[3:24] Good evening. Welcome to tonight's city council meeting. The public can attend tonight's meeting in person at the

[3:32] George D.C. arrow city and county buildings council chambers located at one to comb drive or watch live on channel 8 and through live streaming on

[3:44] The public may also participate in public comment either in person or by calling 855-695-3744 and pressing star-3 to be placed in the queue for comment.

[3:59] Screeners will ask callers for their first and last name, neighborhood, and the agenda item the caller would like to comment on.

[4:06] If you'd like to speak on more than one item on tonight's agenda, you'll need to press star 3 each time to be placed back in the queue for comment.

[4:14] Public comment will be limited to 90 minutes total per item.

[4:17] The first one through 15 participants in the queue have three minutes to speak.

[4:21] The next 16 through 25 have two minutes out of time remains the next 26 plus participants have one and a half minutes to speak.

[4:29] For those here to speak on the North Area Water Tanks, there is a public comment period specific to that item

[4:35] that will take place after the staff presentation.

[4:38] There's a sign-up list located in the lobby,

[4:41] which along with a list of those calling in,

[4:43] will be used to determine the order of speakers

[4:45] for that item.

[4:46] We'll hear from six in-person individuals

[4:48] and then one phone caller until we hit these limits.

[4:52] Priority will be given to those

[4:53] who've indicated they are broomfield residents

[4:55] on the sign-up sheet.

[4:57] Non-residents will have a chance to speak

[4:59] if time remains after broomfield residents

[5:01] have made their comments.

[5:03] For our hearing impaired residents present,

[5:05] We have wireless headsets available at the back of the council chambers from our AV team.

[5:10] The City Council regular meeting is called to order.

[5:13] Will the clerk please call the roll.

[5:17] Anderson, here.

[5:19] Cohen.

[5:20] Delgadio, here.

[5:21] Henkel, here.

[5:23] Just her ski.

[5:24] Leslie.

[5:26] Lim, here.

[5:27] Marshallsson.

[5:28] Chef.

[5:29] Here.

[5:30] Thank you.

[5:32] A quorum is present.

[5:32] Well, everyone, please rise and join me for the pledge of allegiance.

[5:54] Thank you.

[5:55] In an effort to keep order for tonight's meeting, I ask Council members to limit their

[5:59] comments to five minutes.

[6:01] If Council members are given an opportunity to speak for a second time on an item, they should

[6:04] limit their comments to two minutes.

[6:06] And we'll plan on attending a break at approximately APM.

[6:10] We'll begin with Council's review and approval of this evening's agenda.

[6:13] Council may add or remove items from the consent agenda, or Council may revise the order

[6:18] of business for a meeting.

[6:19] Does any member of the council have any comments or questions regarding this agenda?

[6:26] Are there any objections to this agenda being approved?

[6:30] Seeing none, the agenda is approved.

[6:33] The first item under petitions and communications is a proclamation declaring October 2023

[6:39] as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

[6:42] Will the representatives here to accept this?

[6:44] information.

[6:46] The first item under petitions and turn, that was weird, it's like a delay.

[6:53] Well, the representatives are here to accept the population.

[6:55] Please come and meet Mayor Protem Gisersky at the podium.

[7:00] Welcome and feel free to go ahead and introduce yourself.

[7:06] Bonnie Steeleman takes supervisor with a child adult and family services here in Brimfield.

[7:13] I'm Amy Schengula.

[7:14] I'm the clinical and services supervisor with child adult and family services.

[7:50] Good

[7:53] evening, I'm Judith Moreno, victim advocate with

[8:00] the

[8:09] Thank you all for joining us this evening. I'll briefly summarize the proclamation that

[8:14] I'll turn it over to the staff representatives for comments. This proclamation recognizes

[8:19] the pervasive issue across the city and county and the United States and the world regarding

[8:25] domestic violence and its implications for personal and community health. Domestic violence

[8:30] not discriminate and touches all communities regardless of age, race, disability, gender identity

[8:36] or socioeconomic status. Research shows that by creating communities where people are connected,

[8:43] supportive and care for one another can reduce incidents of domestic violence.

[8:50] Every day in the city and county of Brunefield individuals and organizations play a part in supporting

[8:55] people impacted by domestic violence, providing services, including therapeutic, legal, educational

[9:00] housing advocacy and medical services. Therefore, as mayor, I hereby declare and proclaim October

[9:07] 2023 as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the City and County of Brunefield,

[9:13] and invite all residents to use this month to raise awareness and increase the prevention

[9:18] of domestic violence in the Bruneville community with the representatives like to make any comments.

[9:28] Thank you for acknowledging this important topic that impacts countless families.

[9:32] We continue to strive towards best practice in learning new and improved ways to effectively address

[9:38] these concerns.

[9:40] We do this through ongoing trainings with Safe and Together, and through our strong

[9:44] partnerships with Bloomfield Police Department, Span, 17th Judicial District, and our community

[9:49] partners.

[9:54] Good evening.

