe conditions for years. My bathroom fan caught on fire and wasn't replaced for years. And my carpets were filthy before I moved in. I dealt with water damage in the walls and ceiling because of burst pipes, broken boiler, infestation of roaches, bed bugs. My apartment wasn't the kind of place I wanted to bring my family to and they didn't want to come as well. It took months of working together with my neighbors and UNE to fix these issues. Fighting to make our corporate landlords hear our voices and the issues in my apartment have been fixed, but it shouldn't have taken that long to fix it. When we come together and put together housing policy to work for all of us, we can stop conditions like these from ever happening again. That's why I need you to put the laws like IPMC in place, hold corporate landlords accountable, My story isn't the only one. And if we don't put rental protection in place, we will continue to have corporate owned slums in our city. I urge you to vote yes on IPMC and code update after incorporating some final changes and to make the next step on implementing a city rent escrow. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Bev Bishop.

Welcome. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Bev Bishop. I'm a homeowner and a small landlord here in the city of Westminster. I only have one rental house, but I take pride in providing that family of tenants with a safe, healthy, affordable place to live. And that's why I'm here this evening. As a landlord, it's my duty to provide housing that's safe and up to code. And this is something that I've always been able to do, even though my pocketbook is much smaller than the large corporate landlords. Tenants hold up their end of the lease by paying their monthly rent. And per the official lease contract, it's the responsibility of landlords to uphold their end by ensuring that all the units are habitable. If a tenant misses rent, there are steps that I can take to receive that rent payment. But when landlords fail to address living conditions, it can go unnoticed for years. It shouldn't be this way. Everybody in our city deserves a safe place to call home, regardless of how much money they have. I urge you to pass this ordinance with the remaining submitted amendments, which include adding references to mold, reducing the unintended harms to our unhoused population and providing more clarity around owner versus renter responsibilities. I then urge council members to stand with tenants in taking the next step of passing a city rent escrow. The bad living conditions of these big corporate complexes really need to be addressed. And fines apparently have not been a strong enough deterrent. Every landlord needs to be providing healthy housing, especially these corporate landlords who own a large stock of housing in the city of Westminster, and they have definitely the money to make the necessary repairs. Thank you. Thank you.

The next speaker is Anthony Gonzalez.

Welcome.

Thank you, council members and the mayor. My name is Anthony Gonzalez and I am a renter in Westminster and a member of United for a New Economy. I rent the atrium apartments and have dealt with many issues. The issue that has caused me the most stress and money has been the ongoing nonstop cockroaches. My apartment has been infested the entire time I have lived at Atrium. They have ruined my electronics, which are my most expensive items, and the Atrium has put a major burden on me in the process of pest removal. Constantly, I am told pest control is coming tomorrow and I need to move all of my things. I am disabled and moving my entire kitchen is no small feat. And then they never show up. time and time again. This causes me exhaustion and fatigue that can put me down for days. It is also embarrassing to have guests over and uncomfortable to relax in my space that should be my safe space. One of the updates to the rental inspection program that I find most exciting is they place the burden of pests on the landlord, not the tenant. Currently, it is seen as a tenant problem when they have infestations. This is not true. The majority of the time, usually entire buildings are infested due to a lack of maintenance and improper pest removal. I urge the council to vote yes on adopting the IPMC with amendments and to also take the next step of implementing a city rent escrow. It shouldn't matter if you have a small landlord or a corporate one, every tenant in the city needs safe and healthy housing. I also want to recognize Carl McGurl, a member of United for a New Economy and neighbor of mine who passed away earlier this year. He was a huge part of this process and I know he is proud of all the work we have done to get to this moment. Thank you for your considerations.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Micah Gonzalez.

Welcome. Good evening, Council and Mayor. My name is Micah Gonzalez and I am here today in support of the IPMC adoption and rental code update. I have seen firsthand the effects of unsafe housing on my son. Watching him continue to go through infestation after infestation and not getting the help he needs to resolve it has been a nightmare. All a parent wants, no matter if your kid is five or 40, is for them to be safe in the world. My son isn't even safe in his own home. Every renter in the city should have a guarantee that their home will be in good condition. By improving the rental inspection program, we can take steps toward making that a reality. And if we take the next step of implementing a rent escrow to hold corporate landlords accountable, the city will be one of the safest for renters in the state. Council, I urge you to vote yes on Bill 38, taking our amendments into consideration. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Don Wickles.

Welcome. Thank you, Madam Mayor, esteemed Council. I'm speaking on behalf of my daughter. Unfortunately, she wasn't able to make it. She's having wisdom teeth cut out, which I should be there instead of here, but this is how important this is to her. I'll read it as she wrote it. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Elise Wicks. I rented an atrium apartments and I'm a member of uni. Through organizing with my neighbors, we were able to get the atrium inspected multiple times by the city. We continued to bring city staff and council in to see firsthand the issues we were dealing with. Non-working heat, infestations, our stairs nearly detaching from the buildings and more. By bringing the city in and staying on top of our corporate landlord, we have been able to make real improvements to the living conditions of our homes. The stairs have been replaced and updated so we can now safely reach our apartments. The laundry room has been renovated and the machines updated. The potholes in the parking lot have been filled. There is a new pest control company to replace the older, lacking one. By voting yes today on implementing the IPMC and rental code update, we will be able to replicate what we have done at Atrium to all the older buildings in the city. Our organizing is what ensured repairs happened. Without it, the barriers in the rental inspection program would have never been uplifted. We need a Westminster where the city can hold landlords accountable for providing basic living standards. Again, in support of the city rent escrow because a fine isn't enough to get corporate landlords to fix our issues. We need a way to hold corporate landlords accountable to provide every tenant in Westminster with safe housing. Thank you. And I can tell you as a father, it was bad. I mean, even when my daughter lives in building one, They literally took a metal rail that had rotted away from the other section of the metal rail, connected it by a two by four, and then painted it black to match. I don't know about safety standards. That's not it. Y'all have a good evening.

Thank you. The next speaker is Michael Berry.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Michael and I live at Park Place on 92nd, Maparta, Unai. While calling Park Place home, I have experienced many living condition issues that have affected my health and safety as a tenant, including upon move-in, a 45-day wait to fix an inoperative dishwasher filled with black mold. a month and a half wait to replace a fridge that couldn't maintain a temperature below 50 degrees and outside doors that don't close all the way and require extreme effort to operate contributing to utility bills that rival those of an entire house that's why i'm here this evening by updating our code to match the international property maintenance code the standards for our apartments will go up. Updating the code protects us as tenants against health and safety threats in our home and also lays out stronger enforcement to deter bad actor landlords from allowing unlivable conditions. The majority of apartment complexes in our city for low and middle income renters are older buildings. If upkeep is neglected and there's no oversight or enforcement, then us as renters are bound to live in unsafe conditions. As many of us have experienced, I want to live in a city where every person, regardless of income, lives in a place that is safe and healthy. It shouldn't be a luxury for our homes to be livable. It should be the bare minimum. As well, updating this code would be good for the city and for landlords. By improving and repairing the old housing stock, we increase the number of units we have available for low and middle income people. Renters will have more options in our city because of the increased protections boosting the local economy. Once this ordinance is passed and the amendments we submitted are addressed, we urge council members to stand with us in taking the next step of passing a city rent escrow. This will allow us to address our living conditions in a quicker way since so many of us rent from unresponsive large corporate landlords. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. The next speaker is Eden Grawis.

Welcome. Hello, Mayor and City Council. I've never done this before, so I didn't think to prepare a speech. I'm here to talk about, oh, my name is EJ. I'm here to talk about block cameras. I think we should follow in the footsteps of many other cities in banning them completely from Westminster. I think that a lot of people bring up concerns that are valid, like abuse of the system, like people who are authorized to access the system, even law enforcement personnel have been known to use the data to stalk people, which is not good. There's a lack of consent, like often these cameras are installed without voters having any say in them whatsoever, even though sometimes voter taxpayer money is used for them. So that's not good. I think that also when I was in one of the shopping centers today, I realized there's no way in or out of it without passing a block camera, which is an issue. But I also wanna raise some red flags specifically for you from my perspective as a senior software developer. So I've been a software developer for 15 years, and I have some cybersecurity concerns. First of all, you know that Flock and other similar license plate reader systems, they send their data to like a central database. And a lot of them have data retention policies that are really not sufficient. They can retain data anywhere from like 30 days to several years. And in that time, the longer you retain data, the higher there is a risk of somebody hacking into it or maybe even a disgruntled employee giving somebody a password or selling data or somebody that didn't pay attention to their cybersecurity training. like compromising something because of a phishing attack or a social engineering attack. So that, you know, and given the fact that these systems also sometimes can take your other data, like your cell phone data, like they can also get that and that's all stored in a location that can be hacked, like that's really risky. And then of course, there's the risk of AI and just the inaccuracies of AI, which if I had an hour, I would go into all the cybersecurity risks associated with AI hallucinations and inaccuracies, which we've already seen because people are racially profiled and targeted based on AI data that's obtained from VLOC. And we just don't need that to happen. So yeah, I'd like us to consider based on security issues and fairness issues, banning them completely from Westminster. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Julia Frenad.

Welcome. Welcome. Good evening. My name is Julia Friend. I'm a Westminster resident. I'm a homeowner and I share concerns about Westminster's proposed moves to high density housing. I think single family home ownership is the bedrock of American society. High density housing with reduced or no parking creates many problems such as strain on neighborhoods and pedestrian safety due to increased street parking and traffic congestion. Lower quality of life for residents due to limited privacy, noise pollution and social isolation resulting in mental health and psychological stress. It also harms child development. There's fire safety and emergency access issues as high density buildings complicate evacuation, especially for disabled residents. Developers pass on the higher property and liability insurance premiums to renters. Dense populations also cause higher infectious disease transmission rates. So who benefits from high density housing? Well, it's not the public because we pay for it through tax credits, subsidies, and reduced property values. It's the large developers and institutional investors who reap the rewards because high density is a direct profit mechanism as affordable units are subsidized by the government. The residents lose quality of life because it's negatively impacted. The core argument against high density housing is that its policies are causing home ownership to fall to dangerous levels. Home ownership is foundational to a stable, functioning, safe society. Home ownership is a causal mechanism that enables the nuclear family to function as society's base unit. Home ownership enables marriage and reduces divorce. It makes for safer communities and builds generational wealth. Why doesn't the Westminster City Council create a policy to promote family stability and home ownership, as well as addressing the renter concerns for those who do need to rent? The policy would include fiscal incentives, zoning reform, and direct subsidies designed to lower barriers to single family home ownership, thereby accelerating family formation and strengthening the social fabric of the community. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Heidi Einholz. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, City Councilors, City Manager. My name is Heidi Einholz, and I'm an 11-year resident of Westminster, and I come to you today to discuss how water usage affects families. So I am the leader of a family of five, and I have three small children. And I've seen over the years how children affect how much water we use. It goes up between the daily washing machine, the dishwasher, the water balloon fights now and then, the bath. We use a lot of water. And I also tend to garden. I have fruit trees, and that requires water as well. But one thing that is consistent is that I never top off, I never use more than 8,000 gallons of water, even in the summertime. That means that my bill is never higher than $120 a month. And I find that this is consistent in my neighborhood with other families that are similar to mine, as well as landlords who have tenants about the same five people ratio. And I wanted to bring this up because it is, Hard for me to hear over various city council meetings that the average family requires 16,000 gallons of water in order to thrive, that our city looks blighted because lawns aren't green and lush. One thing that I have done and many of my neighbors have done, convert our lawns into water-wise plantings, drought-resistant plantings, and we... we have a beautiful, resilient neighborhood without having to go into higher, more expensive tiers of water usage. And these are all important qualities. We wanna have thriving communities. We want to have fun. My kids definitely still go out and play in the brown grass. It goes into hibernation or dormancy every summer. We know this because we can look at the front range and we see that's what it looks like naturally. The fact that we're embracing this idea of green, lush Kentucky bluegrass grass as our standard needs to alter because we are dealing with drought and we are consistently seeing higher temperatures. If we can change our perspective of what makes our community beautiful, we will see that we can use a lot less water and spend a lot less money and still have a wonderful community. When my kids really need green grass, we go to one of our many, many beautiful irrigated parks where the kids can run in all the green grass they want. At home, I still grow peaches, I still grow fruit because I love that my family can see nature and enjoy homegrown food. So thank you so much for considering that. And I hope that I have shed some light on what an average family really does use. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Karen Frizzo.

Welcome. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and members of City Council. My name is Karen Prezzoni, and I'm a longtime resident and business owner and managing broker of KO Real Estate. I have approximately 40 years of experience in property management, residential sales, foreclosures, and housing policy. I've sold more than 3,300 homes in my career. I'm asking city council to temporarily pause the approvals and construction of high density residential housing until Westminster can complete an updated independent analysis of current housing needs. The real estate market has changed. Currently there's an abundance of vacant apartments and listings. Listings are taking longer to sell, prices are dropping, and buyers are still struggling with high prices and high interest rates. Multifamily attached density housing is saturated and we don't need more. Foreclosures are up and we're still absorbing recently completed apartment construction. There's another less obvious pipeline that needs to be addressed, and that's with foreclosures on the rise for the first time in a dozen years, most of those homes will never come to market for purchase. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are actively selling pools of default loans to private equity, and many of those homes are being kept as rentals. These are the same landlords who are price gouging and not maintaining habitability, and more are coming. Just in the last 18 months, approximately 23,509 mortgages were moved to private equity, representing about 4.4 billion in default loans. Under the new federal housing law, 119-101, homes acquired by default are not required to be sold to the public like they used to pre-2024. During the last recession, those homes became REOs and I sold them. Now with private equity purchasing default mortgages in bulk and later acquiring title, they're still allowed to keep those as rentals under the new law. We're facing two housing supply questions. One is how many new units should Westminster authorize? And two is how many existing homes are being removed from the owner occupant market and funneled to private equity and being held as rentals? I would respectfully ask the council to first identify the number of residential units already approved under construction, completed but vacant or proposed in Westminster. Second, evaluate the current market trends, specifically vacancies, foreclosure filings, and active listings and price reductions. Third, tracking institutional acquisitions of Westminster homes, including properties obtained through foreclosure, indeed in lieu of foreclosure. And finally, adopt a legislative policy supporting an owner-occupant disposition mandate for foreclosures. When institutional purchasers acquire a home from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, distressed loan sale, that property should be placed on the open market as an affordable housing opportunity. Thank you so much.

The next speaker is Jim Fenimore.

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, Jody, Barbara, staff, community. It's been a little bit since I've been up here to see y'all. I figured I'd better show up. I thought I got lost. Just an update, the quiet crossings down in Old Town are coming together slowly but surely, but I continue to watch them to get progress. Looks like they're gonna have the one on 72nd finished fairly quick. So it's gonna be great for the community to quiet it down with their train horns. So secondly is there's a light pole on the northwest corner of 84th and Federal. It's right out in the middle of the pavement, outside the sidewalk perimeter there. And so there hasn't been a barrier there. I would hate to see someone come flying down there, slam into that light pole. It's the existing light pole. needs to be something put there to protect it and keep people from slamming into it so i don't know we can do something about that be probably appreciated um The Pillar of Fire has got started on their implement shed. So that's under progress. So that's gonna be good to see that project started and completed for those folks. So that's a good plus for the community, because that's gonna be a nice addition. Lastly, I've had different people confront me about the grass and the grounds around city hall here and i've just been giving them the excuse that it's fresh grass that's been planted and you know they're saying you know daggum grass is up you know 12 14 inches tall and how can the city actually enforce code to other people and other places within the city when the city itself does not mow its own grass so i'm telling them hey it's new grass it just got planted this last year i'm hoping that from now on out that you know they let it go this long so that they could get the extra seed off of it this year and make it thicker and more rich uh i hope not i'm hoping i'm not a liar when i spoke out like that so hopefully from now on out we'll be able to keep that mode down to where code enforcement's not in jeopardy of not being able to force its codes throughout the city. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The next speaker's Tom Lampo.

Hey, thanks a lot. It's good to be here. Hello, Westminster. Hello to you in front of me. I'm Tom Lampo. I'm here to lift Westminster up to the Lord in prayer. So please join me in prayer. Heavenly Father, in Jesus' name, we thank you for giving us this day. We welcome your presence here now as city business is discussed, and we welcome you wherever we are. Westminster is your city, blessed with prosperity. You fill our lives with experiences that create emotions and feelings within us. You let us experience growth through the life we live. Sometimes there is pain and disappointment, and other times there is joy and fulfillment. No matter, you are always with us. Joshua 1, 9 states, Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid. Do not be discouraged. For the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go. We can't see the future. We don't know what lies ahead. We'll walk with you and find comfort in knowing you are always with us. Our schools are in full swing. Some parents are relying on others to transport their children to school. A lot can happen on the roads. Conditions change quickly and decisions need to be made just as fast. So to all the drivers of our buses that transport our children, we give them Proverbs 3, 5 through 6, which states, trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways, submit to him and he will make your path straight. Keep our drivers in tune with you. Focus their attention on the safety of our kids. Grant them wisdom in changing situations and keep everyone safe on our busy roads. There are a lot of messages that confront us each day because there is a spiritual battle for our souls. The deceiver would like nothing more than to keep us from your presence. And even with all our wisdom and knowledge, we will still fall for the schemes of the devil. So tonight we claim for our lives, Ephesians 5, 6 through 10, which states, let no one deceive you with empty words. For because of these things, the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore, do not become partners with them. For at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. We seek you tonight to walk with us and to keep us from the messages that bring deceit and lies to us. Let our trust be in you. You are our God and we are your people. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Thank you guys. Have a nice night.

Thank you. That was our last speaker. Thank you so much. City Manager, did you have a report this evening?

Mayor, thank you. I do have a report this evening. Abby, if I could have the next slide, please. By way of community and city update, I want to confirm and announce that we do have a community update meeting tomorrow night, and that's regarding the Moore Middle School property, and that's a preservation... of that property for public use. So the city is working with Jefferson County Public Schools to preserve that former middle school property, which is located at 8455 West 88th Avenue as a public asset. So we are beginning with community engagement and we're committed to making a thoughtful transparent decision that reflects our community's priorities and values. We have multiple ways to engage already ready to roll starting with again tomorrow night right at City Park Recreation Centre. We'll have a community update with Mayor Yu and City Council members and staff from 5 30 to 6 30 p.m. So we'll share out the status of the Moore Middle School property And then we'll talk about some options, and then we'll get into a discussion with attendees at that meeting. So that'll be an open dialogue. And then on September 30th, we do have an open house on the Moore Middle School property, and that will be also at City Park Recreation Center, and that will run from 6 to 8 p.m. that evening. And then also our new platform for engaging on major initiatives in the city, Our Westminster. So that's live, our.westminsterco.gov slash mooreproperty. So residents and other stakeholders can get right onto our own stakeholder engagement platform and start engaging with us that way as well. Next slide, please. All right, we do have a very full agenda tonight, a lot of items up, and I have three slides to cover what we're going to work on together tonight. This is in large part because we did not have two past Council meetings for the last two Mondays, so this is a bit of a catch-up evening. We've heard already our proclamation for Constitution Week, in your packet and available for the public review are two information only items from me. One is on vacant developable land in the city and that's by way of an update and City Council requested us to report out on that and so that report contains a lot of valuable information around all of the city's land that is not developed and where it sits and what it's zoned for. And then next is an update regarding the housing lift program agreements with Maker Housing and Foothills Regional Housing. So those are both in packet. On consent, we have five items tonight and one of those items has been removed from consent and will be voted on by Council separately. We do have public hearings, as the Mayor noted, three of those. The first one is a public hearing and first reading of Councillor's Bill 39, and that is to amend the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to establish a density bonus and revised definition for affordable housing. Also, a first reading of Councillor's Bill 36, amending the definition of affordable housing and establishing a parking reduction. Next slide, please. The two other public hearings this evening, one public hearing on the proposed 2027 budget. I do want to highlight that this is the opportunity for our community to provide comments to City Council. So that's the purpose of the public hearing tonight. This is not the meeting where City Council engages with the public on the budget. This is strictly for the community to express to you their thoughts on the budget. Next Monday is when Council discusses that input that we received tonight and the draft budget before you. The next public hearing is also on an element of the budget and that's the proposed 2027 and 2028 stormwater fee changes and again we're opening that up for public comment tonight and that will be acted on at a separate later discussion with City Council at an upcoming agenda. All right for new business we have tonight first reading of Councillor's Bill 37 and that's modifying the Westminster Municipal Code or WMC to modernize business tax administration. We also have a first reading of Councillor's Bill 38 that's amending the Westminster Municipal Code to adopt the International Property Maintenance Code and enact the Residential Rental Code and this is the one that we did receive many speakers commenting on that tonight and that was very helpful and I want to acknowledge and thank our friends at UNE and other speakers who spoke to this tonight. Next up we'll have first reading of Councillor's Bill 40 that's amending the Westminster Municipal Code to implement water sewer and reclaimed water rates and fees as well as a first reading of Councillor's Bill 41 to establish a Utility Affordability Advisory Board. Next slide please. All right, under Old Business, we have a second reading tonight, and that is Councillor's Bill 34, and that will conclude and enact the exemption for infant formula diapers and feminine hygiene products from the city's sales and use tax. And finally, we have a second meeting this evening, and that's a post-meeting study session of City Council, and that will be next door in the boardroom. The first item up will be a discussion of the down payment assistance program. That's an overview from staff, and then discussion and direction from City Council. And then second up will be a presentation on homelessness prevention, response, and resolution. So this is a much requested update from the community and city council on the status of these three efforts in the city by way of an update and also discussion and direction from city council. Next slide, please. This week is a busy week after this evening tomorrow night Tuesday September 15th. I want to highlight again we do have our monthly community update meeting with the Mayor and members of City Council that will be at City Park Recreation Centre from 5 30 to 6 30 and that's focused on the Moore Middle School property remaining a public asset. on Wednesday, September 16th this week. We have coffee with a cop and puppies. That's at Cozy Coffee at 14694 Orchard Parkway. This is open to the community. Please drop in and have a conversation with one of our police officers and a puppy that will run from 10 a.m. to noon. Also on Wednesday, special permit and license board meeting right here at the City Council Chambers at City Hall, and that will run from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. On Thursday night is a meeting of the Elections Commission. That's happening right here also, just next door in the boardroom at City Hall, 6.30 to 7.30 p.m. On Saturday, events downtown, Summer Sounds, live music at Aerostat Park with Shakedown Street, and that will run from 6 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on Saturday night. And then on Sunday, also at Aerostat Park in downtown, is a continuation of the Summer Yoga Series, and that will run from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Next slide, please. At our next meeting of City Council, it's a study session meeting right here at City Hall on Monday, September 21st. That begins at 6.30 p.m. We have two presentations up that night. The first is the review of the proposed 2027 budget, so the public hearing tonight will allow community members to provide you with input, and then next Monday will be your discussion of the proposed budget for the City. Next up will be a presentation from Jefferson County Public Schools. So that will be an interactive session with Jefferson County Public School officials. And then finally you do have one executive session and that is a discussion of a personnel matter and that is the annual review for me, your City Manager. Next slide please. And finally, as always, there's multiple ways to contact the City. I do want to highlight that we do have our transparency portal that is updated daily and that provides full and complete accounting of where every dollar at the City that we are entrusted with, where that is spent. And also new is our engagement portal that I mentioned earlier, and that's our.westminsterco.gov. That's all I have, Mayor.