[9:56] As the supervisor, the prevention team, I wanted to share that, for our team, the goal

[10:00] is to provide a foundation for Bloomfield families to thrive.

[10:03] For those leaving or planning to leave an abusive situation, that means connection to community

[10:08] partners for housing and food security, whether appropriate clothing, job readiness, safe

[10:13] child care, access to mental, physical health services, reliable transportation, and stable

[10:19] finances as just a few of the necessary connections.

[10:23] Thank you for your support and thank you for supporting the relationships with our community

[10:28] partners.

[10:31] Thank you.

[10:31] Would anyone else like to provide remarks?

[10:36] I'll be brief, in case everyone else wants to speak to a long line.

[10:42] Again, I'm Ant Happen, the Executive Director at Spanett.

[10:44] I want to just to thank the staff of the City and County of Brunefield, the Police Department.

[10:53] You all have an amazing collection of people who are very committed to not only responding

[10:58] to the needs of survivors and victims, but preventing domestic violence in the community.

[11:03] So we are honored to be a partner in this network and again, just really appreciate all of you

[11:10] in your commitment in our community partners and our ability to work with them.

[11:15] So thank you.

[11:18] Anyone else?

[11:22] Well, we do allow public comment on every agenda item.

[11:24] So if anybody would like to speak on this item, you have an opportunity.

[11:35] State your name and neighborhood for the record.

[11:42] So my name is Emilio Miller and I'm a resident of Brumfield.

[11:45] I am a member of the address confidentiality program, and I would just like to say thank you, and means the world, and thank you.

[11:59] We appreciate all of you joining us this evening, and we appreciate the work that you do in every facet of ensuring victims of domestic violence are protected and cared for.

[12:11] Thank you.

[12:14] The second item under petitions and communications is a report from the community

[12:18] delegation who visited room-filled sister city in the way to Japan.

[12:23] Representatives, Junko Goodwin, and student delegate, Jericho Bondi, and Lauren Flynn.

[12:29] And Lauren Flynn is from the community.

[12:35] That's weird.

[12:36] Anyway, what I represent it is, please step up to the podium, introduce yourselves and share

[12:43] your presentation, and I didn't get to finish

[12:45] Lauren Fullardo.

[12:47] Did I say it right?

[12:48] Thank you.

[12:50] Oh, and Helen is here as well.

[12:52] Helen, planed you it.

[12:53] I didn't get that on my script.

[12:58] Good evening, Mayor, City Council, and staff.

[13:01] My name is Helen Joy.

[13:02] I am on the leadership team along with you and co-good

[13:05] when for our sister city, Longstanding Relationship.

[13:10] And we are here tonight to introduce two of the delegates

[13:13] who traveled to Japan, we had 11 delegates this year and four

[13:18] shaperones and without further ado, I'm going to go ahead and introduce Lauren

[13:23] and Jericho to tell you about our experience this year. Thank you. And at the end,

[13:28] they'll also present a gift from the mayor of the way that you also are

[13:37] experience this year. Thank you, Dean. There's something going on with the recording.

[13:46] I'm

[13:47] We'll figure it out.

[13:48] Go ahead, Jericho.

[13:50] Hello, my name is Jericho Bondi, and this is,

[13:54] and we're here to present to you

[13:56] about our experience being an ambassador

[13:58] for Bruno Fielcester City's.

[14:06] And Palardo.

[14:07] And we're here to present to you about our experience.

[14:11] That's never happened before.

[14:12] So this is a new thing.

[14:14] I know we had to do a little bit of a technical work

[14:17] around to get these monitors to work.

[14:20] So my guess is that might be part of the issue,

[14:23] but it's either that or we won't have these big monitors

[14:26] for you to see what the presentations are.

[14:29] So thank you for your patience.

[14:33] All right, so we're going to start off

[14:34] with a bit of what it was like before the trip

[14:36] and while we were preparing to leave for Japan.

[14:39] So the first thing we noticed

[14:39] is that we got to be very involved in the preparation

[14:42] for the trip, specifically through being able

[14:44] to help create the itinerary for what we were going to be doing

[14:47] in Tokyo for a few days we were visiting there.

[14:50] And we felt this not only got us a lot more interested

[14:52] in the culture, but also brought our group of ambassadors a lot closer together because there

[14:57] was a lot of collaboration and working together.

[15:01] And we also felt that the program did a great job of preparing us for Japan. One example being that we all went down to see the cherry blossom festival in Denver, which was able to kind of help replicate what was going to be like navigating Tokyo. And made the process go a lot smoother once we actually arrived there.

[15:20] Information for this trip was very well presented to us. We knew what we were going to be doing, how we were getting there, and all the details about the trip we knew months and advance.

[15:30] which really helps soothe our initial anxieties.

[15:33] Next slide please.

[15:36] So, with our planning done,

[15:37] we got on a plane ahead of to Heneta Airport in Tokyo.

[15:40] And from the minute we arrived in Japan,

[15:42] we felt such a welcoming atmosphere

[15:43] from everybody involved in this program.