Thank you so much. Does anyone have questions for the City Manager? Okay, seeing none, then that moves us on to City Council reports. Council, who would like to go? All right, Councilor Brajas.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, thank you, City Manager, and thank you, residents who came to speak. Jim, I drive by that poll all the time, and it almost seems like a goalpost to kind of go through it on the opposite end that I'm not supposed to. I think there are... traffic cones that are kind of blocking it but you know I echo the sentiments of trying to ensure you know I know that there's a long-term plan for it but if we need kind of short-term planning for safety I think we can address that as well so thanks for bringing it to our attention it was a really busy I guess couple of weeks since it's been a while since we've been back I just wanted to shout out a few kind of high-level events the snowplow rodeo was really great. It was really nice to see not only the camaraderie with our public works and utilities team, but also getting those kind of hours in training checked off for our insurance and making sure that we're covering our costs that way. And I really appreciate the members of the team who were there to answer all of my questions. I think what I appreciate the most about attending these employee events is being able to ask a bunch of questions and learning a ton. So please forward my thanks to them. The employee appreciation barbecue was this past week. And I know it's a little weird for the employees to kind of have a city councilor sitting with them eating some food and stuff. But I really appreciate the generosity, again, to answer all of my questions. So thank you for that. I had a chance to attend the rally here on Thursday that UNE put on and I want to thank the members of that organization for being here tonight and for being there also on Thursday. I am convinced that without your presence we wouldn't know what we do know about the living conditions of our community. And so never stop speaking up. And I hope that you can hear a receptive audience on this dais to hear your concerns. And thank you for speaking tonight as well. I'll save some comments for kind of when we discuss that as a body as well. I had another chance to go to the wellness court this a couple of weeks ago, the wellness court graduation. It was actually a really kind of important one for me to see since I had never been to one before as a city councilor, and we had not only a graduation, someone who graduated from the wellness court program, but someone who also had to stop the wellness court program as well, so you kind of saw both ends, and it just kind of speaks to these alternate you know, even though they might cost money, even though they might cost time, I think these alternate sentencing programs are incredibly important, particularly for the successes that they give and for the continued touchpoints that our law enforcement and judicial sectors have a chance to kind of have that continued touchpoint. So I thank the, you know, our municipal court for hosting me there. This past weekend, the Growing Home Picnic was, there was the Growing Home Picnic this weekend that I was honored to attend. I had a chance to chat with some of the employees of Growing Home and we had a chance to share that both the city and Growing Home are looking for avenues to continue ensuring that Growing Home is in Westminster and doesn't find kind of a new location as they find a new physical building to occupy. So I remain hopeful and committed that we're going to be able to ensure that their services, their much needed, very valued services stay within the city. And I also had a chance to hang out with our friends in South Westminster at the Bev Capra Memorial Artisan Market. And I just wanted to thank our, you know, Assistant city manager door and the team who really went You know ensured that the city showed up as best as we could to ensure kind of a safe as safe as possible in the midst of the construction You know a safe physical plant improvement or, you know, barriers and covering of holes and stuff that, you know, while not the permanent fix, you know, I was glad to see some of those concerns that had been addressed, addressed. So thank you for that. And I think, yeah, we have a long meeting tonight. So thank you.

Councilor Rosati.

Thank you, Mayor. First, thank you to all the speakers. I think you know that you have a receptive council here, and particularly the rental inspection folks. I think your comments are not only heartbreaking to know that you're living through that reality for all these years, and we've heard about these concerns for a long time now, and we're finally doing something about it. So thank you for being here, and I'm looking forward to support that tonight. as well as the future rent escrow. I think that's going to be very key to the whole puzzle. To Karen, thanks for your comments. I think the point you made about private equity purchasing foreclosures is a really important one. And I think that's one that I would definitely be asking questions about to staff to make sure we get a handle of that luckily earlier this year we we as a council we put forth a analysis for figuring out if we had how much of our housing stock is owned by corporations so that was that piece was done but i think this is a unique piece that should be looked at because that is growing and That was the purpose of why we did the first analysis is because we are trying to forecast and we can sort of foreshadow what's to come, right? And we know it's gonna get worse, the corporate ownership and the consolidation. So thank you for bringing that up. And...

I'm sorry, this is not a back and forth and thank you all so much for your participation and care. You can reach us via email afterwards or if you find us in the hall.

I could talk to you afterwards too. So to continue my new tradition of thinking of elevating staff members that I hear about from the community that have done exceptional jobs, last week I'm the liaison for the youth advisory panel here in Westminster and we had our meeting last Wednesday and there was a special guest presenter, his name is Jacob Garland. Jacob Garland works in the sustainability office here and His presentation was so good. I'm still hearing feedback as to how much, not just the kids, but the adults in the room, we were all super impressed. He's freshly out of college, and it feels like, and he's a new employee here, it feels like he's been here for 20 years. He's one of the best presenters I've ever seen. I told him that he's in the top 99, he's the top 1% that I've ever seen. adult or otherwise. And he just did a great job. He was calm. People are saying he was empathetic. He was composed. They said they felt like he's been here a long time. He just knew how to talk to different audiences, and he was holistic in his approach. So Jacob, if you're listening, your presentation was well received, and you are a star already here in Westminster. So thank you. I wanted to bring up my food drive. I host the annual food drive. The fourth annual food drive is this year. It starts in a couple of weeks. It's for all of Westminster. Last time we raised almost 10,000 pounds and fed 6,000 people. The typical recipients have been Growing Home and Fish, and that remains the case as well. So this year, Growing Home and Fish of Westminster, they're two food banks. they will be the recipients of whatever we're able to raise these next few months. This year it's grown, so we have 22 sites that will be collection sites. These are small businesses, all our city rec centers in Westminster, plus a whole bunch of small businesses, there's a list. We're gonna get up to 30, so we'll have downtown Westminster businesses, we'll have a lot of for participation. And there'll be boxes at each location. There'll be volunteers that pick up the food. So we're trying to expand the reach because it's a tough year. So I'm not sure if you guys are aware, but food right now, food costs, as we know, grocery costs are bad. But the programming is going away. There's a lot of cuts to SNAP. A lot of cuts to food banks. Food banks are closing across the city, across the state, the country, because funding is going away. So there are a lot of residents that are suffering right now, that are gonna be hungry on Thanksgiving, they'll be hungry Christmas time. So if you're able to help and Get whatever you can, boxes, cans to this food drive. Please do. You'll see it soon. We'll have a big launch and you'll see when you go around the city opportunities to drop off your food. It's a really big need right now. And lastly, I wanted to just, oh, and to thank Council of Barajas is a big partner in this food drive this year, as well as the Westy Dog Park Guardians. So they have a animal food drive, a pet food drive every year. Now we've combined into one food drive. So they're a big partner in this as well. So it's human food and pet food that you can donate to these collection boxes. And we're going to be... using essential storage so we'll make the deliveries multiple times over the next few months so if you have any questions please reach out if you want to volunteer for me please reach out we're trying to reach as many residents as possible thanks thank you uh counselor island thank you thank you everyone that came out tonight i appreciate feedback um una for

Spearheading better living conditions for those that are renting. Appreciate that. I appreciate EJ coming to talk about flock cameras. I appreciate the realtor over here talking about our housing issues. I did look it up, 47% of the housing in Westminster is now rental properties. That is a huge amount. 53% is only owned, occupant owned. We have a real issue and that's why things are getting more affordable to buy. I appreciate her stepping up and talking about that. I appreciate Heidi talking about water. I've been a water warrior. if we didn't have to pay for a 263 million dollar water treatment plant plus interest water could be less expensive for all of us the fact of matter is we have to pay for it and it's only the first phase so indoor water use does not pay for that plant so our indoor water use is only going to go up in price if we don't have enough money to pay for the plant for people that use more water which is a terrible situation that we're in Conservation will just make it more expensive. I have to say which is not where I wanted it to be but that's where we are I was first day in the course we had three three tiers at four and a half percent per year across the board we have changed that plan, so I don't know where we're gonna land but in the future, but we also have a drought. So all the things are up in the air as far as where we are going to land. But it's going to be expensive, just to let you know. Oh, so we're talking about the things we did in the last two weeks, which seems like we had a long time before we were here again. So I have to update you about a few things. I went to the HOA Turf Conversion Workshop, which many HOAs are struggling to pay water bills. And so they're converting their turf to natural grasses, which is a great thing so they can try to save some money. And we had at least 35 there, which was amazing. I appreciate staff. And they all came out to City Hall and saw the grasses that the City Hall has that they can convert to. And so they got to see see it firsthand, which was great and I got to see it firsthand what it looked like And so that was great Once the employee appreciation picnic it was a great turnout. I appreciate them welcomed me I had good conversation about the city with many staff. I hadn't spoken to for a while I attended what's called Service Day on Saturday. It was a remembrance of September 12, 25 years ago, after September 11, when the whole nation came together in unity, love, service. And I want that spirit to stay with us. And so in the spirit of it, 225 people showed up to serve their community. Eight churches organized it. We gave service to Precious Child, Justice Necessary, Broomfield Fish, Global Hope, Hope House, Hope Care, and Yard Love, Almost Home, Adopt an Open Space, Cooking and Meal Prep, Joyful Journeys Food Repackaging Support, Keystone Assisted Living, Days for Girls, and Cards for Orphans and Letters, in other countries, including cards for our veterans and first responders. It was a great day. It was a great remembrance of what we've been through, what we can do as a community if we serve each other. I also attended Bev Capra's market. She was a friend of mine. I'm glad that we still recognized all the events that she had in the south of Westminster. There were great booths and I bought some treasures while I was there. One of her paintings and I will always treasure it and I feel like she's in my home when it's there. I attended the Raising Cane's ribbon cutting this morning. We got our first Raising Cane's in Westminster on 88th, so I encourage you to go out and support our businesses. 20 people got free canes for a year, so that was great, and there was some that showed up at 5 a.m. just to be the first in line to get a free meal, so there was some enthusiasm there, so it was great, and I appreciate all you for all your comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor, and I know we have a long night, so I'll be quick by saying that I appreciated joining Councillor Barajas at his many endeavors, including several visits to the, you know, Bev Capra and growing home in South Westminster. One thing he failed to mention but was something that we did was we visited many of our Westminster public schools at Adams 12 Public Schools and Jefferson County Public Schools as part of our conversations with our SROs to understand the way they're interacting with our students, what they do every day and the many different roles that they play throughout the various school districts and that was a great opportunity and we appreciate our police officers letting us ride along with them even if it was in the back of a police car. I appreciate all the folks out here for UNE. I appreciated being invited to your rally. I am very supportive of the Westminster's rental inspections code standards updates. I'm also supportive of continuing this conversation and going further. I know and support the asks of including the city's ability to take escrow. I think there's more that we can do in the coming months. We're going to be working on looking at the way algorithms set prices here in the city and increase rents and trying to prohibit that. So this is a really good first step. I appreciate all the city staff's work. But I understand, appreciate, and support that this is not the last step that we're going to need to take in this matter. On a little bit of a heavier note, over the last couple weeks while we were not in city council session, we did have a report of an immigration enforcement action in North Westminster. It is really unfortunate to see these type of actions in our city. We continue to struggle with the reality of the federal government Taking people and disappearing them in our country and while it may not be in the headlines every day I want to remind people that it's still happening and it is still truly despicable to see both in our state and in our country And with that I'll be done for the night.

Thank you mayor Thank You mayor Pro Tem Nirmala

Committing for the whole night, huh? No, I'll be very brief. I just wanted to thank, one, everybody who came in for public comment, but specifically direct comments over to folks who are representing UNE. I don't know if you'll be sticking around for the vote that we'll have, but I wanted you to know that we really appreciate all of the time and effort that you've put into and bringing your experiences and stories to light. so that we can understand and learn from and actually create policy around the issues that you're seeing on a daily basis. And I hope that it will actually be a model for other cities to be able to structure some of their policy work. And I think right now we're really one of Aren't we still one of two cities that are doing rental inspections in the state? And that's very unique that we have that capability. And I really appreciate, one, your involvement, but two, just staff being able to work with and listen and figure out how we could create better policies that do affect your lives. It's great to hear that you've seen improvement. You know, any of us who've rented over time feel powerless over, you know, when we're facing lack of communication, lack of reaction. And so I'm just I'm glad to hear something. There have been some improvements and I look forward to us just continuing to improve upon what we have. And anyway, so thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to start with the positive and go through from there. So I'll echo with Councilor Ireland's statement on raising canes this morning. That was a really, really big event. So for those that were there, that was the biggest grand opening I have been to ever. There were hundreds of people in that line. There were cheerleaders. There was a guy in a chicken suit or an eagle. I'm not sure what he was. He was amazing. It was wild. So go check out Raising Cane's. That was just an amazing kickoff and a lot of fun. So that's really exciting for our community. I also want to say the last, just this last weekend, I attended a couple really important events. So I'll mention them. And I know Councillor Brawhouse and Johnson just mentioned they were at the Growing Home Picnic. I visited a little later and the work that the Growing Home is doing for our community is so very important, as well as a few others you've already heard mentioned. Fish, So just putting that out there, you know, if you don't know their name maybe and you have some time on your hands, go out there and get involved. They need your help more than ever. And then I also attended the gala for a precious child and that is another organization that needs a ton of help and they provide crucial support for giving families the momentum that they need to turn their lives around. Their stories are just critical and heart-wrenching and they will take a family and they will help find them the supplies and the home they need and absolutely everything they need. The work they do is incredible. While I'm in the mode of mentioning really important organizations, I'm also going to mention Helping Hands, which is founded by somebody local to our community, Narayan, who is one of the most impactful people I've ever met and this organization is working on funds for Nepal which as we know, a week or maybe 10 days ago, has faced one of the worst disasters in possibly their nation's history, and the fault of that is due to the top 1% of our globe. The climate change folks, the people who caused the most impact live right here in the US, right? If everyone in the world lived like Americans do, we would need five Earths, five. the people in Nepal are not the ones causing this disaster. And there was, once upon a time, a world leader that stepped in to help when situations like this occurred. And right now, that's not there. So if you have the time or the ability, I know there's a lot calling our name to chip into, but Helping Hands is a really great organization that gives directly. They're putting boots on the ground, they're putting doctors on the ground and resources and medical supplies for folks. As far as flock, I think that we've touched on this several times. We know that that conversation is coming back around. This council is absolutely going to be discussing the future of flock in our city. And so thank you for reminding us that that is important, especially I love that our speaker touched on what has been most crucially important to me, which is the cybersecurity aspect of it. I too work in that field and I too believe that that is the biggest risk of that tool. I also want to thank the speaker for talking about the foreclosures being bought up by private equity. That is so incredibly important. We actually did touch on a topic similar to that as mentioned by Councilor Zotti earlier this year. I do wonder as to the power of a municipality to do much about it, but that doesn't mean that we won't try. I'd love to find out a little bit more on that. I'll follow up to figure out what an ask looks like for that. That said, I do have a question for our city manager, if you have a moment. I know that we've asked a lot of you this year. There was a review that we were supposed to hold, hopefully in the spring or summer, about all the approvals that council had made around housing. and reviewing that, assessing the stock and I realized that there were changes made in that department but I'm wondering where we are and if that's coming back around because it does help in our decision-making process and it does speak to the request that was made in reviewing the housing in the city.

Mayor, I appreciate the opportunity. I will get that information back to you after this Council meeting. I'll send it to all of Council by way of an update. I noticed the team is working on that. And it does relate to a study that we've also done and some work we're currently doing. So we'll get an update to you on that very shortly.

Thank you. It is critical to the work we're doing, so thank you. And then I want to highlight the community update that our city manager mentioned earlier. The community update we're having tomorrow on Moore Middle with Jeffco, this is a key part of this council's plan to pull in the stakeholders that we work with so that you're getting your information in one place so that you can come to a town hall, ask your city council questions, ask your school board members questions, that parents who don't have time to attend both meetings, they can go somewhere and they can ask in person directly what is happening right here in my community that is impacting me. And this is a key and core component of the plan to have a fuller, more engaged, more connected community so that we have the answers that you're looking for because we've been somewhat piecemeal in the past and we're doing our best to fix that and it is a big ask but we're really working hard at it and I want to thank staff who worked very hard to engage the schools to get this going and they are busy trying to engage the rest of our school districts right now as well which is critically important. You deserve to have answers in one place and not get your information piecemeal. I also want to say I am extremely sorry to have missed the employee appreciation barbecue this year. I had to, I have to work. I have a job. And so I was really, I usually make that and I was really sorry to miss it. And so I just want the employees listening to know that you are so truly appreciated. I am very grateful for all that you've done. We ask a lot of you and you continue to go above and beyond for the city. So thank you truly. And then that brings me to the comments tonight that we're going to get to, of course, when we take that vote. I just want this community to know, as you likely already do, that I stand with you. The health and safety of every single individual in this community is of the utmost importance to me. And as was mentioned earlier by one of our speakers, everyone has that same right, no matter your income. I'm so grateful to all of you for the incredible work that you've done to get us to where we are. I also want to say that I thank you for mentioning Carl because I miss him. I was trying not to cry when you mentioned him. I'm really sorry that Carl didn't get... He was a really energetic fellow. who put a lot of hard work into improving the lives of everyone in the city. And he would jump up when he saw me and say, Claire, even though his knees would barely let him, he would jump up anyway. And I'm so grateful for all the incredible work he's done because people like him and again, everyone in the city deserve a safe home. And he didn't get the same home that I live in today. He never got that before he passed away. And that kills me. He died in his late 70s, a veteran, and we did a lot of work as a city to improve the conditions for him. And I'm so grateful to where we are today. But we owe it to everyone to make sure that they have heating, that they have cooling, that they have a lock and a key, that they have refrigeration and safe conditions. And he worked very hard for others to make sure that that happened. And I wish that he had a beautiful home like so many of us do. And with that, it looks like one more counselor would like to say something and we'll move on. Counselor Ireland.

I already did, thank you. Sorry, I didn't turn off my light.

Thank you so much. With that, we are moving on to the future agenda titles. Is there a future or potential agenda item counselors want to propose for discussion? Counselor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor, and this isn't a future agenda title, but this is a poll of counsel related to a data request. On September 3rd, there was some data that was requested related to our municipal court that I requested, and because it's going to take... at least 11 staff hours to produce. I require a pull of counsel to make sure that it is an appropriate use of our staff time. I can go ahead and read the request for data in full. It's a list of cases which the Westminster Municipal Court sentenced an individual to jail from August 1st of 2024 to August 1st of 2026. including the defendant's name, the summons number, charges or offenses, and the sentence length and type, including directed, suspended, a probation violation, credit for time served, etc. And if we have the following data, the date of the offense or violation, all associated arrest numbers, the start of the sentence, the end of the sentence, the defendant's race, and the defendant's date of birth.

Mayor Pro Tem Nirmala. Thank you, Councillor Johnson. I was just wondering for what use or purpose would that provide us?

Would you please fill in the gaps and provide context for the audience and council, and then we'll answer any remaining questions.

Sure. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you for the question, Mayor Pro Tem. We have made and are continuing to make a lot of changes to our municipal code as a result of the camp decision. And I think there are a lot of lingering questions around sentence types and sentence uses and sentence discrepancies that we're going to have to answer going forward. So looking at now we have enough data from pre and post camp, hopefully we can identify the remaining sentence outliers from this data and help us move forward with a consolidated answer post camp of the way that we should sentence because right now there's a little discrepancy with our municipal only offenses that this data will help us decide how that's being used and to what extent and how we can adjust it to align with camp.

Okay, seeing no other questions, let's go ahead and do a quick poll. I'm going to start on the end with Councillor Ireland.

I'm going to be a no. I think our judge is fair. I think our courts are fair in this city and I don't see why we spend the time on this. I'm saying no. Mayor Pro Tem.

Yes, I'm interested. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Thank you. Okay. We will move on now to the consent agenda. Item 9E has been removed from the consent agenda. Do I have a motion for the remaining items for the consent? Mayor Pro Tem. I move to approve consent agenda items 9A through 9D. Thank you. Councilor Johnson?

Second.

Excellent. Any further discussion?

Okay, roll call please. I want to say something, sorry. Oh, Councillor Ireland. I'm voting no on this. I think this is a first step to the Councilor Bill 3936, changing our code to allow for higher density and minimal parking.

I support homeowners. Councilor, I'm so sorry. I think you're speaking to item 9E. Oh, I'm sorry. You're okay. We will get to that. Okay. Sorry. No worries. This is for the remaining consent. Okay.

Thank you.

I'm a yes on that.

Am I next?

Thank you so much. And now do I have a motion for item 9E? Councillor Azadi.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to approve staff opting in to the new Proposition 123 cycle for 2027 to 2029 and submitting the city's commitment under Proposition 123 to the Department of Local Affairs by November 1st, 2026.

Thank you. Councilor Brahas?

Second.

Thank you. Any further discussion?

This is my further discussion, sorry. So I told you a few points where I think it's the first step. I support home ownership. I think we have enough rental properties in our city and especially high-density rental housing is not what anyone needs to live in. This is from the state. They're pushing I am for home rule, not chasing money for housing that residents don't really want, dictated by the state. We are spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars, yet the focus is to still heavily on subsidized rental housing rather than helping working families actually own a home, build equity, and create long-term financial stability. That's why I will not be voting for this. I think we are just making Corporations richer And on the backs of the rest of us so I will be you know Thank You councillor Johnson

Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to talk very briefly around Prop 123 and why it's so important. Proposition 123 is the voter-approved ballot measure that captures hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue for the state of Colorado and then disperses it to the various local governments. state in order to build and finance housing. It's not just rental properties. They work a lot with and a lot of the money goes through CHAFA handling bank lending, equity, and other things. And it really is cities that opt in get the opportunity to spend it. Otherwise, we let other cities spend it. So it's a really important measure for us to opt into. It gives the city millions of dollars that we otherwise wouldn't have access to. It really helps us not only improve conditions for affordable rental units, but also improve homeownership. So it's a really good program, and I appreciate the city staff putting together our 2027 through 2029 proposal.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem. I, too, just wanted to weigh in. Prop 123 is a voluntary commitment that provides us with access to funds, three different buckets of funds, buckets of funds for everyone, that do help us not only with potential grants, but also our developers can access these funds for projects in the city. I will say that we are committing to 81 units 81, did I say that right? Units for the three-year cycle. It's not, I don't think, a burdensome amount that we would try and facilitate, generate within the city for the next year. It's maybe part of one project, maybe a project. So I think it's a good goal for us to have and I'm supportive of us doing that.

Councilor Zotti.

Thank you. I just wanted to say that people don't move into rental units because they want to. They move into it because they need to. And rental housing should not be demonized. Most of the people in this room are renters, the people who were just speaking. who we just heard from, they're all renters. So it's really insulting to demonize a housing stock that is actually quite useful and quite necessary and we should be having housing stock for everyone, not just a few.

Councilor Brawhaus.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, colleagues, for speaking and for offering the clarity on this. I will be voting yes on this for two simple reasons. One, residents always ask us, do not increase taxes. And one way that we can attend to not increasing our ask for residents is by getting money where we can. Westminster has dense housing. There are existing, it's not some, like Councilor Zotti said, people in this room live in dense housing. They are not less than for living in that and we as a city can offer You know one of the speakers Very clearly stated it would be nice to have an alternate to some of the conditions that we're living in and this is exactly how we can alter offer alternates so that way the landlords are incentivized both by logistics and laws but also by housing stock to step up and compete for the renters instead of having a a very scarce resource that they can hold over the renters' heads and continue living in squalid conditions. So for all of these reasons, it just makes complete perfect sense to say yes to this, particularly because I do not want Westminster putting its head in the sand and leaving money on the table that we will then have to ask residents to provide.

Thank you. And I will add that as it was alluded to by our Mayor Pro Tem, you know, this item is something that we can opt into and we already have opted into. The Prop 123 is an allotment of dollars for providing incentives. However, our city has already created goals of creating this affordable housing on its own. The councils before us and our council have already created a plan to place units where we need them most. And so we actually went above and beyond the Prop 123 requirements of our own volition. And so it makes no sense to leave money on the table when this is money that we can very much use, as was just alluded to by Councillor Barajas. We need these funds. It helps us go further. So with that, roll call please.

Mayor Carmelia. Yes. Councillor Azadi. Yes. Councillor Ireland. No. Councillor Johnson.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela. Yes. And Councillor Barajas.

Yes.

The motion passes on a 5-1 vote.

Thank you so much. That moves us to appointments and resignations. There are no appointments or resignations this evening. And then that takes us to public hearings. We have three public hearings this evening. We have item 11A, a public hearing and first reading of councilor bill number 39, amending the 2040 comp plan to establish a density bonus and revise definition for affordable housing. The time is now 8.01 p.m. I will now open the first public hearing. Does staff have a presentation? I invite you to read that full title, it was lengthy.

Good evening, Mayor Carmelia, Mayor Pro Tem Norella, City Councilors, I'm Andrew Spurgeon, Principal Planner of the Community Services Department. I'm here tonight to present proposed tax amendments to the city's conference plan and Westminster Municipal Code intended to support provision of affordable housing in Westminster. Vivi Del Viso, the Housing and Economic Development Manager is also with me as part of this amendment and can help perhaps with some of the questions that may come up from this presentation. With this presentation, staff is hereby entering the agenda memo and its attachments into the public record. Notice of the public hearing was published in accordance with the city's protocols. We've also received a statement of support from Foothills Regional Housing and that got added to the packet tonight. Just to review the purpose of these amendments, there's several things going on here that were actually not directly related, although it's easy to see how they might be. Earlier this year on February 23rd, the housing staff, Vivi, outlined a framework of initiatives to advance housing development in Westminster. That was at a city council post-meeting meeting. Since that time, our staff have worked together. We've also consulted with some of the affordable housing developers who've done work in Westminster, looking at potential things that could be done to facilitate attainment of future housing developments through our external partners, such as Foothills Maker or St. Charlestown. As part of the February 23rd housing discussion with city council, it was determined that an inclusionary zoning approach that actually mandates affordable units combined with market rate units was not the preferred approach for Westminster. So that is not the purposes of this amendment. That's not what was trying to be accomplished here. The policy backdrop for these amendments are statements in the adopted comprehensive plan and sustainability plan about providing housing opportunities for a range of incomes, ages, and lifestyles. And promoting affordable living is contained in the first strategic plan priority opportunity to thrive. As presented with the informationally memo earlier on tonight's agenda, there's relatively little land left available in Westminster for new development of any type. Vacant land without any existing applications working on it is about 2.3% of the city's land area, only about 500 acres. But I think more striking is that the median parcel size of remaining land is only about three quarters of an acre. We really don't have large development sites left at this point in our history. So thinking of the small parcel size, we're gonna have to get really creative if we're going to find solutions to our housing needs. The 2024 Housing Needs Assessment that was presented to city council in 2024 identifies a density bonus with infill development as a strategy to support production of affordable units. A revised definition for affordable housing is another critical part of this amendment. This was based on Vivi's team consulting with the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, DOLA, to ensure continued access to their funding opportunities including Proposition 123 as was just discussed. The proposed density bonus is independent of the edit to affordable housing. It's actually something that's proposed in our forthcoming unified development code UDC project. However, we reviewed this with our contact in the city attorney's office who felt that to make sure this was fully allowable that we would do a companion amendment to the comprehensive plan as well as that forthcoming code amendment. The UDC is still under development at this time, but we thought we could go on and bring this forward now so that affordable housing developers could start accounting for this in their future project planning. The first proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan is a 30% density bonus for affordable housing developments. This would yield an increment of units above what would otherwise be permitted by the comprehensive plan. For example, a five acre site with 18 units per acre allowed would typically yield 90 units with a 30% density bonus that could go up to 117 units. This proposal is intended to be very, very narrow and limited to affordable housing projects. In the last five years, this would have only applied to two projects, the Maker Project and the St. Charlestown Projects at the Uplands. I believe their names are now Verbina and the Overlook. The Maker Project at 70 units, if it had been able to access a 30% density bonus, it would have increased to 91 units. The Overlook, which was permitted for 247 units, if it had the 30% bonus, it would be 321 units. Those are really the only two that would have qualified in the last five years. As talked about a few minutes ago, again with Proposition 123, our commitment for the next three-year cycle is 81 units. So that's very manageable. Based on this relatively slow rate of affordable housing production, Public Works and Utilities has identified a de minimis impact to water supply if this density bonus is approved. If the density bonus was defined differently, it potentially could have far more reaching impacts with a greater analysis would be needed to inform council of that. But we think keeping it very narrowly defined to affordable projects is manageable at this time. I will now turn it over to Vivi to talk a little bit more about the need for the definition update.

Thank you, Andrew. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Patel, council members. As we look at what is affordable housing, we've discussed a couple times where we like the term income-aligned, where we want residents to not spend more than 30% of their income in housing. Our partners, HUD, CHFA, DOLA, Prop 123, they each have their own definition for affordable housing. What we are proposing here, it meets all of those entities and criterias for them. We didn't make any changes on the percentage of units that have to be affordable as in having a mechanism that keeps that affordability. So either a deed restriction, a covenant, a contract, something that holds them accountable for the duration agreed on the contract to keep those units affordable. Currently, our definition states that at least 50% of the units in a development have to be up to 80% of the area medium income to be considered affordable. We would like to expand on that definition and include owner-occupied units up to 120% AMI. That is in accordance with Prop 123 guidelines, and we would like that was just updated in July of this year to 120 of owner-occupied. And we also incorporated definitions from HUD, CHFA, DOLA, and Prop 123, as you can see in the packet. We also made sure that we included that documentation of a deed restriction or a use covenant to make sure they stay affordable for a number of units.

Thank you, Vivi. A companion amendment to the Westminster Municipal Code is a proposed 15% parking reduction for affordable housing developments. It was included with the attachments, but we went through affordable housing over the last 10 plus years to see the type of parking schedules provided. We also looked at the ODPs and some of the neighborhood compatibility concerns and that's where we landed on the proposed 15% reduction. The code already allows reductions actually greater than 15%. There's a parking study option that's available and that has been used with other projects in the past. We are aware of one affordable housing project that has generated some off-site parking concerns. That project had a 21% parking reduction, again using an existing code provision available. A 15% reduction as proposed here would have actually required that development to have 22 more off-street spaces, which would probably come very close to satisfying the concerns over there. A second amendment to the code is again updating the definition of affordable housing in line with the comprehensive plan definition that Vivi just presented to you. The comprehensive plan aspect of these amendments was reviewed by the Planning Commission last month. It was recommended in favor of five to one. However, the Planning Commission recommended that the definition of affordable housing only require 15% of the units to be affordable as opposed to staff's recommendation of 50%. Staff does not. agree with the Planning Commission revision because again, we're trying to make sure we're lined up for funding opportunities with DOLA and other providers for affordable housing development. The strategic plan priority opportunity to thrive is met by updating administrative provisions for affordable housing that will benefit future affordable housing developments and in turn promote affordable living and stable housing for future residents. Staff recommendation is that you hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and approve on first reading the amendments to the plan relative to an affordable housing density bonus and revised affordable housing definition and also approve on first reading the amendments to Westminster Municipal Code to reduce parking for affordable housing and update the definition for affordable housing. Just as a reminder, these text changes to the comprehensive plan do not actually change the land use element of the comprehensive plan. The land use map will remain as it is today, and any changes to land use would have to come before you as a future amendment. This concludes our presentation, but myself and Vivi are happy to take any questions that may be of interest to you, and we appreciate the opportunity to present tonight.

Thank you so much. Any questions for staff? Mayor Pro Tem. Hello.

Hold on a second. I'm just going back and forth. Okay. So I am curious to know, just maybe we'll start with the density bonus. We talk about 30% and can you walk us through your methodology and getting to 30% for that density bonus and how that compares to other communities in the region?

Certainly. So we did look specifically at affordable housing developments that we know of and where we might anticipate some in the future and what those sites are looking like. Attachment three in the packet shows primarily where the existing affordable housing developments are. They're primarily in the southern part of the city. And even though best practice is to distribute affordable housing, they tend to go to the southern part of the city because of various funding opportunities, CDBG, Opportunity Zones, Enterprise Zones, other programs that are available to El Pencil projects. The southern part of our city, the developable lands are very challenging for different reasons. There's utility constraints. There are new floodplain maps out that are impacting things on either side of Little Dry Creek. A number of those would be potential sites for potential housing development. So we kind of looked site by site at what might work and then consulted with the public works and utility staff about what modest increment of additional density might be allowable without impacting the water supply. And then we kind of looked around at what are other places doing, what seems to work. We found that state bonuses anywhere from 10 to 50% in different places. There's different ways of doing it. We tried to keep it relatively simple knowing that we don't have a lot of affordable housing projects but there are different ways of doing it to pay based on a level of affordability or number of units or height bonuses as a common practice. But we thought just a simple density bonus would be appropriate. at 30% through the future UDC project that's forthcoming, there will be additional design changes, zoning changes that will be related to this. And that was where the idea originally came from for the 30% identity bonus, but then it was identified we needed to update the comprehensive plan as well. So we think it's appropriate to bring it forward now and we can kind of evaluate how it goes while we bring forward the unified development code. If council would prefer, we could table this until the Unified Development Code is fully baked and ready to bring to you.

Yeah, thank you. I'm struggling with us not having standards that might help with integrating these projects gracefully, particularly in an infill condition. Okay, so timing is a thing. And then I was also curious about the 80% AMI for the definition. A lot of, well, essentially, Dole is at 60% for rental and 100% for ownership. I... I know through my day job how difficult it is to get ownership and I think 120% is the right number for us but I am struggling with 80% because we have areas in the city that market rate is 80% and so I'm trying to distinguish We have a little bit of language in the affordable housing definition that says you need to have a deed restriction, but we're not saying for how long. And I think that's not that great. And then we have market rate projects that are coming in at 80% AMI. So can you walk me through why we're not focusing in on 60% for rental?

Yeah, we could definitely focus on 60%, make that change and still be in compliance with the funding. Staff was just proposing on the additions to the current definition since the current definition has been in place for many years and has been utilized. that also complies with HUD. To comply with most of the funding availability right now, PROC 123, 80% gives you more than what is required. If we do it up to 60, we would still qualify for the funding. And one of the main goals for the update on the language is to continue qualifying for different funding.

Yeah, I think there's not a lot of funding that goes to 80%, right? Federally and statewide.

Well, yeah, not significantly, no. Most likely projects would have to have 60%, 40%, 30% units to receive the funding already to be competitive.

I think there's a definition of affordable housing, but that's also when you're trying to also establish income-aligned housing. And then the difference with 60% that's really a policy question for us in terms of like how How deep do we want to provide affordability in the community, and where do we want to put the incentive? I feel like if we set it lower, one, we're more in line with DOLA. Two, we're actually trying to get the type of housing that would best serve the community. We don't need as much 80% AMI as we do 50% and below. Correct. yeah i okay um and then is there a way in the definition that we could add a time frame a minimum time frame i think a 30 density bonus is is generous um and i'm not saying it's out of like you know it's in the range um and but i think we need to be real specific about a deed restriction, I'm more open to having flexibility over the ownership deed restriction, but for rental, for a 30% AMI bonus, you know, I'd love to see permanent, but, you know, at least like a 30-year, you know, 30 for 30, and actually have that in the language.

Yeah, Steph did discuss that, and that would be incorporated in another part of the development process. Oh, like, John, would you like to speak to that, or... I don't know. Yeah.

We were contemplating the deed restriction path, but if council believes that it would be stronger to incorporate into the definition, we could review that and make a recommendation on that.

Well, I mean, to me, to have that, I would imagine more that we would have the same code versus the comp plan, but the comp plan's kind of like quasi-code. Yeah, I'd rather have the deed restriction kind of explicitly called out, at least for the rental.

Yes, we can definitely look into that.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Ireland. So I have a question. We don't have much land yet left, but we do have schools going under. So can these projects be on former school properties, former church properties?

Only if they were to pursue a comprehensive plan amendment, and this council approved such comprehensive plan amendment. Our schools and churches are public, quasi-public land uses in our comprehensive plan.

But it's possible.

if a comprehensive plan amendment occurred.

So I was reading that these housing projects don't even need to be near transit centers anymore, is that true?

Our comprehensive plan for multifamily destinations require access to transit and major thoroughfares and we have turned away applicants that don't meet the criteria.

because I have talked to many renters who all have cars. They don't use transit, it doesn't get them to their job. So I have a big problem with taking away parking for occupants. Whether you think they need a car or not, they tell me they do. So I will be voting no on this.

Any other questions for staff? Councilor Brahas.

Thank you. And as typical with land use, I have land use 101 questions. But this question, you know, I don't want to ask it directly to Mayor Pro Tem, but I guess just is there, in terms of deed restriction going into the definition, I believe that's kind of where the conversation was, was if we What all this is doing, we're not approving a new plan. We're not, sorry, we're not approving a new development at this moment. We're just changing the definition within the comp plan. So that's all that this is. The request was if we could include The deed restriction within the definition itself does and I know staff kind of mentioned like why they didn't I guess I just wanted to kind of dig a little deeper is there risk in doing it or was it really just Kind of if we can request it. It's you know, I don't want to put you on the spot and we can kind of hear further feedback But that's kind of my my main concern, you know, I'm open to moving forward with it But I really do want to know like we if there was an intentional no because of a certain reason

Thank you, Lindsey Kimball, Community Services Director, gonna jump in for just a second. And just to clarify, there's a lot of things here. There's several different motions to be made related to this. So to clarify, and Vivi will correct me if I'm wrong, we do wanna make sure that we are able to pass tonight the definition. So we're in compliance with DOLA. We do have a shot clock running on that. And what I'm hearing is in order to utilize a density bonus or the parking reduction bonus, let's call it that, they would need to have in place a term of a covenant, a deed restriction to allow 20 or 30 or whatever the number is that you want to have as public policy. We would add that into the requirements to be able to utilize those two bonuses. But I just want to clarify that it's not necessary to include it in the definition that we use for affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that follow-up. You know, and maybe we'll have time for council comments on this later. Okay.

Yes. Any further questions or comments? Fantastic. Well, in that case, are there any speakers signed up for public testimony?

Yes.

Yes, we have four speakers signed up. The first speaker is Kathy Stroud. Thank you, and thank you, staff. Welcome.

Hi. Hello, Westminster is in crisis. No, let me revise that. The Westminster taxpayer is in crisis. Taxes and fees are continually going up because of Westminster City Hall greed. You can see it in the water rates we pay. We aren't just paying the cost of water, but we are being penalized if we exceed some made up threshold that you randomly came up with. Water is a utility. Westminster should not make a profit and there should only be one rate regarding water usage. Then there is the ever-increasing density all over the city. You want to pass Bill 39, which would allow developers to increase density over and beyond the 2040 comprehensive plan by 30%. Even if the parcel is in an existing neighborhood. Why? We still have over 2,100 rental units available within the city. We don't need any more high density rentals. What we need are starter homes that people can purchase. Then with Bill 36, you want parking spaces per unit to be lowered for these high density rental projects. Where do you think these people will park? That's right, up and down the streets of the nearby existing neighborhoods. In your quest for a car-free society, you have forgotten something. You all seem to be under the impression that Westminster has the same infrastructure as Paris or London. Did you know that in Paris, one is never 100 meters from a train station? The train lines go all over the city, depart every five minutes or so, and can get you within 100 meters of your destination. This is why Parisians do not need cars. We do not have that infrastructure here. Heck, we couldn't even get fast tracks to go all the way to Boulder even though we paid for it twice. High density housing with minimal parking should not be allowed. If a school or other big parcel comes up for sale, the developer who buys it must make any buildings on that parcel compatible with the existing neighborhood that surrounds it, complete with adequate parking. By the way, Closed schools should not be torn down. We should be looking at ways to rent the buildings out instead. After all, someday there will be more children and we'll need those shuttered schools. But no, you'll ignore me and when that day comes, there will be no land left to build a school on. Taxes will go up and I guess we'll have to build a school on a barge and float it out on Stanley Lake. I also hear that Bill 39 will change the definition of affordable housing. Is that why you want to allow the homeless to legally set up camp on any open space land? Are you serious? Every homeless person in the Metro Denver area will make their way to Westminster if that is allowed, and we will be overrun by drugs and crime. We need to get these people off the street, not add to their ranks. If I would hazard a guess, it seems you are trying to ruin Westminster for some sort of financial gain. Except for Christine Ireland, most of you have accepted developer money when you ran for your last campaigns. Is this payback? I imagine developers don't donate money if there's nothing in it for them.