[15:46] We were very anxious at this start,

[15:48] but once we arrived that old vanished,

[15:50] everything was so well organized,

[15:53] and we just felt so at peace.

[15:55] We also felt the events on the itinerary.

[15:57] We're very interesting and impactful

[15:59] without being too much for a single day, and this is to say that we thought we were able to fully soak in the culture without it being too overwhelming.

[16:07] We also felt that the awaited team was very prepared for any roadblocks they were to face even when they were completely out of their control.

[16:13] The major one being that a few of the ambassadors contracted COVID, and so they had to make some adjustments in order to get arrangements for them to stay somewhere,

[16:21] and also for the remaining ambassadors to still be able to safely see some of the amazing sites of Japan.

[16:26] Next slide please.

[16:29] So we're going to get to the bulk of our presentation, which is what we got from this trip,

[16:34] and how it really did change our life. Next slide please.

[16:38] So our first major personal gain was that we felt much more confident in traveling,

[16:42] and we gained a lot of skills in organization and managing our independence.

[16:46] And this is because what we did receive a lot of freedom on the trip,

[16:49] we also had to learn how to not abuse that freedom.

[16:51] And we also felt we gained very meaningful relationships with the away to community, especially

[16:56] with our host families who we were able to stay with for about a week.

[17:00] And I know for me specifically I was able to get very close to my host family very fast, especially

[17:05] because there was that language barrier, so we did kind of have to work together to come up with

[17:09] new ways to communicate, and that allowed us to get to know a lot more about each other.

[17:15] For me, my family consisted of two older Japanese parents, who were both English teachers,

[17:21] so that was convenient for me as there was no language barrier.

[17:27] And as a result of that, I got to learn so much about their culture and their politics

[17:31] and all this kind of stuff, just by talking to them, because that barrier was removed.

[17:36] And I felt that that was really kind of enlightening for me, so I could learn so much more

[17:40] about this country than I've never visited before.

[17:42] And that kind of leads us into our final point, which is that we got a better understanding

[17:47] of the similarity and differences in our cultures around the world.

[17:51] In Japanese culture, there are differences from everything from religion, to the high-racer

[17:56] children.

[17:57] But the end of the day, we are all humans, and it was wonderful to see us connect even through

[18:01] all of the barriers that we face.

[18:04] Next slide, please.

[18:08] Okay, so now that we are back, our work is still not over, and there are a few things that

[18:12] Let's be done for this program.

[18:14] And we are going to walk you through those now.

[18:20] To start, we've done a lot of program advertising

[18:22] since we've been back.

[18:24] We were at the Bruno Farmhouse this past month

[18:26] where we did a lesson on Fiotr Shiki wrapping,

[18:29] which is a traditional Japanese-style wrapping method

[18:32] for gifts.

[18:33] We were also at the BCH annuals Gala,

[18:38] where we presented about our program to anyone

[18:40] who would be interested.

[18:41] So we can spread the word about this amazing opportunity.

[18:44] And another thing we would like to do going forward is host the Japanese ambassadors that come to visit

[18:49] Brunefield this summer.

[18:50] And this is because like Jericho was saying, we were showed so much kindness and we got to see

[18:55] some amazing pieces of the Japanese culture and we want to show our appreciation for this

[18:59] by giving the Japanese students the same experience we were given.

[19:04] Next slide.

[19:07] Alright, so now we are going to present our gift to Margaileen.

[19:11] I believe that this is from the mayor in Weta to you.

[19:16] We have brought them to gift with us when we went to Japan and presented it to them so they would want it to do.

[20:51] And we wanted to thank all of you for coming and watching us tonight and our

[20:55] chaperones, the broomfield committee for Weta and the Weta

[20:59] committee for our trip and anyone else who is part of making this trip possible.

[21:02] Thank you for such an amazing experience.

[21:17] Is that all from your presentation?

[21:18] We do allow public comment if anyone from else from the delegation would like to

[21:22] speaker say anything now's the time

[21:28] if not thank you all for joining

[21:31] this evening I want to go next time that looks so fun and and we are we

[21:36] really appreciate you guys being such great ambassadors for the city

[21:39] and county and broomfield we'll move to public comment next this is general

[21:44] public comment where you can speak on items not on the agenda so if there's

[21:50] Anyone who would like to be heard, now is the time to speak, and you will have three minutes.

[21:59] Please state your name and name of it for the record.

[22:03] Roxie Jula, luck more.

[22:06] I just wanted to say that I'm very impressed on how the city and county needs to make extreme

[22:17] regulations on land use in order to manage the taxpayers' land. Without it, I'm sure they wouldn't be able to handle it.

[22:29] The second thing is the art that we're having for our city building here. I think somebody might be afraid.

[22:41] to find out whether the people of the city in County of Brunefield really like that

[22:46] art or not because you can choose one or the other, but they're afraid to put in comment

[22:53] like vote for neither. So you really don't know what the people really want. You just give

[23:01] them a choice. So I'm pretty happy with what city in County is doing with that also. Thank

[23:08] Thank you very much.