Thank you, speaker, your time is up.

Thank you. The next speaker is Grace Haney.

Welcome. Hi, how are you guys all doing good? My name is Grace Haney and I was here once before about another issue and I had a little speech prepared but it's changed a bit with this presentation here. So it's a series of questions. First, the school impact. you're gonna do affordable housing, you're gonna have more kids. We can't take existing school properties and make them into affordable housing if we're gonna have to have the buildings, which is something that Kathy was alluding to also. And we already did that at 72nd and Lowell. We took a schoolhouse out of there, school grounds out of there and did high density housing. And there's been all kinds of police problems around that area that I'm aware of from people that I know who live close to there with the ball fields and whatnot, with the baseball fields there at Hidden Lake. They've been having problems with the crime right around that area because of the high density on the old school grounds with the affordable housing that's there. Second question is that, you know, at 100th and Washington, about 100th and Washington, years and years ago in the 80s, Habitat for Housing came in with a bunch of affordable housing where people came and worked on helping to build their homes. And that was part of their equity buy-in. And that neighborhood, if you drive over there, is really, really nice. Those people have really taken care of their properties because they invested their own labor into helping to build them. And that was through Habitat for Humanities. So why haven't we addressed something like that instead of this high density stuff? Then the other thing is that I hope that if you pass this sort of thing, you're increasing your budget for fire and police protection because you're gonna have to have it. You're not gonna be able to get into those buildings if one unit catches fire in that sort of a place, and it's in Thornton, but at about 121st and Colorado Boulevard, there was one apartment that the barbecue caught on fire several years ago and it burned four apartments and they couldn't get in there with the fire trucks to get people out and there were injuries as a result and they had to totally replace the buildings and those people then didn't have any place to go because they were renters. Then I have been in student housing and I have been through the business with the cockroaches and if you've got small confined spaces and you get roaches in one unit, they're everywhere. They're all over the place. And you can't get rid of them unless you fumigate the whole building. And that involves everybody having to move all of their food goods and everything else to be able to do that.

Thank you, Speaker. I'm so sorry, your time is up. Okay. Thank you. Welcome.

Hello again, Jim Fenimore. It doesn't make sense to lower parking. We're in the Wild West. We're not in New York City. We'll never, RTD doesn't work here. Light rail doesn't work here. It's never going to. We can keep throwing millions and billions of dollars at the light rail and RTD. It's not gonna work. You guys, are not gonna get rid of your cars. You're gonna keep driving your cars. You're not gonna get rid of them, nor is anybody else. You're not alone. The state is not set up for commuter. People have to go too far to get where they need to go, whether it's shopping, recreating, living. So reducing parking doesn't work because they're gonna keep their cars, they're gonna need a place to park them. They don't have a place to park them, what are you gonna do? The city is gonna have to come in and start building parking garages or do something at the taxpayer's dollar to have parking. Increasing density, how much density do we need? That lake over there is restricted of how much it can hold. Even if we expand it like talks come up, other cities are getting water from this pond over there, Stanley Lake, North Glen, Thornton, Federal Heights. Everything that this city does affects those other cities. I've got a good friend, he's 79 years old, lives in Federal Heights. You guys raised the water fees. George's water bill was 179 bucks. George can't even get up and walk barely to his bathroom and to his kitchen. He's on limited income. He barely can breathe. He's barely alive and he has to pay $179 water bill. It's not like he's taking a shower every day. He can barely get to the bathroom and use the facility, let alone take a shower. He probably takes a shower maybe once a week. So increasing the fees on the water, storm water, I understand storm water washes out things. But at any rate, we can't raise the density and we can't lower the parking rate. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Mary Berg.

Well, I first have to say that the decision that you make now is very important. People have lived here for approximately, we built what we have here for over 100 years. We are not to look like communist China, Russia, or other ungodly high density, some 400 square feet units to live in that create an area that we see east of the downtown of Denver, actually. If you just look east or drive east and see these massive units just like Soviet Union, You don't wanna have that on your heart. I have to ask you to really say, we gotta go back to the drawing board. Because I don't know if any of you know this, but unaffordable housing is under HUD. And they've just said without telling us any facts, about having enough water or electricity because we are restricted now, okay? To change these rules, I just think you need to hold off and get more facts because they didn't give it to you. And affordable housing means that if the government owns even under 1% of that project, that that developer forces the private property owner to pay all of his property taxes who was selected because he donated to certain campaigns, maybe to get the yes vote for these projects. Okay, so that means there are some people last year, my real estate tax went up 20%. And two years ago, it went up 40%. I know some people cannot afford to stay in their house, okay. And so what your decision is, is very important, because you don't have enough facts. And I don't think it's right to enslave people who own their homes who work their whole life to be able to have property to have people who say I can't afford anything and you gotta pay my rent and that's gotta increase your property taxes because the developer doesn't pay it but he keeps the market rent for rent candles up because he gets the federal subsidy at the top market rate. So what does happen to families? And the effort that the professional realtor stated here has to be looked into before you make any decision because you can't honestly say you did your job for the city of Westminster to go ahead with this nightmare project. Thank you so much.

That was our last speaker.

Thank you, speakers. The time is now 8.38, and I will close the public hearing. May I have a motion for Councilor Bill number 39? Councilor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to pass Councilor's Bill number 39, amending the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to establish a density bonus and revised definition for affordable housing.

Councilor Rosati. Any further discussion?

Mayor Pro Tem Nirmala. I was wondering if I could do a friendly amendment to change the affordable housing definition from 80 to 60%.

Do I have a second on the amendment?

Second.

Thank you, Councilor Johnson. Any further discussion? Councilor Barajas.

In the proposed, I'm just looking at slide five of the presentation, in the proposed, there's zero to 80 for AMI rental and zero to 120 for owner-occupied, so this would be for rental, is that correct?

Yes, thank you for asking me to clarify. That would be for the rental number.

Thank you, any further questions? Okay, well then I will add, thank you Mayor Pro Tem for noting that. I feel like that was very detailed of you as always. So I much appreciate your work in making an even stronger recommendation that was already proposed. Thank you staff for putting this forward. And I want to remind our folks here in this room, that our city is built out, right? So this applies to just over 2% of remaining land in the city. We have a absolutely beautiful city that we are here, all of us, to call home. And it was my goal many, many years ago when I was listening to the original, not the original, the last comp plan changes to see how I could help one day make the city more equitable for people like me. And I see people like me right here in this room and I'm so grateful to all of you for showing up. So with that, I am really excited to pass this. I also want to mention, and it to be fair is on the next vote, so I guess I could hold, but the parking percentage that we're talking about here is 15%. And so there are recommendations, you know, depending on projects or city or whatnot, to eliminate the parking requirement and that has been brought up. But for a city like ours, we're not there, right? We understand that. We know that. We're smarter than that. We're not going to propose that. We're saying maybe we can use our valuable land a little bit wiser because land in the city is highly valuable. It would be smarter to use that for housing or for the open space or for the parks. And so now we can house people. especially those that might not have a car, as I know I did not when I was renting. So, with that, I'm really excited about this. Thank you, staff, for all your work. And I'm really happy about the amendment. City Clerk?

Councillor Azadi?

Yes.

Councillor Ireland? No. Councillor Johnson? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela? Yes. Councillor Barajas? Yes. And Mayor Carmelia? Yes. The motion passes on a 5-1 vote.

Thank you. May I have a motion for Councillor Bill number 36? Councillor Johnson?

Thank you, Mayor. I move to pass first reading of Counselor's Bill number 36, amending sections 1121 and 1174 of Title 11 of the Westminster Municipal Code to amend the definition of affordable housing and establish a parking reduction.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem. Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? Councilor Brawhouse.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just want to make a quick comment just kind of on both of these bills chunked together. You know, we hear a lot about how expensive housing is and how expensive rents are. And I think there's a lot of work that we can do as a city to kind of address that. lot of a lot of those concerns you know as other as people who live in the city we kind of feel the same one particularly when you know i i my property tax the number has gone up even though the actual property tax itself hasn't the percentage because my you know the value of the space that i live has become more scarce and more scarce and you know we talk often about government making things more expensive well putting a lot of these restrictions, historically these restrictions within density or against density, has made for that scarcity and those expensive housing prices to exist. And so those are just kind of some pretty standard industry understandings. And I guess I'm just feeling a lot of, you know, There's, hey, we're paying too much. Things are too expensive. But also, don't build anymore and let everything get more expensive. And they're kind of conflicting sentiments in my mind. And so I'm really trying to narrow them down. But the way that I understand this, and if this is a sentence, sorry, if this If these units are undesirable because of the way that they're built, the free market will then determine that they are undesirable. But what we have seen time and again is that people will actively choose to go into these spaces. And for a variety of reasons, there's plenty of people who even in this building today don't own a car because maybe they can't own one. And we see that density is helpful. And again, there's no school that we're shutting down. We're not anticipating This is to be used in a certain development that's coming up. There are very very small case uses for this and While it certainly won't change the entire, you know Someone who has an acre and their neighbor has an acre is not going to see 400 apartment buildings pop up on that one acre and so a lot of this Sentiment, you know is is around something that's just not happening. So, thank you. I

Thank you. Mayor Pertem? I, too, wanted to just comment on this overall. This is allowing more opportunity for us to have people in the city that are less able to pay for the market rate. The market rate right now for a two bedroom, I mean, Haven't looked it's over $2,000 if someone's paying a mortgage and they lived here for 30 years. I'm gonna be probably pretty confident you're not paying $2,000 a month But I understand that folks are paying more for property taxes and there's a lot of impacts that everyone is dealing with and so I don't want to be Insensitive to the increased cost that we all even as homeowners are are experiencing. It's just This allows us to just welcome more people into the community that otherwise wouldn't be able to be here. When I was younger, with a single mom, we lived in affordable housing and it was nice and we didn't have to live with relatives. I think maybe they grow up and become your next city councilor. I think it's important that we keep that perspective. With the 15%, I will say for the housing reduction, I did look at the staff's information and they did evaluate what made sense. We had some empirical evidence behind that parking reduction. We worry about the impact to surrounding communities, but I feel like that this is something that is representative of affordable projects that there is a different parking ratio needed. So anyway, thanks and thank you to my colleagues.

Mayor, if I could? Yes. Question. The motion that was made to approve Counselor's Bill 36 did not include an amendment of the 80% number in the definition. I think if we want the two definitions to align, we'll need to have a motion to amend such that it becomes 60% instead of 80%.

Understood. Thank you Let's finish.

Well, let's make that motion now perhaps before we finish council comments so that we're all speaking to the same thing Councillor Johnson Thank You mayor I Amend my motion to move to pass councillors bill number 38 on 36 Amending sections 1121 and 1174 of Title 11 of the Westminster Municipal Code with an amendment to adjust the definition for affordable housing from 80% to 60%.

Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Pro Tem? Second. Second. Thank you. And I will continue Council comments. Councillor Ireland?

You need to do the vote for this rate.

We're continuing council discussion and comments before we get the vote. We had several folks that wanted to speak.

Okay, thank you. So my train of thought is I think we have a supply problem in... in home ownership and it's caused by what we're doing. We're allowing these corporations to keep building this stuff, letting people rent them and then they become slums because they don't keep them up. It's just continuous and now I find out 47% of our properties in our city are rental properties. This is why there is no homes for sale. This is why they're expensive because my first home I bought in a foreclosure year It's a cyclical market usually, but we're keeping it propped up with corporations buying up properties. And keep doing the same thing is not going to make it less expensive. So I am an absolute no on this, and this is very concerning to me, that we're allowing these corporations to continue to buy these properties and keep these people from ever owning anything. or even owning a car now, because we don't even want parking. I am absolutely appalled at what's happened to our city since I've lived here. This basically got worse since 2020, because corporations shut down everything, and now they're taking over everything. They're monopolizing houses, they're monopolizing apartments, That's why it's unaffordable, because they have billions of dollars, and we do not. The people do not. We cannot even give the people enough to own a home, because they never have foreclosures to buy when the market's down, because the market is inflated. Do you think this nonsense is going to continue and turn out well? I'm ashamed. I'm ashamed of where our city has gotten and what it's done to these people who will never own anything because corporations keep raising their rent after they get them in. They get them in at a low rate and then they raise them up. Same with houses, apparently. They buy the ones that could be affordable before the people even see them. Enough is enough. Absolutely no.

Any further comments?

Okay. Roll call, please. Councillor Ireland. No. Councillor Johnson.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela. Yes. Councillor Brahus.

Yes.

Mayor Carmelia. Yes. And Councillor Azadi. Yes. The motion passes on a 5-1 vote.

Thank you so much. Before we open the next public hearing, let's take a five-minute break and reconvene at 855.

. . you So, Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you Thank you. Thank you. . . . Thank you.

All right, it is now 9.05 p.m., and I will open the second public hearing. Does staff have a presentation? It looks like there is no staff presentation for this, correct?

Mayor, that is correct. This is the public hearing to hear from our community members.

Excellent, okay. In that case, do we have anyone signed up for public testimony? We have one person signed up.

Our first speaker is John Herman. Thank you.

Welcome. Thank you, council, city manager, Barbara. Great to see you guys. My overarching concern with the city budget is a significant increase in internal services and at the same time a very large decrease in community services, namely the $4 million decrease to the Parks Recreation Library's open space fund. This will negatively impact not only our community, my children, your neighbors, but also the future stewards of our city. Tonight I'd like to outline five negative impacts as well as an opportunity for each of you to maybe discuss this with me in the future. The first negative impact, Councilor Dermella, Councilor Johnson, you guys said tonight, right, we have to be able to have access to funds like grants and other things. Reduction of these funds, specifically the post funding, will negatively limit our access to grants for Parks and Rec. Since 2017, we've been awarded $11.5 million in grants. $8.7 million of those grants have been in the last five years. A great example of this is recently a $1.3 million city investment that we were able to leverage into a $2.3 million city investment for a local park. These grants have helped our parks, swim and fitness center, library services, emission reduction programs with energizing our equipment, as well as water conservation. The second negative impact I'd like to outline, maybe less obvious, is significant progress from our master plans. We will lose, sorry, we will lose the significant progress in our master plans. Things such as invasive species, prairie dogs, wildfire mitigation, threatened species preservation, dog parks, and water preservation all are in jeopardy by reducing this Parks and Rec budget by $4 million. This burden will be passed on to future generations. The other one that's probably less obvious is that reducing this budget by $4 million for Parks and Rec, the burden that we currently carry that you may not know of will have to go elsewhere. Currently, investments in water reductions, the ROI will be diminished. $23 million of water we've saved with Lance Johnson and Eric's efforts in our water conservation programs. Snow removal from city buildings, trails, and sidewalks. Should we backfill those to other departments as other departments would like to do to the Parks and Rec Department in this budget? Homelessness. And a whole bunch of other opportunities such as 18 million dollars square feet of right-of-ways that don't have a specified owner Those are things we're all currently doing in the reduction of four mil that's gonna have to go somewhere Last I'd like to say is that because I'm running out of time Many of the things that you guys ran on are going to be impacted We're often the first ones for homelessness vibrant communication or vibrant communities health and wellness affordability programs done by Tim and Amy at their rec center and libraries. All of these things are going to be negatively impacted. On top of that, as you know, trails and open space are typically the number one or number two, oftentimes ahead of public safety. And that's very visible to the community. So therefore, I would like to strongly challenge you. Thank you, sir. Your time is up. Thank you.

Thank you.

That was our only speaker.

Thank you so much. With that, the time is now 9.08 p.m., and I will close the public hearing. There is no motion for this item, so now we will move on to the third public hearing, item 11C, for the proposed 2027 and 2028 stormwater fee changes. It is now 9.09 p.m., and I will open the third public hearing. Does staff have a presentation?

Mayor, similar to the previous public hearing, no, this is the opportunity for City Council to receive comment from our community.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Do we have anyone signed up for public testimony? We have no one signed up for this item. Okay. With that, the time is still 9.09 p.m., and I will close this public hearing. There is no motion for this item either. So we will now move on to new business. We will have the first reading of Councilor Bill number 37. Do I have a motion?

mayor pro tem normella i move to pass councilor's bill number 37 on first reading to amend chapters one and two of title four of the westminster municipal code to modernize notice filing and publication requirements for business tax administration and to authorize the finance director to specify the manner and form for the filing and payment of city tax returns thank you councillor brahas second thank you is there any further discussion

Excellent. Roll call, please. Councillor Johnson. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela. Yes. Councillor Barajas.

Yes.

Mayor Carmelia. Yes. Councillor Azadi. Yes. And Councillor Ireland. Yes. The motion passes on a 7-0 vote. 6-0. 6-0. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you so much. We will now move on to the first reading of Councillor Bill number 38. Do I have a motion? Councillor Azadi.

I think may I move to pass council's bill number 38 on first reading to amend subsection 123 in title eight of the Westminster Municipal Code to adopt the International Property Maintenance Code with amendments and enact the residential rental code.

Thank you. Councilor Brahas?

Second.

Excellent. Any further discussion? Councilor Azadi?

Thank you, Mayor. Can I have staff come up? I have a series of questions. Thank you. We all received a document from UNE behind you. And I'd just like to walk through if staff can help guide as to where. So they have a series of recommendations of changes. And I've made aware that several of them live somewhere else City so if staff can walk through each one I can start with the first one So they recommend to establish a fine structure directly in the code that includes a fee structure for severe or unresolved violations Does that live anywhere else?

Thank you for the question, Councilor Wadi Bourghis, Property Standards Administrator. So there are provisions in the code for violations of the code. Some of those are administrative citation violations that are issued to those that violate the codes, and there is different levels for the type of violation, whether it's the first, second, third, or subsequent violation. And there are also penalties that can be assessed by the court if a violation is, if someone is found guilty of violation going through the court proceedings.

Yeah, so their concerns are that leaving the fee setting to a later process can cause delays. So you said that there are some fees, but not...

Yes, and I will defer to Attorney Frankel to address those as well.

Thank you, Councillor. If I may, the reference that's in the proposal tonight, I think, cites back to Westminster Municipal Code 181, which is the general penalty provision. So if the question is, you know, what penalties are available for a civil violation, that's up to $2,650 per offense. And that would be at the discretion of the court, I think, to consider the circumstances of each case. I assume that repeat violations would have a higher sanction and more numerous violations would have higher sanctions as well. But the penalty provision is incorporated in at 181, to the extent that was part of the question.

And looking at that piece of the code, it's not specific, though, to a structure, an actual fine structure, correct?

It establishes a range, correct. It's not more than $2,650 for a civil violation, yes.

Thank you, the next one. They recommend to incorporate language that assigns landlord property owner responsibility for financial assistance. For example, relocation assistance refunds for costs incurred by tenant, et cetera, when a building is condemned due to landlord neglect.

Thank you, Councilor Lindsey Kimball, Community Services Director. I do want to defer to the city attorney on this, but the short answer for this is that it is covered by the state's warranty of habitability, and they do have very strong language in there. In fact, we saw it in action with the IMT fire right across the street. They quickly moved because of that warranted habitability at the state level to provide at no cost to the tenants relocations either to another unit that's comparable or to a hotel room. Please, Mr. Frankel.

Thank you, Ms. Kimball. And Mr. Munch is here, and I believe can more directly address the question. Thank you.

I can expound on it a little bit, Councillor, if you would like a little bit more. Essentially, the IPMC, property maintenance code, is precisely what it purports to be. Really, you're talking about focusing in on regulation of properties and what the property must and must not be maintained to. The interplay, the relationships between landlords and tenants and what their obligations are to each other is covered very thoroughly under state law under the warranty of habitability. And there are procedures for this very thing, not only the obligations, but as I said, the specific procedures for how those are to be gone through. It's really quite... quite thorough and inserting something like that into the property maintenance code, it just wouldn't be the right place for it. This is where you look to find out. where are the doors supposed to be, things like that. Perfect. That's helpful information.

Yeah, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Next is in the section 202, general definitions. There's a spelling error. You saw that one, I'm sure. Thank you, sir. Next is in section 301.2. They're recommending to clarify language to expand the responsibility of owners to include habitability conditions related to the interior of the dwelling.

Yes, so the short answer again is yes, the owner is responsible for such things as infestations. We cite folks, that's a fairly common citation to be written on infestations, and it is the responsibility of the property owner and the landlord. And I would turn it over to Mr. Wadi Borkas to tell us about where exactly in the code that is.

So yeah, those provisions are contained in the international property maintenance code. And on chapter three, there are specific provisions. say that that responsibility is with the property owner.

So the concern here is between exterior and interior, right? The current language says exterior is owner responsibility, interior is occupant responsibility. But lots of interior violations are the result of landlord neglect. So that's where the concern is.

So the International Property Maintenance Code, it is a property maintenance code. And in the conversations that we had, how we arrived to the proposed code today is, it is a joint responsibility, The code itself has provisions for both exterior and interior provisions. The existing Chapter A provisions that are being modified with these ordinance cover both interior and exterior portions of property.

But looking, so sorry, looking at it, it does say exterior for, it doesn't say both.

Yes, and I think I know where the confusion or gray area is coming from. That section specifically... Sorry. Oh, goodness. It was about... It scared me. I forgot about it. I'm sorry.

I thought something worse just happened there. Okay. It's just a mop.

Excuse me. So there's provisions about who is responsible for the maintenance of the exterior. And in that section, it was specifically talking about things like the sidewalks or the siding, da, da, da, da. It was only contemplating the external. So the owner is responsible for that external thing. You can't voice that responsibility on the property owner. The property owner can be responsible for the internal. So it's not limiting. It actually was... more inclusive. And under this code, the property owner is responsible for those internal things as well. We were trying to be very clear that the external is the property owner's responsibility. They can't put that responsibility on the renter.

So it is both. It's just you wanted to add in this to be clear. Okay. Yeah. The next one is Section 302.8, Motor Vehicles. They're recommending to amend or remove to allow greater flexibility in the code to ensure that residents who are living out of their cars, campers, or vehicles are not in violation of the law.

So again, this is a property maintenance code, and I think that question speaks to provisions or requirements that are beyond the responsibilities of the property standards team. This is not something that will be regulated by this particular provision.

In the provision, though, it says it's regulating the unlawful. So it says that it shall be unlawful for vehicles on any street or roadway to remain stationary or unused.

Yes, that is an existing provision. Even now in the code, there is a requirement for vehicles to move every 15 days.

If I could as well, just to help clarify it, the question about if we could allow folks to live in the vehicles that are positioned there on the street or on the property, we do think it would live more appropriately in another section, not in the maintenance code and the property code. I think that might be a larger discussion and one we would certainly want to bring our colleagues from PRL and homeless navigators and people such as that to help us weigh in that. And it would probably, you know, most likely live more appropriately in a section dedicated to understanding where we're allowing people to habitate versus conditions of a property.

Okay, so where would you recommend that? When would we have that discussion, I guess? In what medium would that live in?

Mayor if I could counselors audio, I think we could actually talk about that later tonight When we have our director of park direct and libraries run through our full response all all parts of it and and I think an element of that we have Up for discussion later tonight is a safe parking initiative that would be directly applicable as well as a safe camping initiative So I think that would be a great opportunity to raise this in that discussion.

That's perfect next The recommendation, so for 308.4, the recommendation is to include household trash in addition to yard waste in the exception language and ensure that indoor composting is still permitted.

So thank you, Samantha Everett, Chief Building Official, Community Standards Manager. Thank you for the question. The intent of this one is not to regulate interior. We think that's encumbersome. So there is no regulation for interior composting. That's what this section, we're just not addressing.

So the language says, it shall be unlawful for a person to compost household trash or yard waste. That's external. You're saying that's not interior.

Yeah.

Got it. Thank you.

It's too hard to rank late.

Yeah.

So Section 4, 4.8.

It says to include an exception that protects unhoused people who may use abandoned properties, for example, as temporary emergency shelter.

So as the building official, if I condemn or post a building unfit for human habitation, I don't think that we should have an exception for the unhoused. So I don't necessarily agree with this recommendation.

Can you expound further?

My understanding is what they're asking is that if a building is condemned and not habitable, is that we still allow unhoused to be in there for temporary shelter.

So it says that as the language currently stands, it could be used to justify fines and arrests of unhoused persons who are already operating under limited resources.

So thank you for the question, Councilor Seade, Wadi Bourgh's property standards administrator. So when a building is condemned, there's a good reason for that, right? It's typically unsafe for folks to occupy that building. So that is, it's for anybody. So no one can occupy that building. So anyone, regardless of their housing status, can occupy a building that's been marked as uninhabitable. So that distinction doesn't exist in the code. If the building is deemed inhabitable, it's not safe to be occupied, that includes anybody that would actually would breach and ignore that posting for occupation.

So would this lead to more arrests? It sounds like it would.

if I could just jump in again. I would say to City Manager Andrew's point, this may be a good point of discussion for the conversation tonight with Director Otzelberger about the unhoused. It's not our intent to create a situation where we're increasing the number of you know, citations for folks who are unhoused or criminalizing being unhoused. That's not our intent. And I would think if, you know, just like now, if we found someone in a condemned structure, for example, before we demolished the Midland building, that was part of the issue. People were in there and it wasn't safe. We would have the navigators work with folks. We would use every means we could, get them a hotel voucher. So nothing would change about that. And I don't mean to speak for Director Otzelberger, but we wouldn't be changing that procedure. We're just trying to say that as part of our property maintenance code, doesn't address it. Again, it's one of those, it's narrowly focused to the condition of the property. And I think that in discussions of the unhoused and how to help them and give them services, that would probably be a better avenue for that conversation.

Yes, thank you. I think the community just wanted the confirmation that it's not an automatic arrest. The continuum of compassion will still apply to those folks. Thank you. And next, the recommendation is if the answer, so the question is, does the civil penalty in fine language also apply to those who fail to obtain a license or register their property? And they're recommending if the answer to the above is no, they want to see the language included that provides the city with enforcement mechanisms for licensing and registration.

Thank you for the question. And the answer is the same as the previous question. The evaluation of the code operating a rental property without a license will be penalized with those provisions provided in the municipal code, yes.

So what about the enforcement piece, the enforcement mechanisms?

The same mechanisms. So we can issue administrative citations that go anywhere from $150 for the first violation to $1,000 for the third or consecutive violation. Or there could be those fines that City Attorney Franco referred earlier, assessed by the Municipal Court.

Yeah, so the main concern is really about do we have enough enforcement mechanisms to enforce? We've had these rules in various forms, right? But we haven't had the enforcement. I'm hearing that you're saying we will do more of that. Enforcement?

Yeah, we do have enforcement. And I think we have to be mindful of we have to allow people to process, right? So we have to be mindful of that as well. But there are mechanisms in the code. There are provisions for even abatement when needed in those situations where safety is a concern. So the mechanisms are in there. I believe this code gives our team more tools and clear provisions protect the safety for everyone that's occupying property within the city.

Okay. And finally, the last one, their recommendation is that, so self-certification has been found to be ineffective and they're saying that though the language is improved, by adding discretion about accepting written affirmation, they want to remove the option of owner self-certification.

Yeah, so this item was part of many discussions during our ad hoc committee meetings that we have. And we landed in this language as an agreement within those committee members. That was a recommendation that we brought before council when we had our study session back in July 6th. And so the language that's in there was something that we worked together with committee members, with Deputy City Manager Dorr, and this was the provision that the committee agreed on and recommended, and the staff will recommend that that provision. There was a piece that was added to the cell certification and is a requirement by the the landlord to provide proof that the tenant has been notified. And so I think that strengthens the provision and allows that opportunity for documentation.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem Nirmala. and thank you councillor saudi for going through those um i did have one additional question for section 105.3.1 um there's a requirement to request um providing providing identifying information and um it's it just sounded a little onerous so i was trying to understand the purpose behind it i can give an answer and it goes inadequately all right

i i matthew munch again assistant city attorney i do understand the the way that looks on first inspection this is ubiquitous across sort of all areas of civil law this is in every city in every state there's an obligation to identify yourself when confronted by a peace officer or in this case somebody who's trying to enforce um civil infractions That sounds harsh until you really think through the reasons for it. If that were not the case, then any enforcement action, be it a minor crime, be it just an investigation, try to figure out what's going on, or in this case, he's talking about civil enforcement where arrest is not a possibility, it would be impossible to investigate and enforce anything. Anyone who was being investigated or who was confronted with an investigating official, be it a police officer who's not in a position to make an arrest or be it a code enforcement officer, they would simply refuse to identify themselves, refuse to talk, walk away, and then there was nothing that could be done except for an arrest, which of course cannot be done under these circumstances. It's a practical necessity. Otherwise, it would be impossible practically to enforce any sort of civil violation because you could simply never prove that you were actually talking to the landlord or the person responsible. It's sort of a basic thing so common that we almost don't see it but there really is a reason for it because without it a landlord could essentially get away with anything simply by never identifying themselves as a landlord. So we have to put in an affirmative obligation because arrest is simply not an option. And this happens in law. I bring up arrest because this is a similar provision in every criminal law enforcement code you're ever going to encounter where police have the authority to ask for someone's identification because they can't just They need to do investigations before they make arrests, and it's similar here. Code enforcement needs to be able to conduct investigations, and that requires knowing who it is you're talking to.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilor Brahaus.

Thank you. Wadi, would you jump back up for a second? Thanks. I just want to touch point on the self-certification question. So in the current language, I imagine this is referring to you, but at the discretion of the code official can choose to not accept the self-certification. So I'm curious if you can offer some perspective on when you wouldn't necessarily in my mind it's like repeat violations or egregious violation that should be shown to be done but I you know I'm not the enforcement officer so I'm curious if you can offer some insight on that

That is correct, and myself and my staff, we do take an oath of office, and we do have a responsibility that we take very seriously. And so yeah, any time that we receive any piece of information from anyone, we do have an obligation to review that information. And if there is any doubt that that information is not valid, or if we feel like you know, the corrections have not happened appropriately, then we'll definitely go and conduct, we conduct inspections all the time is what we do. So we'll definitely, we'll be there if there is a need for sure.

Great. Thank you. I have no more questions. I'm going to say a few more things, but you don't need to stand up there while I just talk if you want to take a seat. You know, I, you know, I want to remain clear that, you know, this is kind of, We do our best work when we've done the process that we've done. You know, we had multiple meetings, you know, like multiple official or multiple of our staff has mentioned, you know, this is the culmination of a very long process with multiple stakeholders. And I am very grateful at the way that, you know, our community services team has really engaged in this process with our community. And I'm very, very honored to be a part of this process where our community stepped up in a lot of ways to talk about this. And this is very much not the end of the conversation. We are enacting this code. There's more enforcement mechanisms that we're engaging with. And I want to say publicly here, you know, as a representative of, you know, of this body and the city itself, you know, when this fails, I think, you know, particularly with my question on self-certification, you know, there's a fear that that's not good enough. Like, hey, you know, without proper protocols in place, you might miss, there might be a lot of things falling through the cracks, which is why we're going to continue having this conversation. And if we need to offer either direction or actual ordinance adjustments, we will, or at least that's my hope. And so I'm saying that kind of in front of the community that's present here today. For the record, that's my understanding of this. And from that end to all of these other thoughts and things that we haven't even thought of that we're going to engage with, this is very much an organic living process. And it's the result of us responding to the lived conditions that our residents are experiencing. And we will continue to experience our lived conditions because we're alive and living in this city. And so it's my hope that maybe it's not maybe a formal ad hoc meeting. I'm not going to ask you guys to continue kind of doing that really intensive process and for our community to show up in that really time commitment way, but at least personally committing to continuing this conversation so please members of this community who are here today members of the organization that have been speaking on these things um you know let's continue having uh this conversation and i'll loop and you know we'll loop in the city the city will be looped in and has made the commitment and will continue to make that commitment so those are kind of my words on on on this and um just to end with you know there's been a lot of talk about um And man, it's late. But holding in lieu, or I forget the word, but holding the escrow. Thank you. You know, and that's a high priority for us and we're not stopping. And I know that the city manager and I know that our entire city team is working hard on delivering us a product that we can be proud of and move forward with so that it's actually effective enforcement and it's not something flimsy. So thank you to the city attorney's office and to our city manager's team for really taking that on. So thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Ireland. That's exactly what I wanted to talk to you about. I mean, talk about is the escrow accounts, where we are with that. We talked about it long ago, it seems like, but where is that gone?

Thank you, Councilor, for the question. Well, yeah, just one second. So we, the city attorney's office is still putting the finishing touches on some of their analysis, so we anticipate that'll be back shortly with an answer.

Thank you.

Excellent. Well, then I will add some final thoughts as well, which is a really, really big thank you to our community. Thank you, UNE. Thank you, volunteers. Thank you for caring about each other and about this city. Thank you, staff. You've been working on this for two years. That initial walkthrough that I did with UNE, 2024, December, was extremely impactful. I had no idea that in our city we had situations with living conditions such as those. And I wondered if it was safe during that tour for us to walk up the rails and on the staircases that we were walking on. And I had real questions that we brought back to the staff. And I am so grateful to all of you for holding fast and steady to this commitment to improve these conditions. It does take time. and yet we've made it happen. And my message truly, you know, when I speak to other folks who are thinking of running is that change absolutely is possible. I feel like I've been lied to, that government can't move, that there's too much bureaucracy, that getting involved doesn't work. That is so untrue, and this is one of the best examples to prove that. You absolutely made a huge difference in people's lives, and we in the city are taking direct action to ensure that people do not live in those conditions anymore. And thank you to all the incredible work that staff has done by making sure that not only are we just standing up an inspection program, we're one of the only cities to do so, we're taking incredible precedence by doing this, but now we're going to be certified. We are. Congratulations to all those officers. They deserve an, yeah, actually round of applause for all the officers. They went through a lot of work. They went through over a year of work to be certified by the International Code and that is just incredible. So we're not taking this lightly, we're taking it very seriously and we're doing it the right way and it takes time because we're going through it the right way. And I am just so incredibly grateful and incredibly proud. As to the asks, um i want to make sure we don't throw out the baby with the bath water right you know that you have a council that supports this cause we need to get this over the finish line i am in full support of having that conversation around the escrow i want to see that happen and as you've heard staff is in progress of seeing how how we can make that happen that's still in progress and into me that's maybe one of the most important pieces to make sure that this has true accountability and I understand that and we need to get this over the finish line and so I am really excited to vote for this and as we've heard we will not stop listening we're going to continue the work with you so with that roll call please

Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela? I get to be first, yay, yes. Councillor Brajas?

Yes.

Mayor Carmelia? Yes. Councillor Azadi? Yes. Councillor Ireland? Yes. And Councillor Johnson? Yes. The motion passes on a 6-0 vote.

Thank you so much. We will now move on to the first reading of Council Bill Number 40 and Council Bill Number 41. Do I have a motion? Councillor Azadi?

Thank you. I move to pass council's bill number 40 on first reading amending chapter 7, 8, and 12 of title 8 of the Westminster Municipal Code concerning the implementation of water, sewer, and reclaimed water rates and fees for 2027 and 2028. Move. Is that a second motion?

I think it was one at a time. Yeah, so you can stop there.

Yeah, I'll stop there.

Thank you so much. Mayor Pro Tem? Second. Any further discussion? Councillor Ireland.

I will be voting no on this because I think we should have kept the course. Staff told us at the last time we raised rates that we needed to raise them four and a half percent across the board and that's not what we're doing. That was what's promised. That's what paid for the water treatment plant. So that's why I'm voting no.

Mayor Pro Tem Nirmala. I just appreciate the effort that staff initiated to get through the discussion with the community on how we should be handling water rates and I know it's not easy and they also opened up looking into multi-family rates and so I know that it's It's it's a fine balance to make sure that we're not charging too much and also not raising rates significantly for everybody and I think this is a conservative approach so I am in support of it and you know, it's gonna change over time too and we'll see how this Works and we get to reevaluate this every year as well Thank You councillor Zotti

Thank you, I agree this is a very conservative approach. Just so everyone's clear, staying the course would mean that your water bills, that everyone's water bills would go up 4.5% if we did nothing. This plan tonight brings a first ever for single family reduction in water fees and water rates for essential indoor use. That ensures everyone benefits from those savings because as you know, as you move up the tiers, all the savings, no matter how much you use water, you're gonna get savings from this as well. It results from the first ever community-led water task force, which is a big deal, and they recommended a really solid structure that I think will make sure water is more affordable here in the city, and it lowers rates for the first time ever for multi-families. which is, as you've heard, we have a lot of units, a lot of people live in the city that live in those buildings, and they're finally gonna get some relief. So I'm looking forward to saying yes in a few seconds.

Councillor Ireland? I just wanna talk about the Utility Affordability Advisory Board. There was two on that board that were not perverse.

Councillor, can we save that for the next motion? We'll have that just in a moment here.

i guess so that that's what we're talking about it's 41. we're on 40. we'll do it just in a moment here okay but that's in here on 40. you have to establish the board

Yeah, the motion didn't include that when councillor Zotti has stopped at the 2028 which so it doesn't include councillors bills number 40 cut there's a Okay, but I do have a comment on this one

diane i just want to say that the water rates went down the most in 2021 for everyone at 30 so we're only saving four cents per thousand so it's only going to change a dollar 92 for the first year for the whole year for single family homes um apartments may save some money but we don't know if landlords will take that money we don't know how that will transpire that the people will actually get the break. So maybe the billionaire apartment owners will keep getting richer. Thank you. Councillor Brahas.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to take a moment to attend to this idea that, you know, no one's going to see any benefit on multifamily use. There are multiple HOAs in our city, many of which I've talked to with Councillor Azadi in his HOA tour, one that I live in myself. that are mastered, metered, and would see a reduction, a very great reduction because of the multifamily use. And while my HOA doesn't have a plan to pass through necessarily those savings to each HOA fee, what we are planning on doing is using that saved money to build up our reserves which due to high heightened insurance rates has become you know every HOA that we've heard from is struggling to make those reserve to meet those reserve number goals and being able to offer you know some relief I think is worth noting and shouldn't just be shrugged off I'm really glad that this the staff here kind of and the water affordability task force took an opportunity to really take a look at that because if we were to continue increasing at a steady rate, the way percentage growth works exponentially, those who have a higher base rate would continue seeing that higher and higher fee associated with their usage. And I'm really grateful that we're attending to you know, what has been explained to me as not intentional, but bias towards those who who live in in the sort of buildings that I live in or that others live in in this community. And so I'm grateful that we're able to kind of make make a pass at it right now, that we can continue addressing it and to actually Deliver on the promises where we said hey a choice. This is something you know if you're in this mastered metered type of water Billing you're gonna see some some pretty significant savings particularly if you couple that with a lot of the LAWN ALTERNATIVES THAT WE HAVE PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE AND DOING A LOT OF EDUCATION AROUND AS WELL. SO VERY EXCITED TO BE CREATIVE AND ATTENDING TO KIND OF THE EVOLVING NEEDS OF THE CITY. AND JUST ONE FINAL NOTE ON The the need for infrastructure. I don't want to call out specific municipalities across this state alone let alone the country that are seeing failing infrastructure and You know City Council's that are failing to meet the moment in funding properly their water and infrastructure systems But we see cities unincorporate because they're not able to afford water because of the political pressure to not increase rates. We're seeing cities pour tons of sewage into recreative spaces, killing swaths of wildlife and putting humans at risk because of the inability to address the need of constantly attending to the infrastructure. As people use infrastructure, it ages and potentially will fail if we don't have Leaders in this community who are willing to step up and say this is a priority and I'm glad that this council Ensured that our capital improvement projects along with all of the other projects that have been initiated in the past are attended to and that our city knows that they can come to the residents and say in order to have a resilient city For not only yourself, but for your children and your grandchildren in the years to come. This is what we need to do So, thank you council for stepping up and thank you city for stepping up as well

thank you i'll have a couple comments and then uh city clerk if if next time we can have these broken out i think it would make a little less confusion i'm not sure how that happened perhaps yeah um Yes, so just this is my chance to say thank you to the task force. Thank you for getting the job done. We involve the community. Thank you, Councilor Rosati, for that incredible work and idea in bringing forth the utility task force. This is what it looks like when our government works with our community to get things done, and we worked off of your suggestions, and here we are listening to you directly as we promised to do. So, thank you. And this, of course, will mean a reduction for the first time ever for the majority of residents. And just remember that that reduction through the first tier, that applies to everyone, right? Those essential services, that water reduction, that applies to everyone across the board in this city. And then it's up to us from there to decide whether to use more water or not. With that, roll call, please.

Councilor Barajas.

Yes.

Mayor Carmelia. Yes. Councilor Azadi. Yes. Councilor Ireland. No. Councilor Johnson. Yes. And Mayor Pro Tem Normella. Yes. The motion passes on a 5-1 vote.

Thank you. Second motion for Councilor Bill number 41, please. Councilor Azadi.

I move to pass council's bill number 41 on first reading, creating chapter 16, title two of the Westminster Municipal Code to establish a utility affordability advisory board.

Thank you. Councilor Brajas?

Second.

Any further discussion? Councilor Eiland?