[23:20] I'm Ellen McKenley.

[23:21] I'd like to talk with you about our community center.

[23:25] I was very eager to find out that we're going to get a new community center.

[23:30] I've been attending classes over all these years.

[23:35] And I just wanted to know, I was just delighted that they were going to incorporate a

[23:39] senior center within the building.

[23:42] I went on the tour the first time.

[23:44] And I was deeply disappointed that I didn't find a senior center.

[23:49] I found long aisles not conducive to seniors who are aging.

[23:56] There are much, and I would challenge you all to take that trip as a senior,

[24:03] pretending you're a senior who has those handicapped in any way,

[24:08] and make that trip and see how long it is.

[24:11] I was disturbed about it enough to decide I wanted to get a petition side, because people

[24:19] have to go through that long line to get to the lecture room, and there's a door and

[24:25] exit right there.

[24:27] I've given each one of you a picture of that door that you can see that's right there right

[24:32] on the other side is the lecture room where they eat, and that door actually is in front

[24:39] of the handicapped parking.

[24:43] Now I don't know why that was designed that way

[24:45] where you have a handicapped parking

[24:47] and you have a locked door that they can't use.

[24:51] So I've got 162 signatures without any trouble whatsoever.

[24:58] Took the signatures to our city manager and our mayor

[25:03] and they agreed I was so thankful and they're really responsible

[25:08] for opening up that door.

[25:12] And Nikki and Clay are in the process of doing it right now,

[25:17] and it's going to be open on October 2nd.

[25:20] However, in talking with the 162 seniors,

[25:25] I realized there are a lot more problems than just opening up that door.

[25:30] So there doesn't seem to be a platform for people to just air their concerns.

[25:37] So I'm hoping that you all will develop a platform for the seniors to come and talk with you and see

[25:43] if they're on some solutions to the things that they're concerned about.

[25:47] Thank you very much for listening to me.

[25:50] Thank you very much.

[26:09] I'm Judy Enderly and I live in Northmore.

[26:14] And I'm angry.

[26:15] Two weeks ago, this notice was taped to my door.

[26:24] It's from the Bloomfield Police Code Compliance.

[26:28] And it states that I am in violation of code 1208020, which reads, bushes, trees, and shrubs

[26:41] must be kept trimmed and set back as efficient distance so that they do not obstruct the use

[26:48] of the sidewalk or street and do not obstruct the view of any pedestrian or vehicle traffic or traffic

[26:57] sign.

[27:00] The violators,

[27:03] these prairie cone flowers, some of which were touching the sidewalk.

[27:11] People thank me for growing these flowers, which bloom until the first hard frost.

[27:18] But the notice informs me that I must remove them within seven days.

[27:25] I have some neighbors that have a crab apple tree. Small apples fall onto the sidewalk

[27:32] for a few weeks in the fall. How can they comply when apples fall daily?

[27:39] Other neighbors have sunflowers that touch the sidewalk.

[27:45] They have a special needs child and I doubt that their violation is high on their priority list.

[27:54] Most of my neighbors are now angry with the city.

[27:59] They point to areas that the city has neglected or is in violation itself.

[28:07] So my question is, why can't the city work with the community rather than against it?

[28:16] Why not see if residents need assistance rather than notifying them that failure to correct the violation within seven days may result in an official notice of violation?

[28:31] How friendly does that sound?

[28:35] In closing, I think that I speak for my neighbours in offering to assist in resolving the issues and helping the city see areas where it might improve.

[28:50] Thank you very much.

[28:51] Anyone

[28:54] else like to be heard?

[28:55] In general public comment,

[28:59] check online.

[29:03] I don't see any more.

[29:08] All right.

[29:09] updates are next. Before we begin with the Council's updates, I'd like to take this opportunity

[29:16] to recognize some very special guests we have here this evening. Members of the Bloomfield High School

[29:23] Engineering Club were recently in the news for winning the National Mathematics Engineering Science

[29:29] Achievement Mesa competition earlier this year in Albuquerque, New Mexico. These students created

[29:35] an app designed to overcome language barriers faced by users of the room-filled fish food bank

[29:41] and family resource center by translating into five different languages.

[29:46] Would any of the representatives here being recognized like to say anything?

[29:52] Where are you guys?

[29:52] Oh, there you are!

[29:54] We're so proud of you!

[29:56] It was all over the news!

[30:02] Hi, my name is Gloria Erickson. I'm Coleman Eschenbrenner. And I'm Lyndon Wood. And we also have another member, Ethan Dorman, who is currently on a college visit out of state.

[30:15] So, just to add a little bit about our app. Right now we have two complete and we have one more on the way. We finish one completely for a broomfield fish. We have also finished another one for community food tier and we are working on for harvest of hope.

[30:29] It translates from English into Spanish, Russian, Ukrainian, and Chinese, and then we also have

[30:35] a Heinez items list, so that donors know what to donate, a donations tap that tells you

[30:39] how to donate, a calendar that shows their events, and then we also have a map on the community

[30:45] food share page. And if anyone would like to download it, we do have it available on Android,

[30:51] It's if not, you can pull it up on the option.