I would have liked to seen this to have been totally residents that are affected by these bills. We had two at least that were not residents on this board, and I've heard that there is a third. So I hope when you guys adopt this that you'll make sure that they're residents so they have to have the consequences of the decisions made on that board. I don't agree with making another board in our city it costs money it costs time for our employees and i think there's time better served other ways they know the numbers they know what we need to pay for the water treatment plan so i would rather had a town hall or we had more input from all of the residents involved in water so that's why i'm voting no Councilor Brahas.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to take an opportunity to thank the water, the water or task force. I think it was named water. There has been a lot of conversation, but I want to remember that that task force was made up of residents, you know, not political figures, not elected officials. And every single one of those residents showed up day after day in a pretty dense, tightly packed meeting with a lot of numbers and a lot of information. And they sifted through all of it and really moved the needle on the way that we engage not only the electorate, but an educated electorate that can make a decision and offer advice based off of lots of information that they see. And I think what we see time and again is the more that people can understand, the more that people can engage with it, with any topic. um you know the more willing they are to to to engage with creative solutions like we're seeing before us today so thank you to everyone on the water task force you know regardless of kind of my sentiments towards uh you know the outcome of that task force i'm honored that every single member of that committee came you know to every meeting and and really gave their all to that and i think that's again we're best as a city when that kind of work happens so just a special shout out to them you know i'm I'm open to all sorts of ways that we structure this board. I think there's time to have that dialogue. But I think what I love the most about the boards that we have serving our city, there's all sorts of boards that we have, is that they have... The task before them is to engage in their community, and all the boards that I'm a part of, I'm constantly asking for more than just their feedback, but for the community's feedback, for them to talk to their neighbors, their friends, the businesses around them, and I know that this would be no different. And it's also a great opportunity to have time dedicated for residents to really engage deeply with the way our city works, and I'm happily voting yes on this for that reason.

Councilor Rosati?

pile on. I just wanted to thank all of the members if they're listening. I hope they all return to be on this board because we did invest a lot of time. They invested a ton of time. Many, many, many hours and days and months learning the entire water system better than we do on council. So that's how good they are and we don't want to lose that institutional knowledge that they've gained. And I do want to say that there's a lot of amazing things that staff has planned that they spoke about with the task force opportunities to really get into affordability like having a water home-based budget for example there are a lot of topics that this utility board is going to explore with more time and that should be really exciting for the community because there's a lot of opportunity for us to actually make water much more affordable, yet keeping the system even more sustainable than it is now, right? There's a way to walk and chew gum at the same time here. And there are some exciting ideas that this board will get to explore. So looking forward to that.

Thank you. With that, roll call, please.

Mayor Carmelia. Yes. Councillor Azadi. Yes. Councillor Ireland. No. Councillor Johnson.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Normella. Yes. And Councillor Barajas. Yes. The motion passes on a 5-1 vote.

We now move on to old business with the second reading of Councillor Bill number 34. Councillor Azadi. Yes.

Thank you move to pass Council's bill number 34 and 2nd reading to amend the Westminster municipal code to exempt infant formula diapers and feminine hygiene products from the city sales and use tax with a change to the first sentence of the section of section 4 to read the ordinance will take effect on November 1st 2026.

Councilor Johnson second any further discussion. Excellent roll call please.

Councilor Zotti.

Yes.

Councillor Ireland? Yes. Councillor Johnson? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela? Yes. Councillor Barajas?

Yes.

Mayor Carmelia? Yes. And did I call you Councillor Azadi? Okay. The motion passes on a 6-0 vote.

Thank you so much. With that, the time is 9.55, and the September 14th, 2026 meeting of Westminster City Council is adjourned. We will now go into the boardroom for our post-meeting presentations. Thank you all so much.

Amen. ¶¶ you Thank you. you you

All right, I love that we're having apple pie. It makes me so happy.

I'm not celebrating your birthday.

Time is now 10.03 and we are of the September 14th, 2026 meeting. And we are in our post-meeting presentation mode. And City Manager, do you have a presentation for us?

I'll turn it straight over to, actually, Lindsay Kimball will intro and then we'll get going.

Great. And to honor the request to save time, I'm going to turn it right over to Bibi.

with the community services team we are here to present on a down payment assistance program and receive not only give the presentation to city council but also ask for direction on some of the items for the down payment assistance program I would just like to take a brief moment to introduce the two new housing staff members, Adrienne Chury and Jeremy Brandtine. They stay with us tonight. They officially have one month under their belt, and we've put them to work, so we appreciate them being here tonight. Based on our housing needs, you know, in council's direction, we are bringing forward a proposal of a down payment assistance program. As we all know, residents currently face significant barriers to purchase their own home, especially those that earn up to and below 120% of the area medium income, not only There are rising home costs, but also rents are high, so they're having a hard time saving to be able to purchase their first home. There's also a shortage of attainable missing middle housing, which are the housing costs that are designed for these residents. These facts come from not only our housing needs assessment, but also from the Denver Regional Council of Government regional housing needs assessment that the city participated in. We just wanted to give a quick timeline on what we've been working on. On February 21st, staff presented to City Council on different housing initiatives, received direction to start working on a down payment assistance program. We did a lot of research, peer community analysis, developed a structure for the program and identified potential partners. On July 27th, City Council approved the reappropriation of $500,000 to fund a pilot program for down payment assistance through 2027. On July 31st, we released request for proposals for a down payment assistance administrator. On September 2nd, we met with credit union leaders. Thank you, Councillor Azadi, for making that connection for staff. We discussed leveraging and layering different programs and funding sources. We are exploring every alternative possible to ensure that our money is not only well spent for this program, but also we can leverage other funds. On September 1st, excuse me, September 3rd, RFP closed and we started the reviewing process for the RFPs. That should be finalized by the 21st, next Monday. The residents that would benefit the most from the down payment assistance program would be first generation home buyers, first time home buyers, young professionals, workforce households earning between 80 to 120% AMI. A first-time homebuyer is also considered a homebuyer that hasn't owned a home in the last three years. So that also assists single-family divorced parents that used to own a home together. Now they separated and they are unable to purchase a home. Some other benefits of the program, some of the most obvious ones, reducing upfront costs for eligible home buyers. We also will be expanding access to sustainable home ownership by providing down payment assistance program. We are able to reduce some that upfront costs potentially eliminating PMI and some other costs for residents. It also supports long-term stability in Westminster neighborhoods. We want more homeowners and it provides opportunity for educational outreach. Part of the program as it was outlined in the memo is having educational sessions and making sure that residents have access to information and opportunities for home ownership. The benefit of having an administrator administrating this program and not internal staff, plus the duties that they would perform, the administrators that we are looking into, they have a lot of experience with similar down payment assistance programs in Colorado. they are credible, they provide, they enable program expansion, they will take all the underwriting, the loan processing, the servicing, compliance, financial management, record keeping and reporting. These are administrators that have been doing this for Decades, we were really specific on our request for proposals because we really wanted to make sure that we identified the right partner for the city. The way that we initially structured the program and the reason we are here tonight to get your feedback is we would like to focus on workforce households earning between 80 to 120% AMI. we recommend that our down payment comes in as a deferred second loan and wouldn't have any payments for the first five years. So it's really to assist bridging that gap for the homeowners. When we say assistance up to 20% of the purchase price, our goal is to use as little as possible from the down payment assistance program. It's really to assist bridging that gap so the homeowner becomes more competitive in the market. They don't have have a PMI, and that decision will be led by the administrator. That part of their job is to make sure that they're being good stewards of our money and making it go as further as possible to our residents. We would require a minimum 1% buyer contribution, just making sure that they have a buy-in into the program. If somebody doesn't have that 1%, it would be really challenging for them to be able to pay for the payments. So it's just another way of making sure that they're vetting the proper candidates for this program. The goal would be to start receiving the repayment in year six. or at sale or during refinance. So we want this home, and the most important thing here is having a five-year owner occupancy requirement. So let's say I would like to purchase a home in Westminster, be part of this community. If I use the down payment assistance program, I would have to live in that property for the first five years, or I would have to pay back that loan. unless I do sell that home for a reason. We also don't want to hold just put handcuffs on, you know, sometimes life happens. We want to try to look into all the alternatives to make it successful. The city, the staff will continue looking into future third party grants. We are often doing research and just looking at alternatives and other ways to support funding this grant, but having the pilot program will also help us be more competitive in these processes. Some of the next steps, finalizing the contractor selection, as I mentioned next Monday, we'll have selected one of our contractors, refine cost capture, payment model options, return to city council for final program approval as needed, launch the program, continue pursuing federal, state, and other types of funding, and continue engaging with credit unions and any other programs for enhancements. Staff recommendations and council direction. Looking into assistance structured as a loan to be repaid. So that is one of the goals of the program. Assistance to households earning up to 120% AMI or less. Assistance for up to 20% of the home purchase price. accounting for we would hopefully use the minimum possible. Homes must be owner-occupied for the first five years unless assistance is repaid and also assistance loan repayment beginning on year six. So those are the items that we would love to hear feedback from Council on. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you so much. Thank you for all the work. Yeah. So council, as we see, there's a lot of questions here. Well, five, but more than usual. So we're just going to go through them one by one. Let's try to keep our questions and comments brief on each one. If you have a question or comment and then just give me your yay or nay, and then we'll go around to question two and so on. Once we get all everyone's feedback with that, are you prepared to start or should we go on this end? Okay. Councilor Zotty.

Thank you so much. This has been long, long awaited. Super important. Well, I won't go over why, but I think we all know why. We have a lot of household burden. As I'm going into why, I'm sorry, Mayor. But we have a lot of house burden, cost burden households and individuals in the city. This will be huge to make sure we can actually welcome more people into the community, focus on home ownership. But so for number one, I'm a yes. Excellent. Thank you. Councilor Borjaus.

I have a few questions, but maybe they'll go to like some of the other comments. So for number one, is there, you know, I'm kind of into number five as well, but like, is there a rate to this loan to be repaid or is it kind of like a grant that is repaid in that way? So there's no rate, it would just be full amount.

There will be a rate, but we are, the goal is to be lower than what the current market is. Okay. So just to make sure that the program continues to be viable, that rate will be decided with the administrator's input and it might vary.

Yeah, because I imagine it would need to be, it would adjust based off of the market. So like if we pass an ordinance saying it's 3% or 20%, like we would have to pass an ordinance kind of every couple of months or weeks, depending on what the market would determine for.

Not necessarily. The idea is to have it determined, you know, within our contract with the administrator, we can set a specific rate that we want to be that rate, you know, for a certain number of years. or we can adjust to the market of a percentage of the current market. So let's say right now, if it is, you know, seven and a half percent, the current market rate, we can adjust to be a proportion of that.

Okay. And we would, would we then be paying for, for the time on this loan or would it just come straight? Like, like we wouldn't be like kind of financing the money for this. So we wouldn't be paying interest on the money we lend out. Right. I'm just kind of thinking like in terms of, So when a bank lends out a loan, they're kind of financing that money. So let's just say we approve $2 million. That's from the general fund or from whatever fund, and we wouldn't need to go to a lender, and so we wouldn't be playing the kind of finance game.

Correct. We wouldn't be losing money by lending it at a lower rate. It would be from our funds, just as the $500,000 is, and those grants as well, as we're constantly trying to pursue those. to augment the fund. Those wouldn't have any stipulation like that either. I just also want to point out another reason why, you know, we want to talk about the rate that we would charge obviously would be sub-market, so being a benefit and incentive, but also we also are in conversation, well, we will be in conversations when we pick the vendor with how do we recapture the administration fee associated with it because we don't want to have to eat you know, eat that for lack of a better term. We want to be able to keep the fund whole, keep those funds rotating and be able to help more people. So one of the concepts is that at sale, so ostensibly, you know, they would already have, you know, gained some equity and it wouldn't be as painful to the homeowner that we're trying to help. They're able to keep the equity that they built in that home, but also we're able to get the fee paid from that so it's a it's a less if you will less painful time because you're already like oh wow look i you know earned thirty thousand dollars in equity and i we would also take that fee to be able to replenish the city's fund because you know there is going to be an administration fee that um whatever this vendor is you know it's going to be charged more to come yes thank you

My question is, what if they never sell, they just live there the rest of their life? Are you going to get the administration fee?

Yes, that would be built into the repayment plan. Not until the sixth year? Not until the sixth year, that's correct.

Okay. Also, if they sell and the house is worth less than they paid, then what?

Then we still, you know, it's like... Are we eating it? No, it would be like another loan. We come in as the second, so they would have to fulfill some of other obligations, and then it would depend on all of the finance structure that they receive to purchase their home.

To answer your question, if the market, if this was 2011 or 2008 and the market has tanked again and property values are at unheard of low levels, a lot of people got hurt during that time. We would do everything we could. Hopefully we would have gotten some of those repayments to replenish the fund. But as with any loan in any program, I mean, there is a risk. There is a risk if the whole market tanks and now the house is only worth $20,000. We're not just getting people that have no... Thank you for that question. I'll let Vivi answer that, yes.

Yes, there are a lot of requirements for the home buyers. That's why we are partnering with an administrator. They do all the vetting process. Their goal is to make sure that that person will be able to fulfill their payments. So some residents may not qualify qualify for our down payment if they're not able to make the mortgage payments plus our payments and all of that. The idea for the five years is just for them to be able to settle for a few years in their new home. Sometimes there are repairs that they might need to make or things like that. But the calculations are based on that six-year repayment already.

So my problem with it, since we learned tonight from the realtor, because housing prices are being propped up by institutional owners. So we might have some foreclosures right now that people could actually buy, but it's inflated because they're buying them up and they're never going to market. So I'm thinking this is gonna make things more expensive because of the competition for the few houses that may go to market. We have gotta deal with letting these institutional buyers buy houses in our city. So there is some supply. Until we do that, I don't know how we even do this plan. We gotta go. deal with that first.

We are also, every month we are looking at how much supply is available of naturally occurring affordable homes in the city. We use just broad parameters. We can change the parameters as needed, but right now we are analyzing homes up to five bedrooms that cost $500,000 or less. a resident that earns 120% AMI would be able to afford, obviously looking at all the finances and credits and all of that. But in theory, that would be what that salary would be able to purchase. And by the 1st of October, we had 142 homes. If I'm not, it was around 142. 40 homes at that price point in the city and we'll continue pulling that data every month and comparing how the trends are going to make sure that there is you know enough stock in in the market to to be able to provide those down payments.

I'm feeling like the prices are inflated already if they're buying them up. I know I know online I can sell my house in three days by an institutional buy roll buy it in three days. So they're doing it to everyone. So it's really a big problem for us to make it more affordable.

Yeah. Yay or nay?

I'm one. Yes, with caveats that we know how much this is going to cost as administrative fees and how we're going to handle that because I don't want the taxpayer here stuck with administration on top of it. I want the loan to be paid again and again and help more and more. Yes. Yes. Revolving. Yes ma'am. That is the goal. That's what we want. Yes. Or I want. Councillor Johnson.

Yes. A few quick questions that will help me answer all of them. I guess just with, I would just say for, I'm assuming there will be some minimum or maximum debt to income ratio that the provider works with. I'm always open to some flexibility around that as a trying to sell off units, there's always something. And we have a structured point system to allow for certain things to allow them to go a little bit higher. So I'd be cool with that. Are we allowing people less than 80% AMI to apply for this?

If that income to ratio Yes, that is the goal of the, we'd only have a cap on the maximum of the income, not on the minimum, yes. Perfect.

And then a couple of things about the repayment. Can they pay early? Can they start repaying earlier? Yes. Okay. And... Do we have any provision for, let's say, year five, someone has a kid and they suddenly have only one income and like how is their flexibility on or somebody went back to school, you know, like life happens. is there a forbearance kind of thing? Because I'm thinking about student loans in a way.

That's a good question. We haven't looked into that, but that's something that we can look into once we select the administrator and see what possibilities would be. Right now, because our seed money is $500,000, if we did too many of those, then we wouldn't be able to have money available right away to continue the project. But as we are also looking at possible funding opportunities, we are also, part of the RFP is looking at the lenders and we asked them that they also had experience with Prop 123 funds and other dollar mechanisms and different funding structures that our program could potentially go towards if we receive. So it could be that at one point our down payment assistance program has the city fund other sources of funding that they might be a little different depending on that compliance. Okay.

And something that will just be annoying for me to like if somebody has a public serving job like is it would be interesting to see if like it kind of like a public loan wait what public service loan forgiveness program it would be cool if there was some aspect to this but I know that's gonna complicate it so I just thought well we are exploring all options you know as the program is evolving we'll

start with the pilot with one structure and really looking at different things. We have discussed with the credit unions they have different grants of you know opportunities that they would be able to potentially match some of our down payment or you know really looking at partnering with a particular if they would like to offer something extra for their employees. It's really, yes, we are really looking into all of the options and potentially being a deferred loan as well.

Awesome. Okay, so yes, I'm on.

Thank you so much.

Teachers. Yeah.

All right, and you have a yes from me, of course. Okay, so item two, assistance to households earning 120% area median income or less. Do we have any comments or thoughts on the cap? Councilor Rosati, okay.

I have another question that fits into this one. In terms of qualification, does this... the whole you're about to close on a loan in five days, don't buy a new car kind of joke. Does this add to the risk that the lender is doing to their calculation on risk? Because it's another loan, right? It's like opening a new credit card or doing something like that. um i know that these administrators are like i imagine there's other programs like it but do we know if it adds kind of like the added complication of their to their dti essentially and it like would it negatively impact them on that kind of dti calculation we are coming in as a second uh loan so then no it wouldn't okay um and there's nowhere really this would fit in but i'm just curious to me, a potential negative aspect. Would we ever foreclose or put a lien on a house if they're not repaying? Like, I just don't want the city, like, Westminster far closed on my home, you know?

Yeah, we are the second, you know, of the down payment itself. First, you know, there's a lot of other agencies and finance institutions that would potentially go there first.

I guess it's like they're paying all of those, but they're just not paying us. Like, the clawback is a lien, and I just...

It would all be packaged. Yeah, usually it's all packaged together and then they have, yeah.

It's just one payment per month. It's not, you're not making two checks.

Okay. Yes, on two. Okay, cool.

Thank you.

Councilor Arlen? Thank you. I just want to know what the 120% is right now, do you know?

We'll look it up. We'll look it up and we'll get that to you in just a second. Councilor Johnson?

Yes.

Yes. Okay. You have six yeses on two. And question three, assistance for up to 20% of the home purchase price. Thoughts on that? Councillor Azadi?

And I'll just throw in a question before, if that's not related to this, but just not a question, but a comment. This is Westminster only, just for anyone listening. Right. You haven't said it, I just wanted to be explicit, this is by homes in Westminster. Yes, for Westminster. In case anyone was confused. And I love the idea of at some point doing specific, incentivizing almost the expansion of particular occupation, like teachers we know need the help, nurses we know need the help right now. That's something cool that I think could... Yeah, I saw this. Awesome.

Thank you.

We're on three.

Yes. Thank you. The concern I have with this, you're only going to be able to help about five people because 20% down is 100,000 on a house. I would like to see the people that buy the house have some skin in the game, more than 1%. I'd like them to match whatever we give them. Like 10% is what I would like to see them match. So we give 10, they give 10. There are ways to save money. I've met people actually at the downtown when we had the discussion on affordability that we're planning on buying a house. They've been saving their money. I want those people not to be the last in line just because they've been saving everything, trying to do everything right. So I want, you know, Timberson is for me. They can have Timberson, we do Timberson. I think they need some skin in the game. That makes them more likely to pay the loan too.

We can have further discussion on this, but is it possible to, again, on Timberson?

That would help 10 families, not just five.

Yes, the goal of the program, that's why we said up to, it was really based on the needs of that particular applicant. Somebody needing more assistance wouldn't be preferred than somebody that only needed 3%. As applications come in, they're being analyzed as first come, first serve. If they do meet all of the other requirements, the cap is up to 20%, but the goal is to come in as a second down payment assistance at the minimum amount possible so we can serve as many homes as we can.

I would think that they would want the maximum if they could get it.

We are coming in as a second down payment assistance program, so they would have to qualify for another one as well.

I'm still 10-10. Them bring 10. We give 10.

I'm going 20.

Thank you, Councillor. If we're a second down payment assistance program, do we need to go all the way up to 20?

This is just a, we don't have a certain parameter currently, so we just wanted to leave it open so the administrators could advise us. Most likely it will be a lot less than this. This is just like, we wanted to have a cap and the goal is for them to not have a

get that. So in general, yeah. But shouldn't it be 19%? Because they have to put down one. But aside from that, yeah. I'm with Councillor Ireland. I'd love to see us reduce and help more. Yes. Okay.

I had a similar thought which is does it need to be all the way up to 20 which seems like a lot but I also understand like intuitively understand that you know we've got to start somewhere we need to see you know provide a larger net and see how the program goes right so I understand that so I'm willing to say yes obviously with the intelligence and direction of the person that we bring on to make these decisions I'm hoping that we don't go all the way up to 20 that's quite a bit.

Just to finish that thought, I mean, maybe something to like up to PMI, right? Like up to disqualify. So like if there's 1% that they're bringing the first home buyer assistance program, like whatever is that number to get them to no PMI. Like if that kind of, you know, whatever, if that's 18%, if that's 17%, what I do like about 20 is it kind of gives that kind of over flexibility. But yeah, hearing feedback, maybe what you're hearing is like, fine-tuning this, but 20 to me just seems like an easier, but yes, Mayor, go.

Okay. We're saying yes, it sounds like. I still have a majority yes, so okay. Thank you. Okay, question four. Home must be owner-occupied for the first five years unless assistance is repaid. Councilor Azadi?

Yes.

Councilor Rojas?

Yes, this is just my last question on, I guess I have one more for those five. But if they turn around and start renting, who is going to be the enforcer on that? If they start renting their house, will it be the administrator needs to be able to do due diligence? Are we just going to wait for reports?

We are working on the compliance portion of it, but there will be a mechanism to check that the home is still occupied by the owner. We're working on the details for that, if it will be the administrator or potentially staff, but there will be something in place to make sure that it is owner-occupied.

Yeah, great. I mean, it hits the goal, so I just want to attend to that goal, but five years is great.

Thank you. Councillor Ireland? I'm thinking about this one because after five years they can make it into a rental property and then we haven't gained anything. Or they could sell it to an institutional buyer.

They would still have to, yes, they could. They would still have to qualify up to the 120% AMI and all the other qualifications, but yes.

That's my problem with that. I don't... You know how we want rental properties to be able to be rented at a certain rate for so long. I like homes to be owner-occupied instead of rental properties again. So I don't know how we structure that, but I'm kind of against this.

Councilor?

Sorry, just on that thought, is there a way to just tie it to the repayment? So like, you know, maybe they will turn around and sell it to like an institution, but like they've already made whole their part of the program. So there could be like a, you know, the five years just ties into when they start repaying it, but like, you know, maybe it's once it is repaid. I don't know how long, and that was my last question on five though. How long, like if they start repaying in year six, would it be the life of the mortgage, like 30 years?

Typically it's the life of the mortgage, yes. Okay.

So maybe it just has to be, I don't know if there's a way to enforce it, but that's a solution. I don't know if that's the best solution, but yeah.

Yeah, and we based this particular requirement on the host program from Denver that was very successful with the five-year owner occupied and then repayment starting at year six. We can definitely look into other alternatives.

Yeah, I'll hear around, but I'm still okay with a yes on this, but unless we want to move to something else, I'm okay with that.

Okay. Councillor Johnson?

Yeah, I'd like to... I'd like it to be for the life of the mortgage. Honestly, I'd like it to be for the entire time. I have a really adverse to allowing our money to go to mostly going to be single-family rental properties. And so I, at the very least, would like it to be tied to the life of our loan, if not conditioned on until it's free title.

Mm-hmm. I'm so sorry. Just to clarify, the life of the loan, would that be allowed if that person sells the home?

Well, yeah, because then they're paid off, right?

Yes, without a deed restriction on the home.

Yeah.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem.

I was like, what if something happens and you need to rent for a year?

Yeah.

But I mean, these programs are so hard. Like there's always something. I'm okay with it, I guess. I mean, if it's running pretty well with hosts, you know, I'd be open if there was a provision for, you know, having to rent for a year, but yeah.

Okay, I'll say my piece and then we should vote on whether to continue the meeting. So I just want to add more food to this discussion, which is that often a house is bought in one year and five years later rent and the cost of houses has gone up so much that if you rent that home out to what they're paying the mortgage for five years ago, those folks could now rent at below market rate. Just putting that out there into the world. I'm okay with it. That leaves it somewhat as a tie, depending on Councilor Brajas, your thoughts. I know you said mostly you're okay with it, but.

I would like to change mine too. I like Councilor Johnson's concept of lifetime. I think that, you know, so the goal, it's hard, it's easy to forget what the big goal is because we're in the details, but the goal here is to increase home ownership specifically. And if that's the case, it should be lifetime. It should be owner-occupied for the life of the loan. Okay.

Well, if we're going to go in that direction, I would want provision for a certain number of years for rental. This does happen?

Yeah. With the flexibility or... Yeah.

Yeah. Okay.

Because I wouldn't want to force somebody out of their house. Yeah.

Right.

Yeah.

So if there's like a provision that's specific to... If something happens and you need to, here's what the allowance is for rental. It should be short.

I mean, it should be pretty limited. It should be short. Because if you're more than a year, you should sell the house. You're not living in the city anymore and you've got a job somewhere else. I get that you need to move and you need to figure your situation out, but moving shouldn't just allow you to not have to sell your home and rent it anymore.

Well, it could be a rental. I mean, if we're going the life of the mortgage, I think that's excessive for a small loan that we'd have.

What's the life of our loan?

Yeah.

Well, our loan gets tied into the life of the mortgage. No? Typically, yeah. Yeah, so it is coupled with the life of the mortgage, but they would have the option to repay ours and be free of the restrictions if they wanted to fully repay us.

Which it wouldn't be that much. It would be like a $5,000, maybe like $5,000 payment or something, which is a lot of money. I'm not saying that's not a lot, but... sorry mayor no we're having a short free discussion it sounds like so two more minutes yeah maybe we can wrap this thought up i mean yeah i do agree with council johnson i mean in my mind it's like okay what if i need to move back to take care of my parents you know and i would need to rent it out for a bit which makes sense but then to a certain extent that would give me enough time that some sort of deferment would give me enough time to be able to make the decision do i want to keep this house so I pay off this short this smaller loan I somehow figure that out or you know or do I move back into it now owner-occupied or you can always refi and take us out yeah exactly like there's refinance options there's a lot of other options but it does kind of incentivize drawing it back in so we can get more homeownership and disincentivizing using this program to buy rental houses.

Yes, exactly. So it sounds like, am I hearing this correctly, for staff there's a majority that wants this to be for the life of the loan with some sort of allowance for rental to be decided by your forebearance. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, thank you. Item 5, assistance loan repayment beginning year 6. Councilor Zobby.

Well, that's tied to four, right? And what we just... It doesn't have to be. I do not believe those two are tied at all. Okay, so I'm a yes on this.

Okay. Councillor Brahus?

Yeah.

Okay.

Councillor Ireland? So why is your six a magic number?

This is also based on successful down payment assistance programs. The idea is I'm purchasing a home for the first five years. I wouldn't have those payments. I would be able to become stable. And then on year six is the first five years, a lot of times you have extra things that you might have to remodel and pay for the home, look at my finances, moving, expenses, all of those things. It was based on other models and they would start when they do make a concession of not having to pay for a certain period of time, usually it starts on year six.

So payment is higher for not paying the first five years, right? Yes. So when you get to year six, it's higher than if they've been paying the whole time because it's not spread over as long a time.

Yes, it would be spread over 25 years.

They better be making more money, right?

Yes, but we're hoping that due to the fact that we would love, we modeled some of this with the $500,000, like really realistically, we would like to be able to come in at 2.5% of the home purchase price, be able to help many people. And then that amount that it would take up in year six would not be as dramatic because it would only represent 2.5% of the... purchase price of the house.

That sounds better than 20% per year.

Yes. We agree. We want to help as many people as possible. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. John? Excellent. Mayor Pacheco? Yeah. Okay. I am also okay with this. Thank you so much. Thank you. Beautiful job. Thank you.

We appreciate all the input and we'll be back. Yes. Thank you for your time. We appreciate it. When is the next offer? After we select the partner.

Yes. and get their feedback into the program, some of the questions, administration fees, all of that, we are going to come back to you with what not only that contract would look like to be able to, you know, receive your input upon that, but also we'll work through some of the details that came up tonight and maybe some others that we don't even, you know, we don't know we know yet. And we'll bring that back, I would say probably... Yeah, it's just sometimes...

Attorneys, take a little one. Oh, oh. Of not our stuff.

Oh.

Oh.

Oh my gosh, they do so much for us.

Outside attorneys.

Outside attorneys, yes. Outside attorneys sometimes. So the contracting is a little, it's challenging sometimes to predict because they might take. Estimate would be like what, November?

December?

I'll let it up to you. I think October. I mean November.

November? Okay. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Incredible presentation. With that, we're almost 15 minutes after 10.30. And so if we would like to hear and discuss our next presentation, we should probably take a vote to extend the meeting. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. All right. With that, I think that brings us to our next presentation. Welcome, Director.

Thank you. And for the record, there were predictions of this beginning at midnight, so well done. We're on a, you know, this is a rich meeting. So, Eric Otzelberger, Parks, Recreation and Libraries Director. We want to give you an update on all things around our efforts on homelessness related to prevention, response and resolution and then talk about some challenges we have specifically in the Irving Street Park area and just get your feedback and direction on a couple of changes we're contemplating. I want to give thanks to our friends at Community Services and all of their efforts Housing is it. That's the holy grail. That's what the Navigators are aimed at and the team with new folks joining the team here to try to present more opportunities for the ultimate endgame here. Kate Skarbek sends her regrets. She's in Colorado Springs right now at the Colorado Statewide Forum for Homelessness. Their focus this year is building a resilient homelessness prevention and response system. um she's i think attending 20 uh different seminars uh while she's down there so we'll see what we can learn from others and then share our stories i also want to give a thanks to uh chief hobart and his team um super strong partners for us especially sergeant roger cox and his group and michael gately our superintendent in parks recreation and libraries who oversees the ranger program and our south district michael is an important player in uh everything we do here. So this evening, this is really to respond to the city's strategic plan and the specific task under the outcome of Opportunity to Thrive. And in that task 1.5, 1.5.1, you see a variety of items on the screen that are literal items. So I'm going to try to move smartly through and provide some updates, status updates on those charges we were given in the strategic plan. And then at the end of the presentation, talk about our current challenges in the Irving Street Park area and some areas where we think we could make some adjustments to try to manage the overall situation. So homelessness prevention with this city council's support approved a contract for $375,000 this year in partnership with the Community Economic Defense Project. We are on target to help 46 households in the city this year. You see a number on the screen. That's the amount that's been distributed through CEDP to date. With those 18 households in process, we anticipate we will fully expend that amount. Now, part of CEDP's service is to help navigate and ombuds on other potential resource programs. On the federal level, that's pretty limited, limited to TANF, temporary assistance to needy families, certain work requirements that go along with that. And then there's the state, the SARA program, community emergency rental assistance. So we do vet to see if there's eligibility for federal and state programs and then local, if there isn't, the local is what we have. But it's safe to say, I think we're already fully programmed for the year. Safe temporary camping. So and Vivi speaks truth. We have a wonderful city attorney's office and they are working smartly with our PRL ranger team. We're under review for what we're calling a camp standards agreement for temporary campers. This is really aimed at public health and safety, a baseline for safety, things like sanitation, as per council's recent action on fire restrictions, just safety around a fire and things of that nature. We're looking what this model would do. We would enter into agreements with Navigator clients specifically. So, you know, that helps corroborate who we're working with. We've had recent challenges with non-Navigator clients, or non-Navigator clients bullying our Navigator clients, and it just adds to complications and certainly adds to response issues across the spectrum, whether it's resources or on the enforcement side. One of the things under safe camping, we're coming with a strong recommendation to continue under the continuum of compassion, which is a dispersed model of congregate encampments, micro communities. We've seen them rise and fail here in the Denver Metro. We've seen them rise and fail in other areas. They can launch okay and they can do okayish in the beginning, but they're very, very difficult to sustain and bring a lot of layers of challenges with them. So we would strongly recommend staying the course with the continuum of compassion that we've done, but look to, for everyone's collective interest, enter into safe camping agreements with our navigator clients. Safe parking is another task item for this year. There is money in the proposed 2027 budget that would support rep some support services for a safe parking location. We've been in communications with different members of the faith-based community of Salvation Army, the former operators of the Safe Parking Initiative which was a non-profit that formally ceased operation at the end of 2024. I have strong connections with those staff members. They were supported by the DU Sturm College of Law. The faith-based physical location is kind of their model. So we have one pilot location identified. With the Safe Parking Program, it would be overnight only, no RVs, limited number of vehicles. So we would really follow the formula that the Colorado Safe Parking Initiative operated under for several years. And there are former volunteers that are still operating some of those lots in our neighboring jurisdictions under those same parameters. So that's what we're looking at with safe parking. I apologize for the amount of words on the screen, but we have a bevy of intergovernmental agreements, either in force or in process, some coming before you very soon at the next regular council meeting. So the Jefferson County Navigator MOU, this is really in 2019 the agreement that formed this thing we call the Navigator Program. We'll be looking to re-up that. We were in a meeting last week with various staff members looking to just add a little bit more formality around expectations of what the navigators provide. Fun fact, the city of Westminster, despite 40% of its population being in Jefferson County has 25% of the Navigators when you consider all the Navigators for Jefferson County. In my humble opinion, we're doing our part and then some. Adams County severe weather activation program swap, we're in the sixth year of that and that's both for cold and warm weather that we'll talk about shortly. Adams County data sharing and alignment, this is the HMIS system that you hear about, we're in the fifth year of that and that's staff members being able to collaborate and trying to coordinate case management across jurisdictions. So it's a wonderful collaboration tool. The Jefferson County Cold Weather IGA, that is an agreement for the proposed second year, which would be this forthcoming cold weather season. That draft will be before you, the next city council meeting. And then the Lakewood Navigation Center. So this is the center that opened in March of this year that's operated by the Volunteers of America. That proposed IGA will also be before you the 28th. And there'll be significant amount of detail on that. The short With the cold weather, IGA, as you all know, we had a rather warm cold weather season. So the good news is there is $700,000 of unspent funds from the cold weather IGA. Those through various negotiations with the other jurisdictions, those are proposed to be applied to the Lakewood Navigation Center. So with that, there's a $3 million operating cost that Lakewood is looking for the jurisdictions to help cover. we will be coming before you to propose a $100,000 participation in that. With the cold weather, I think we're looking at just a little over $20,000 in actual participate financial hard dollar costs after you consider our city provided hotel rooms and the Mac. So those are in-kind contributions. So that's in total we'll, Once again, there'll be much more detail and ability to dive deeper into that at the next regular council meeting. But the hard dollar cost for this next season we'll be looking for your guidance on is a little north of $120,000 total between the two. And then the Mac, good news on the Mac. We were up for a competitive procurement process. Bayard Works, who's been our nonprofit partner for the extreme cold weather shelter, won that competition. And from a staff perspective, we're happy about that because it's a very nuanced, challenging operation. And especially last season, they've dialed some things in and done a tremendous job. Tours and tiny homes. So, you know, threading the needle and, you know, the busyness and the irons in the fire of this city are tremendous. So, you know, we want, we still very much would like to facilitate a tour of the example of permanent supportive housing. That is the Marshall Street Landing Project in the city of Arvada. Trying to navigate work schedules and things of that nature, I think. I think we're teed up now. We had a tour set to go, but keen interest in participation in that. So I think approaching the Thanksgiving break time there, we have a tour planned. I know there's been interest expressed with the Aurora Navigation Center and the Lakewood Navigation Center. If stars align, we're happy to facilitate tours and connections with our colleagues there. And then with Tiny Homes, we've engaged on some local opportunities. One with Adams District 12 and a couple of tiny homes that they have. And another with Azure Homes, which is a manufacturer that was originally based in California. They opened up a manufacturing center, I-70 in Peoria. They use 3D printing to build the shells of these. at the current time and with financial challenges considered. Our focus is on the safe parking, safe camping, things that we're in a very near-term stance to execute, but we are still evaluating what potential there may be on the tiny homes. So, Irving Street Park and challenges. We've received significant feedback from a variety of stakeholders in the historic Westminster community. We do have challenges that emerge across the city, but this season has been different this summer. We have a variety of navigator clients reporting to my staff that they avoid Irving Street Park and Resource Fair and things of that nature because they don't feel safe going there. Just looking at some data year to date, we've conducted twice as many trespasses as we did in all of last year. And as far as cleanups go, we've spent the same amount year to date that we spent in all of last year. We think there's some reasons behind that. As always, it's complicated and multivariate regression probably wouldn't even start to try to explain it. But some things that we're looking to do, and these are items, I have one more slide after this just to get in a little more detail, give you a little more detail on SummerSwap. But to respond to some of these challenges and try to strike that unenviable and challenging balance, we'd like to pursue an ordinance or regulation to restrict certain activities in developed parks. We have done some comparison with colleagues and other jurisdictions where there's some tools in the tool belt on the enforcement side of things. Nothing that's criminalizing anything, nothing that's arresting, but just... respecting that parks are for many users. And I think as we've heard a lot of feedback and experienced ourselves, the current situation makes it a little challenging on the enforcement front. An overall consideration, and this is tied in with the safe camp standards, the continuum of compassion really... really effectively over the last several years. Where we've been able to effectively manage that, it's been on open space property, developed parks for a variety of reasons, just their nature, the amount of use, the intensity of the use. Sanctioning camps at developed parks, I do not recommend. Third item, our partners at Adams County Public and Environmental Health. It's called Project Connects. This is their harm reduction street outreach. So they focus on things like addressing STDs. They do distribute needles and some other things. We... Kate and I have been in some initial discussions. We would like to encourage them to find a different location than the Irving Street playground. I have staff that searches the playground on a daily basis, has found some troubling things. And we certainly appreciate their partnership and we appreciate their mission. I don't think their current presence at Irving Street is helping the overall challenges we have. Lakewood is in the very early stages of evaluating some different approaches actually in response to their navigation center. There are expectations at their navigation center. There's some folks that get removed and there are some challenges in the surrounding neighborhoods. So they're looking at a few things. Just an example of, you know, we do our best to try to work with our colleagues and learn from each other. I'm sorry, Director.

I'm going to take a quick vote. All who want to continue this discussion for another half hour, real quick. Okay, we've got a lot of yeses. I'll let you go.

Okay, and then summer swaps. So one of the things we heard from, as part of the strategic plan, our focus over the last several years has been cold weather, and we heard severe weather. So as part of that, Adams County changed their parameters this year. It's important to note for summer severe weather, Adams County is the only county in the metro supporting summer stays. Because of Adams County's financial challenges, During winter, normal swap, through our partnership with Adams County, the IGA, Almost Home, the city receives 20 hotel vouchers that are paid for by the county. With summer swap, that number diminished to eight. Our client load didn't decrease. In fact, our client load is up because we've added a plus one Navigator staff member through repurposing of a rec services position. So we made the decision to, okay, let's city fund for Navigator clients beyond those eight vouchers. We are the only city, period, that is offering city-funded stays. I do believe and several of us do believe that is contributing to the increase in encampments that we're seeing. Folks talk. My staff have had encounters with folks looking to transfer from their navigator in Thornton, from their navigator in North Glen, from their navigator in Lakewood, because Westminster offers more. Herein lies part of the challenge and the due diligence that the Navigators do in trying to verify Westminster connections, whether that's family, work, other things that tie folks to our community. When we become an outlier, And the regional nature of this issue, it becomes challenging. On a more pragmatic level, because I am a pragmatist, our summer response is jeopardizing our winter response. We have relationships, as many of you know, with hotel partners for our voucher program. Things have not gone well this summer. We've had, and these are, this is the hotels, you know, the hotels have rules. 27 clients have been prohibited from hotels due to breaking those rules. You know, we've absorbed roughly $60,000 in additional costs And this has been the opportunity cost, the soft dollar cost for our navigators is tremendous. And I will just say Summer Swap has been demoralizing to the team because they want to be working on getting people housing vouchers. Housing is mission one. And that's what the team really focuses on. But this Summer Swap, has consumed a lot of their time. It hasn't gone well. Then they're working to try to triage and work with our hotel partners to, you know, we're paying, the city's paying for damages and things of that nature. So it's, just being frank, it just hasn't been great this summer. Adams County's criteria changed. It used to be 95 degrees Fahrenheit for at least two days. Well, no, the new criteria is 95 degrees for the two days, and then lows that don't drop below 70. The previous criteria was two days 98 degrees and above. we would we would recommend returning to those parameters uh or you know what we would like to do is you know we we would continue to participate in the adams county summer swap um but not supplement with city funded stays uh because we really do think word is on the street and that is quite frankly, just drawing more folks to us that we, I'm not sure we have this, it's sustainable for us to support that increase. So that is what I have. I'll go back to this slide here, and Kate, this is the primary, if there are direction, thoughts, and of course, with any of the task items on the resource side that are tied into the strategic plan, would appreciate any feedback or input.

Thank you, Director, for the very thorough presentation. All right, we are going to commit to our thoughts to keep our thoughts brief if possible. So let's try to get through them. And I, can I just get, you covered a lot and obviously council is open to offer response to everything, but sounds like the priority is Irving Street and Summer Swap.

Yes, Mayor. And of course, we're here to receive feedback whenever with the task items in the strategic plan. We just wanted to give you the sense that we're working on them. We feel highly confident to execute them. But if anything you heard on those items were kind of off target tonight, we would take that feedback as well.

Thank you. Okay. Who wants to go first? Dr. Brajas?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Director, for this. And thank you to your entire team.

You know, this is, I think, step one in a lot of our conversation. I don't know if I should say conversation 80

You know, I want to make a bid to the community, you know, to obviously this is partially in response, you know, our staff has seen this, this, you know, our police force has seen it, our rangers have seen it, our navigators have seen it, but also the community, you know, this is in response to a lot of that conversation. So keep that conversation going. Also a bid to that same community. Please keep that conversation going to all levels of representation. I think we've said it once, we've said it twice, we've said it, we're going to say it a million times. So to any member of our community who's listening tonight, you know, please continue to advocate to your county commissioners. Please continue to advocate to our state representatives. And while it seems meaningless, I feel the same way to our federal representatives as well. As Director Otzelberger said, you know, we're the only city really stepping up. And I think because we have a kind of a the final burden and we don't kind of step away from those problems that are in front of us. So that's just a bid to the community. The same energy. Please continue keeping that conversation going with us and to everyone you see on the ballot this year as well.