[30:56] I think, yeah, on the option.

[30:58] Let's say called, it's called the broomfieldfish app.

[31:03] Just broomfieldfish.

[31:04] It's broomfieldfish.

[31:05] And we would also like to thank you so much for having us.

[31:08] We are so proud of you.

[31:09] Thank you for coming.

[31:10] We've been trying to track you guys.

[31:18] Keep up the great work.

[31:22] Does any member of Council have any updates this evening?

[31:25] Council Member Liv.

[31:29] There are two community events coming up in the next two days.

[31:34] First of all, everyone is invited to join the Brunefield Workforce Center

[31:38] to honor Linnell Munn, a workforce champion who the team sadly lost last November.

[31:45] The workforce team will honor Linnell's memory by the dedication of the workforce center

[31:49] resource room, named after her tomorrow, Wednesday, September 27th from 2 to 5 p.m.

[31:58] The next community event that I wanted to bring to Interested Parties Attention is on Thursday.

[32:05] The Markle and Waki Open Space Plan will be revealed in its final proposed form, and anyone

[32:13] in the public can give final feedback on that at the OSTAC meeting.

[32:17] Thank you for the open space team's efforts to engage the community fully.

[32:24] That's it, Mayor.

[32:25] Thank you.

[32:26] Thank you, Council Member Lynn.

[32:27] Council Member Ward.

[32:30] Thank you, Mayor.

[32:30] The only update or reminder that I have is next Monday, October 2nd.

[32:36] From 12 to 2 in the Health and Human Services Building is the charter review committee's first October meeting.

[32:46] We're moving a little quickly along with making sure we meet our November deadline for

[32:51] presentation to Council, so just wanted to remind the community that that will be happening

[32:55] next Monday from 12 to 2 in Health and Human Services and as always, please submit any comments

[33:01] or recommendations you have via the email link on the charter view committees website or the online

[33:07] submission form. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Ward, Council Member Hankle.

[33:13] Thank you, Mayor, as many of you guys have heard tonight, twice now already, we're talking about

[33:17] language.

[33:18] So our sister's cities, kids are talking about how hard it was to go to Japan and talking

[33:22] about the language barrier, right?

[33:24] And here we have our own kids here who are doing amazing work and going to knock tear up every

[33:29] time I talk about you guys.

[33:30] You guys have done an amazing job for Brimfield Fish.

[33:33] I love it that you call it just the Brimfield Fish app, but yeah, it's steering to make sure

[33:38] everything is just accessible and that's, that's a key component of who Brumfield is and who

[33:43] Brumfield will be. So thank you and so rolling into that, I was thankful to have the Enneco

[33:49] Presidential appointment to the Immigration Reform Task Force and we'll be discussing the following

[33:53] items as Thursday on our call. We'll be talking about just the policies that we have with

[33:59] our Southwest Border Coordination Center, our Migration Information Center and our Department of

[34:04] security. We'll be talking with government officials and staff and getting an update on current

[34:10] immigration trends and new federal policies and provide time for local officials to ask questions

[34:15] or if you have any concerns you can contact me. We will also discuss the work authorizations

[34:21] of those who are on her mandatory and parole from Ukraine and Afghanistan. So we'll see if we can

[34:26] add Farsi, maybe we'll call it Persian to the ad that be kind of cool. We have a lot of Afghan

[34:32] families here and I love to partner with you guys on that. We want to ensure they're right to work here as they are

[34:39] seeking asylum as well. Additionally, the heart of Brunfield Awards is this Friday morning and we're so excited to

[34:45] celebrate the winners of this year's Awards. The last year's heart of Brunfield Award winners vote on who won this year

[34:52] and we're so happy to cast my vote for the Workforce Center. The Workforce Center goes above and beyond

[34:58] call of duty and I worked firsthand with them and resettling our local refugees from Ukraine

[35:03] and Afghanistan. So I would love it if people could come and celebrate our workforce center

[35:07] with us on Friday this Friday from 8.15 to 9 a.m. it's a breakfast at the Cheto of Fox

[35:13] Meadows. They've done incredible work in meeting our immigrants and also meeting those who are

[35:18] on-house where they are so that they don't need so much transportation. So our workforce is

[35:24] meeting people where they're at. And last but not least, I really want to give a shout out to all

[35:29] of our staff who did an incredible job at room field days. Whether it was our Chamber of Commerce,

[35:36] working with our local businesses, making sure that they are seen and heard all the way to our

[35:41] kids receiving all this candy, I think next year we might include dog treats. There are so many

[35:46] dogs there. And so I just really want to commend our staff and our PD as well for making it a safe

[35:53] event every time I go to these events I do get a little bit nervous because it's a lot of people

[35:58] right and I just know we're in safe hands. So thank you, PD. Thank you staff and thank you manager

[36:03] and CMO crew. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council Member Shaft. Thank you, Mayor Arthur. I'll echo

[36:11] Council Member Henkel's comments. Brimfield days. Thank you staff. Thank you to our volunteers,

[36:17] our nonprofit and business community and of course the wind that was on display that day. That was

[36:23] a delight. You know, thank you to everyone that came out for Brimfield Days and made that

[36:28] day great. Coming up this week is another event in Ward 3, the Octobier Fest at the Lutheran

[36:35] Church of Hope. It'll be Friday night from 5 to 9 and then Saturday from 11am to 8pm. So hopefully

[36:42] you can make yet another great community event this weekend. So thank you see there. Thank you very

[36:48] I love that event.

[36:51] Anyone else on Council have an update?

[36:55] Well, I'd be remiss if I didn't take a moment to think.

[36:57] All of the staff, our department heads, our volunteers,

[37:01] for an amazing room fill days as well.

[37:03] I think the good vibes logo lived up to its name,

[37:06] and it was just a positive day full of joy and community spirit.

[37:11] So well-attended, the booth sold out.

[37:14] So I know how much work goes into that behind the scenes

[37:17] and during that day, and I just want to extend my heartfelt gratitude for a memorable event.

[37:24] It is a huge success.

[37:27] Now to business, Council's consideration of the consent agenda is next.

[37:31] The clerk will read all of the consent agenda items by title,

[37:34] and there will be one opportunity for public comments and council questions and comments.

[37:39] Will the clerk please read agenda item 7A through 7G by title?

[37:44] 7A, approval of minutes from the regular meeting of September 12, 2023.

[37:49] 7B, resolution number 2023-108, authorizing the purchase from Motorola solutions for

[37:56] replacement of existing police portable radios.

[37:59] 7C, resolution number 2023-95, approving an intergovernmental agreement with North Metro

[38:06] fire rescue district for SWAT team medics.

[38:10] 70 resolution number 2023-117,

[38:13] approving a memorandum of understanding with the member agencies

[38:17] of the North Central Colorado Regional Child Abduction Response Team.

[38:22] 70 resolution number 2023-121, approving a construction agreement

[38:27] with civil specialties ink for the Lake Link Trail

[38:31] Arrosion Control Improvements Project.

[38:33] 7F resolution number 2023-120 approving the first amendment to the consulting agreement with

[38:40] icon engineering ink for engineering services related to the Brunfield Heights Stormwater

[38:45] and Pedestrian Improvement Project 7G resolution number 2023-131 to become a member of Colorado

[38:52] County's ink.

[38:55] Thank you.

[38:55] We'll now proceed with public comments on these items starting with in-person.

[38:59] If there's anyone who'd like to be heard, please come to the podium, share your name, name and

[39:03] neighborhood for the record, and limit your comments to three minutes.

[39:10] Roxie Jula, Lockermore, on item G. I don't already see any benefit of us joining this group.

[39:21] I'm sure that you all do, but I just wanted to give my opinion that I see no use in being

[39:28] part of this and it's just a waste of money in time. Thank you.

[39:32] Thank you. Anyone else?

[39:39] Is Council Member comments on these items? Does any member of Council

[39:42] have any questions or comments? Council Member Lim?

[39:47] On seven E, the Lakelink Trail erosion control and provenance project. I read through that

[39:57] item and the agreement and I wasn't able to get a sense of who was required to post the

[40:07] signage with the phasing, is that standard and not stated in an agreement or because

[40:14] it said appropriately that the work was going to be phased to minimize the trail closures.

[40:23] Could Council Member Lim, Miss Allen? Could you address that question please?

[40:30] Thank you, Katie Allen, City and County Engineer. Let me see if I can clarify the question.

[40:35] Who's responsible for the warning signs, the construction signage?

[40:40] Yes, that would be the contractor.

[40:42] The contractor. Okay, so would there, I guess then my question would be anticipating that I'm when someone gets on that trail at some point.

[40:53] They may be a distance from where the signage actually says the trail is closed.

[41:02] That's, I guess that's my question.

[41:05] Can you, where will the signage be posted by the contractor so that someone is not stuck in the middle and all of a sudden figures they can't ride their bike or walk their dog further?

[41:18] Got it. Yes, I understand the question. I don't have a signage plan, but we'll put it at the most obvious trail heads before someone heads down there and has to turn around.

[41:28] Good.

[41:28] Thank you.

[41:30] Thank you.

[41:31] Any other council members?

[41:33] Thank you, Mayor.

[41:34] So two questions on 7C and 7F.

[41:38] So 7C.

[41:38] This is regarding the SWAT training and compensation with North Metro Fire and Rescue District.

[41:44] I'm curious, do other jurisdictions have a similar agreement with North Metro Fire Rescue District?

[41:50] Chief Hempelman.

[41:59] So the question was, hello, a dear Hempelman, Chief of Police.

[42:02] If other North Metro, other police agencies have one with currently with North Metro?

[42:06] Correct.

[42:07] No, they do not.

[42:08] Okay, do we anticipate that there are jurisdictions that are going to have a similar agreement?