I'll keep my comments brief.

I appreciate this. This isn't going to be a nice solve for a lot of things. And I want to attend to that. People often say, get these people off the streets. I think that while that language is incredibly harmful and kind of dehumanizing, I want to be clear from my understanding, the research I've done, rapid rehousing is not only incredibly expensive, but also very inefficient. And then there's the idea that we could just throw them to a different city, and then they'll loop back.

I think everyone wants to just see homelessness solved, and that's going to be a multinational task, but we're willing participants.

I would just say I agree with what you're saying, particularly in the very brief interactions that I've had with Navigator clients and people, you know, with park rangers, similar situations where, you know, our community and members of our unhoused community are not seeking the services at Irving Street Library. You know, so it's, you know, something needs to shift and I appreciate your perspective, Director, and kind of fine-tuning some of the protocols that we have. my what i'm hearing is that we have our continuum of compassion we need to continue fine-tuning it to make sure we apply it in ways that are um effective not only to the greater community but also to the the members of our house community who are seeking these services and participating in this continuum um and so yeah i would say you know without i can be more specific but i do kind of support some of this feedback that you've been giving us and i would offer my direction is you know of these suggestions.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem. I too am a pragmatist. The issues you're bringing up and the impacts are, I don't know if they're surprising or not. I think if you've read enough, you kind of understand the dynamics. I guess around the parks issue, I'm trying to understand, what you would do differently in the parks that would still not be, I don't know, arresting? What is the difference between open space and the parks that you would implement?

Sure Mayor Pro Tem, so a couple weeks ago I spent 10 hours with Ranger Ziegler and DeLand and we visited every camp in the city. As part of that day and subsequent efforts engaging folks at Irving Street I think there's a misnomer sometimes that oh well those folks are clients not one individual at Irving Street was a Navigator client and not one individual had Westminster ties. There was a group of folks that have come in from the Denver area. But as far as what would this give, what would the outcome be and what would it give Rangers and officers, There are other jurisdictions that have regulations, ordinances that talk about things that wouldn't be a normal use of a park, like having a tent set up. or or having a tarp or or a grill or just something that that's like okay that's not a normal use of this this this park so that would that would give the rangers primarily a tool to to engage on a civil side to just okay encourage folks to move to another location because one of the principles of hey parks are for all to enjoy and if you're doing something that is kind of diminishing the enjoyment of this asset for others, that's where sort of friction ensues. With the continuum of compassion, having more of a bright line. And I know the chief has responded to a bevy of questions in the past. And certainly, if you'd like to hear from him directly, I'm sure he could give you this as well. But what I've seen in my experience Everyone has a heart for this work and this isn't, oh, let's arrest these folks, let's book them. It's not that. Most of the time, engagements are sending folks on their way unless there's some criminal activity occurring or there are outstanding warrants. But on a regular basis, Officers, I think, are wondering, well, is someone a navigator client? Are they not a navigator client? There's just a lot of unknown out there. So if we could, I think, give more clarity of direction to say, look, the continuum of compassion is very much alive. And this is through years of practical experience of this policy, hearing from my staff, It's not perfect, but they know open space is more manageable. Develop parks, whether it's the unhoused individuals themselves, community members, everyone, all players, it becomes much more difficult. So, you know, we do have... ordinances you know on on the books about okay over no overnight activities and in parks you know 11 p.m and that includes parking lots and things of that nature so just just some more bright line to engage with folks and you know it's it's the intent isn't heavy-handed but it's to make it clear that you know this is this is not uh a space for camping yeah i guess

I do think about the experience that people have at parks in and around the Irving Street Library and just in the southern portion of the city. And it's not the same that my kids enjoy on the north end of the city. And in terms of perception of safety, and then I want people to feel like they could send their kids to the park as I do. and also send their kids to the library. We're trying to create more teen programming at the library, but if parents are concerned about safety in the area, I'm open to hearing what some, I know you listed some, I'll just say I'm open to some measures that could change that experience for people.

So my fear is we're becoming the, we're drawing all of Denver's homeless to Westminster. So what we're doing is not working. We've gotta change course, because our taxpayers, they want safety, they want clean parks, and we are rewarning bad behavior. So we have got to have consequences. This is what I have to do with my children. This is why they don't live with me, because there's consequences and I want them to fly and I want them to be on their own. So whatever we do, we've been spending six years of compassion, but there's gotta be, I believe in love and law. They gotta be balanced. Otherwise, one's law, you're too harsh. Love, they'll, you know, give it in, they'll take a mile. So what we're doing is not working because people don't feel safe. It's not just Irving Library. My grandkids have been to parks in our city and found needles. And it was the one right across from us, the McFall Park. Actually there's a guy that's been camping at City Hall or loitering here. So I think all our public spaces need to be no camping. Period. We can't attract and pay for every homeless person. They should have some. It's one thing once the Navigators were working with that were already here, but we're attracting more and more. because they found out we give more and more. And honestly, I've gone to homeless places like in Salt Lake where they really rehabilitate them and they get services to get off drugs and whatever, and the number one thing they told us, the more you give them, the more hopeless they are. You think we're helping them, but we're making them more hopeless, that they're not able to do anything for themselves. This is why I try to give my kids as little as possible, because the more I give them, the more enabled they are to me. They're not flying on their own. So I don't think we should give any money for winter. I mean, not winter, summer. Winter is another thing, because that's, you know. But we, summer, you can survive. We have cool nights in this state. It's not that hot at night, even when it's hot. And we don't have the money. Bottom line is the taxpayers are spent. They're trying to pay their own bills. They're trying to take in their own safety, their own homes. Let alone the people that have not made wise choices in their life. And I'm all for helping the homeless, but in a way that changes behavior. And if there's no consequences, behavior never changes. I learned this in Salt Lake, these people were in and out of treatment, but until they hit rock bottom, which has happened to my daughter's friend, brother, they finally sent him to jail. That changed his life. He was thinking about killing himself before they sent him to jail. We saw our judge, what he does for people. There's ways to help them there that we do not have. So going to jail is not like the worst thing that happens to people, it's a consequence. And sometimes the consequences are what change, they're what change people, not giving them more and more and more. I know with my own kids, they're all out of my house, they have successful lives because I didn't give them everything. This is what my dad did for me too. He's really tight, he doesn't give me anything, ever. Because that gives you confidence that you can do things on your own. But you don't get the confidence that everyone's giving you something all the time. And that's what they learn in Salt Lake too, that the people they help, they change totally their lives around. It's very touching. That they learn they can do hard things and figure it out. So that is my, I don't suggest we let people freeze to death, but we don't have the money to help them this summer. It's not working. No hotels have had it. So these hotel vouchers, they're not changing behavior, giving people a night watching Netflix or whatever. It's not changing their behavior because there's no consequences. I'm a mother of five. I know about consequences and how they work. Not everyone can say their kids are not living with them these days. And they're actually all owning homes except for one.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Azadi.

So a few years ago, there was a former city councillor who made a statement, I think it was in the strategic plan retreat, and said that he felt The unhoused were, I forget his exact words. I remember the word lazy. I remember dangerous. And we had a heated argument in that meeting when I responded to him. And I just wanna say that a few years later now, we have three out of seven city councilors who have experienced homelessness in some way.

Mayor?

hot, and he's at it. Three out of seven. That's probably, I don't know if that's a record, but it's important because it means that the lived experience that exists on this council can actually make the right decision on this topic because it's really personal to some of us. And we know that, and what I want the people to hear, whoever's listening, is that we do not think the unhoused are dangerous or lazy or they've made bad choices in their lives. Some of us Some people need assistance once in a while. And I call it trampolines versus hammocks. As government, we try to create more trampolines, because there are moments in people's lives where they need an extra hand to get them sustainable, self-sustainable. And that's really what the Continuum of Compassion, all the programs that we've launched these past several years, that's what the concept was, was how can we connect them with resources. And if I recall, Director, I think you had said the success rate of a navigator connecting an unhoused person is 50%. That was, at least it was two years ago. I'm not sure what it is now. But that shows that some of these, so when we say it's not working, we need to be very, very specific as to the specific tactics, right? Some tactics are not working. Some tactics are working very well. And all of that is, to Councillor Barraza's point, should be the county, should have been the county doing this. We're doing the job of the county. for them both counties and the state and the federal right and we stepped in because we don't just sit back and wait for someone to save us so i wanted to just start there that this is a compassionate council that actually looks at the entire population of the city as residents not just the ones who currently have a home i have a couple questions um for lakewood i've heard this stat a couple of times so maybe you can confirm I've heard that we've only sent one person from Westminster to the Lakewood Navigation Center. total in history. Is that true or false?

False counselor. So we've, we've, the navigator team has referred nine individuals. Uh, per year or? Well, so, so keep it, keep in mind the Lakewood Navigation Center under its model now. So there's no drop in, no severe weather. It's, it's this kind of dormitory style, um, uh, So nine referrals, there are 100 beds, referrals have to come from Navigators. Three of the nine were accepted One client left immediately after our navigator left their intake appointment. A second client left because of conditions that they did not like and concerns with food and distance from folks in Westminster. we have one client there now. So we've attempted nine times. The client that's there now, I think has been there about two months now. So this is somewhat subjective saying that, okay, that's a successful referral. However, I think maybe there's this belief that, okay, then once someone's in the Lakewood Navigation Center and what the volunteers of America are doing is that, okay, good, this creates capacity for an additional client for our navigator. It doesn't. This individual is still very much relying on our program, our navigator, because we provide some things that they do not. So no doubt it's admirable what Lakewood is doing, but the practical, here we are in the middle of September, one client.

So I bring that up because we're gonna be asked for $100,000 to help support the Lakewood Navigation Center. I love the Lakewood, I think they're doing a great job. My main concern is that was actually super far. So would that include transportation? Does that include getting them there? And in parallel, Arvada was given $3 million by Jeffco, to have a navigation center, what's the update on that 3 million and what they're doing with it?

Barbara was on vacation as you know, she much, much, much deserved the vacation on Thursday. So I will take ownership because I had to represent in her stead. I appreciate that. I was advised by the new county manager of Jefferson County and deputy that they, Jefferson County still has the $3 million set aside hoping for a North Jeffco Navigation Center.

That's... Well, part of the funds that they're using to help offset the cost for next year, though, were part of the $3 million. Have they found the money? No.

But they also, and Jefferson County, but to Deputy Manager Opie's point, it appears going forward, as far as share of operations costs for the Lakewood Navigation Center, the county is saying, no, we're done, we're gonna help with this transition year because they gave, I think it was 3 million, same amount for the Lakewood Navigation Center. And they're offering a pledge to do so to a, and as Council Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem heard at the forum a few months ago, of course, from all the jurisdictions, there's still keen interest in a North Jeffco Navigation Center.

So it's not necessarily still allocated to Bermuda? I believe the Arvada project is dead. Yeah. Okay. So that's interesting. Just throw that over there.

That's interesting. And counselor, on your transportation question, so that's something that our navigator team facilitates with our various supports for transportation. So we make sure we cover the to and from.

And you mentioned the summer stays, the 60,000 that we paid?

Once, you know, I know it's been unseasonably warm here, but I think when everything's said and done, it'll be roughly a $60,000 unbudgeted, unappropriated spend that we're absorbing for this year. And that's covering because covering above the eight vouchers that we're getting from Adams County. So we appropriate that every year? We didn't, the council didn't appropriate anything. We shifted and we're absorbing that.

Okay. And the safe parking, where, you mentioned that you found the location. What location is it? Is it still, is it private?

Out of respect for our faith-based partner, until we have a little more substance in place, I'd prefer not to... And is there a max number of cars? Yes, it would be seven.

Councillor, I'm going to go ahead and take one more poll to continue the meeting. Yes. Yes. I'm sorry.

Yes.

Yes. Okay. We will continue.

And the harm reduction org, how long have they been there?

They've been there as a partner for a couple years in various iterations, both tagging on to the resource fair, but then also operating independently. You know, Kate and I had a good sit down with them a couple months ago when one of my staff members was stuck with a needle, one of my parks maintenance workers, to try to elicit more help in just, you know, care intending of exchanges and things like that. But they set up... not in the Irving Street parking lot itself, but then immediately adjacent on the backside of where the Vasa Fitness is. There's sort of that access road there. Hey, they're doing important street outreach work. We respect their intent. But with what we've experienced this year at Irving Street, I mean, and, you know, as some of you know, or maybe you know, I office at the MAC. I see things every day. Part of that is so I can get a better feel of what's happening. This year is different. And this isn't any blaming of the harm reduction team, but it's... would need to find a less impactful location. There are many people that use their services responsibly. I think there are some that do not.

And last question, it's really for a chief, if you can come down real quick. We've had several, a lot of the feedback that you mentioned, the negative feedback on Urban Street, There's been particular locations identified from residents. A lot of folks have come to my office hours. People have emailed us and you've gotten those throughout the summer, throughout the fall, throughout the winter and the summer. One of them is in my particular purview right now. But in general, all of those that you've been receiving, it feels like there are particular hotspots, two or three of them, And one of the residents has been asking, can we go into that? So apparently one of them is a homeowner who is hoarding a lot of drug-related, drug dealers, let's call it, and users. That house, just as an example, but there's two other hotspots around there. What is the update on all of the investigations of those particular homes? Because those are right next to the library and a lot of the sources of the bad individuals are coming from them.

I would disagree with that characterization. I think there's an individual that has An individual that lives in one of those houses, that's the homeowner, I think is making some bad life choices. But I would also say that a lot of the issues that we're dealing with are coming from Irving Street Park and the people that are residing there. Now, there's a transaction that will occur at Irving Street Park, and then some of those individuals will go to said residence, and then we'll go back and forth. So there is... usage. I mean, whatever words you want to use, but people will stay at the house, people will stay in the park, they will flop at different places as far as that goes. But the individual there, I would say that is more contained within the home than it is anywhere else. I'm not saying what is going on in there is right, but what we're able to show and to prove within the walls of the house are very, very limited with the Constitution where it's at. Most of the stuff is not being done outside in public view. And most of the stuff that's being done outside in public view is not arrestable anyway under state laws. And what we're seeing in the park is, as Director Otzelberger described, is In my opinion, and this is why there's many of us doing this, because one opinion doesn't count in my view in that aspect of it, is misuse. It's not what the parks were intended for. When you have individuals sleeping with a tarp over them, that's not... that's not conducive to normal public park behavior in that aspect of it. So it is, it's not just one area. It's, I mean, we're receiving huge number of complaints about Irving Street Park right now. And that house in particular is part of it, but it is a smaller, lesser part of the entire concern that we have down in the south. Southwest Windsor right now.

So you're confident that if we figure out the park and clear that out with some new system program, the house wouldn't be a source of would not be a continuous, like, that would take care of the house as well? So they're coming from the park to the house?

I think it would diminish. I can't say that removing all the problems from the park are going to alleviate all the problems at the house, but I think it would significantly diminish the concerns at the house that we're seeing, yes.

Because some of those complaints were violent knife fights out in the open. Those seem criminal to me.

I would... I don't know that that was characterized. The victim, the alleged victim in that did not want to prosecute. So as far as the crime goes, we don't have a crime. And to understand the perspective there, and I don't want to diminish what happened to that individual. The individual did not want to be a victim, said, if you think this, if you think what happened to me is this, he goes, you haven't lived. So was not willing to be a victim. Do I want my child in that situation? Absolutely not. So understand the safety concerns that you bring.

And my concern is mainly for the neighbors. The neighbor, the one couple, the married, the pregnant woman, young couple, they see, they saw that, but there's been, it's not just that. They're saying they see it all the time. So you're saying when you go there, you don't see anything that's arrestable. How can we close that gap of what people are experiencing versus what? Because that's a big part of this. The violence is a big reason why a lot of people aren't going to Irvine in general. The drugs is the second reason, right? I know it's a hard question, but that's the reality. It wasn't one event, it wasn't one fight, one victim. It's continuous. They say almost every day there's something going on out in the open. So is there anything we can do about that?

I think if we're talking about the park, I think Director Otzerberger spoke to it, and I agree with him, is painting bright lines. Here are the rules. And then we as a city take action. And I think we're, I think Eric and I are absolutely on the same page and his team and my team have extreme collaboration in working through these issues. But I think a lot of that is setting up the park rangers for success. And when they're not successful, then the police department's a backstop. But the officers don't want to be out there dealing with that. They understand that arresting, we're not going to arrest our way out of this. This is not a, that's not going to fix the issue. But having clear delineations of what is acceptable behavior and what is not, and to Director Otzberger's point, I think having it in a finished out park, I think is a different scenario than open space. you know, a lot of the open space people stay on the trails and they don't venture off the trails and you can have some more of those, you know, some of those other opportunities for the unhoused. But I think in a finished park like that with what we're seeing both at McFall Park and down there is not clear delineations. And so it does create, it creates issues for the officers. You know, because they're not sure they're trying to do the right thing. They're trying to follow a continuum of compassion. And one of the things where it gets blurred for us is we hear that I'm working with a navigator. And so, you know, we're like, hey, we're hands off. We're trying to be respectful of that when that's not necessarily the case. But there's also where the lines have been blurred for us. We haven't done a great job. And that is also understanding that the park's closed. But we're trying to be respectful of, hey, if you're working with a navigator, we're trying to be respectful of that piece of it. So there are some blurred lines. So I think if we can have those clear delineated lines, I think that would help. Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to ask a few questions of my own before we go around. Councillor Johnson, have you had a chance? I have not yet. No. Okay, Councillor Johnson.

Thank you, Mary. I appreciate the conversation. I'll start by saying, obviously, I support the safe parking. I support exploring dispersed camping opportunities and understand and support the minor adjustments to swap that are necessary. one of the things when, you know, I think it's been put to us fairly vague around ordinance or regulation to restrict activities, exactly what it looks like. So I don't have questions, I just have more statements around areas that would concern me in that potential ordinance or regulation. The first one is obviously the criminal, like any criminal aspect, including what I see as often what starts as a civil interaction that leads to a criminal interaction. For example, FTAs, right, where someone gets a citation, fails to appear, now they have a warrant, now they're in our criminal system. The other one that, Chief, I'm sure you're probably familiar with is a civil stop that turns into like an F2 assault or something because of the interaction that happens with law enforcement. And the presence of law enforcement itself actually can create a criminal interaction that otherwise would have just normally been a civil kind of dispute. So those are two things that, you know, I don't necessarily have all the solutions because I don't know how you intend to bring this forward to us, but would be, in my eyes, pretty problematic because what, you know, I think we all agree sweeping these people into the criminal system doesn't do anyone good. It costs a lot more money than it does, you know, than any other solution and ultimately leads people into a much worse position then it's the opposite of the continuum of compassion. And so I appreciate not wanting the initial type of interaction to be criminal, but I think we need to be really conscious of the follow-ons and how we prevent follow-on criminal type interactions that may occur. And then the other thing that I think needs to be continued, not necessarily just to be respected, but as we talk about people who are unhoused, it is not one coherent group. So if, for example, you have people that are engaging in the navigator program and the navigator is meeting them at Irving Street Park and they have their belongings and they're sleeping there while they're waiting for the navigator, I wouldn't want that type of interaction to lead to civil citations and disruptions in our actual navigation services. And so while I understand and respect the need for bright lines and would be willing to talk about those lines, I think in the way we're responding to it, there needs to be conscious effort put into the fact that this is not a hegemonic group of people. And that if we treat our neighbors like that, that doesn't do a service to the continuum of compassion either. And so those are my two general buckets of things that if an ordinance was brought back that deviated into those buckets, I would see as a problem and counterproductive to our goals. That's all I have. Thanks, Mary.

Thank you. Thank you. Well, first I just wanna say thank you sincerely for bringing back options on safe parking. That is something I asked for when I first got on council and it's gone from a no to a maybe to a no to a maybe. And I am so grateful that you're making it happen. I understand how complicated it is. I understand that this has taken an awful lot of work. And so thank you for making it happen. It's not an easy ask. I also think that a lot of folks who live in a car possibly don't consider themselves homeless yet. They're just trying to make it until they get back into a house. And I think that we owe it to them to not harass them daily until they can do that. And so thank you. I'm also in support of the option for dispersed camping. I do think it's interesting. I don't know a lot about this. And so I do see risks that I'm concerned about, but I appreciate, again, staff's work to find some solutions. I'm very concerned about the fire hazards. And so, you know, just keep us updated, I guess, on how things are going, if this is the course that we decide to take. Just, we can't wait until it's too late. you know, perhaps like this summer, you know, we went in a whole season, which to be fair is pretty rapid for government. We're responding after a season. But I think in the case of if we go the course of dispersed camping, we might need to be more responsive somehow. And I'm not sure, but that's a risk, right? So we're gonna have to really monitor and control how that goes. I do have some questions around, for example, Adams, I forget the name of that organization, but how did they determine their location, the Adams County that's distributing?