[42:12] I do.

[42:13] And the reason I see that is, Madam Spray, who is part of our SWAT team, he attended.

[42:16] And he's actually, is it President,

[42:18] Vice President of the National Tactical Office of the Association?

[42:23] And he attended a training just this year,

[42:24] and that's really where he got that information.

[42:26] And that's really where the most police departments are heading in the future.

[42:30] Okay, and so will that be duplicative?

[42:33] I mean, will every agency have their own medics,

[42:36] or is this going to be much more of a coordinated program?

[42:39] Well, I can't speak on others.

[42:40] I can tell you that Westminster Police Department currently has one medic.

[42:44] It's unique to them, but they also have their own fire department.

[42:48] So I think, yes, I think future, that's how it's going to look.

[42:51] Great.

[42:51] Thank you for that.

[42:52] My other questions I have to do with 7F.

[42:55] You know, some of my council colleagues now, I'm a substitute teacher and recently,

[42:59] I substituted it emerald elementary.

[43:02] And just so happens that I was required to be crossing guard right there at third avenue.

[43:07] And so I watched all these kids walk down that two and a half foot sidewalk.

[43:11] Many of the kids walked on the sidewalk, parents walked in the street because the sidewalk isn't big enough there on third street.

[43:18] So I'm greatly appreciative to the staff. I'm greatly appreciative that we have funds to expand that sidewalk because it's greatly needed and it's definitely a safety thing.

[43:27] So I appreciate that. Thank you, staff.

[43:29] Thank you, Council Member Ward.

[43:31] Thank you, Mayor. I also want to comment just on seven F.

[43:35] I really appreciate staff from moving forward with this project, first filing, most sidewalks

[43:43] in first filing, or not even ADA compliant, and I'm really appreciative of staff bringing

[43:48] this project forward and ensuring that we bring all of our sidewalks in the city and county

[43:52] of Brimfield up to ADA standards and allowing more individuals to safely use our sidewalks

[44:00] and not having to necessarily walk in the road when passing each other or bikes riding on

[44:05] sidewalk, etc. So thank you.

[44:08] Thank you very much. Any other council questions or comments?

[44:13] Before asking for a motion, I want to remind everyone that item 7C contains an intergovernmental agreement, which requires two-third approval of council.

[44:22] Is there a motion by council that the recommendations contained in the staff reports for agenda item 7A through 7G be approved? Council Member Ward.

[44:30] So moved. Thank you, is there a second counts of membership? Second is there any discussion?

[44:37] Will the clerk please call the roll?

[44:40] Anderson. Yes, Cohen. Yes, Delgadillo. Yes, Henkel. Yes, Jiserski. Yes, Leslie. Yes, Lim. Yes, Marshall. Yes, chef. Yes, and Ward. Yes. Thank you.

[45:00] consideration this evening, acknowledging the review of expenditures in electronic benefit transfers

[45:05] for January 1st, 2023 to June 30th, 2023. The meeting of the Board of Social Services is called to order.

[45:13] Will the clerk please call the roll. Anderson, here, Cohen, Delgadillo, here, Henkel,

[45:24] here,

[45:25] Yeah.

[45:27] Yeah.

[45:28] And ward.

[45:28] Here.

[45:29] Thank you.

[45:30] A quorum is present.

[45:31] Board members have a copy of the agenda memorandum, which I'll ask our staff to summarize.

[45:35] You may are in good evening, Council and Community Christ Dewhurst, our Deputy Director

[45:39] of Human Services, Acting Director.

[45:42] Well, Director Casey is out, um, becoming the $6 million man with a new hip.

[45:47] I'll also do her introduces to this item with you, please.

[45:51] Yes.

[45:53] Good evening.

[45:53] pleasure to be before you. I am Chris Duhers, Deputy Director of Human Services, and I'll also

[46:00] be joined by Vanita Die, who is the Human Services Executive Operations Manager.

[46:07] I wanted to go through before you, you have the expenditures for our quarterly expenditures

[46:14] and EBT, electronic benefit transfers. I wanted to go through and highlight for you some of the

[46:22] for items within that, and we'll be able to take questions, as well, as they arise.

[46:30] So I think before I get started, as I understand as customary, a friendly reminder that we

[46:36] are operating on three different fiscal years.

[46:39] And so we are operating on a state fiscal year, a federal fiscal year, as well as a county

[46:44] fiscal year.

[46:45] We'll do my best to call those out as we go through some of the numbers and details contained

[46:51] that they're in.

[46:55] So I think I will start with in total room field department of human services,

[47:00] total use of funds between January 1st in June 30th of 2023 was $7,672,999 dollars.

[47:11] This accounted for 37.6 of the amended 23 budget, which is well within our budgetary limits.

[47:21] Going through and highlighting a few of the other items in here, shared the short story to the longer story,

[47:30] is that ultimately, by and large, Department of Human Services has seen double digit increases across most of our entitlements and public benefit programs.

[47:40] Please, to also state that within our adult programs and child welfare, they've been flat or had reductions ultimately there.

[47:58] So we'll start with Colorado Works, TAN of Program.

[48:01] We've seen an increase of 22.95 percent, so almost 23 percent.

[48:07] In households served, when we're comparing,

[48:12] I apologize.

[48:14] In increase, when comparing to our previous state fiscal year on that,

[48:19] we've served 150 households with approximately $440,000 in cash benefits and supportive services.

[48:29] With our supplemental nutrition assistance programs,

[48:32] food assistance, we saw, and almost 20% increase in household served over the previous fiscal year.

[48:42] Through SNAP, we've served 2,739 households and have issued a $9.6 million in food benefits.

[48:54] Medicated experience to a double digit increases well with 15.3% increase in the first six months of 2023.

[49:05] When we're comparing to the same six months in 2022.

[49:11] In the one program that is remained relatively flat within the public benefit programs as our child care assistance program,

[49:17] program, C-CAP served 72 households in the first six months of 2023 versus 76 households

[49:25] in the same time period in 2022.

[49:30] And then I wanted to highlight a collaboration that occurred between our self-sufficiency

[49:34] division and our child adult and family services division.

[49:39] And this was to implement a change based upon federal guidance.

[49:42] So, the teams work together to identify and close cases for parental fees that were associated with children in foster care.

[49:51] Ultimately, this resulted in 45 families being relieved of $252,000 in parental fees.

[49:59] And I think we want to highlight in that what this does for our community.

[50:04] And ultimately we recover a very small percentage of those parental fees from families as the majority of individuals are lower income and through the process of collection and going through the child's port.

[50:19] Enforcement retraumatizes those families and so ultimately this money allows to stay with those families that are working to stabilize themselves and to regain custody of their children.

[50:32] In the administrative side of things, you know, it is streamlined and helped to reduce the burden that we serve as well to recover those funds.

[50:45] And so that is impacts to child support enforcement staff as well as to our judicial system.

[50:52] And so we're pleased of that partnership and what transpired with that.

[50:59] And finally, room field department of human services

[51:03] has served and estimated and duplicated households of 8,493

[51:10] individuals in the first half of 2023.

[51:13] This is an 11.67% increase when compared to the same time last year.

[51:19] I would like to turn the floor over to Vinita Dieta,

[51:23] share some comparison data that is a follow-up to a question

[51:26] that was asked by Council Member Ward from the last quarterly EBT report.

[51:33] Thank you, Mr. Doors.

[51:38] Good evening, Board members.

[51:40] The need to die.

[51:42] I'm the Executive Operations Manager for Human Services.

[51:46] And I have some graphs that I wanted to present to you.

[51:50] I want to preface this with the fact that the numbers that you see in this EBT report

[51:56] are actual numbers for a broomfield.

[51:58] We have the actual data obviously for our case loads, and so we can provide you with unduplicated numbers and that sort of thing.

[52:07] And when you see distinct numbers for monthly activity, those are actual numbers for broomfield.

[52:12] What I'm going to show you on these slides, I've got from the State Department, and what they use is an average monthly case load.

[52:22] And so the numbers won't jive but it puts us on a level playing field so that you can see how we compared other counties.

[52:32] Next slide please.

[52:35] So we picked the three largest programs because we have to do it on a programmatic level just because all of the counties have different ways of methodologies of estimating their

[52:48] the residents that they serve.

[52:52] So we've picked our food assistance snap, Medicaid,

[52:56] and then also Colorado Works, TANF.

[52:59] So this first slide, this shows you food assistance,

[53:02] the food assistance program, and it is by state fiscal year.

[53:08] I want to, this was from the Colorado Department

[53:11] of Human Services, and I want to do to recognize that at the time

[53:15] that we prepared these slides for this council meeting that state fiscal year 2223 data was

[53:23] not available for SNAP. So these are the four previous fiscal years. So what I want you to

[53:31] notice is that the first the blue bar, state fiscal year, 1819, that was kind of a standard year,

[53:40] know COVID at that point in time.

[53:42] And I think, as you can see, for state fiscal year, 18, 19, and state fiscal year, 19,

[53:49] 20, because we just started COVID just started in March and we ended in June.

[53:54] Those were relatively stable years, and that was true for Brunefield as well.

[53:59] But you can see, from the orange to the gray bars in this graph, that all of our surrounding

[54:07] counties, which include Adams, or Rappaho, Boulder, Denver, Jefferson, Lairmer, and Weld.

[54:13] And of course, we're the smallest, because we're a medium-sized and these are all

[54:16] big 11.

[54:18] That you can see the trend as we move through COVID into state fiscal year 2021.

[54:25] We saw very large increases.

[54:26] Double digits for almost everyone in 24.5 for Adams, 19% for a Rappaho.

[54:33] So we had a 23% over 23% increase in food assistance.

[54:39] So this is a level playing field because these are average monthly case load numbers, ours

[54:46] are a little bit different as I mentioned, but you can see the overall trend for all counties

[54:50] was increasing.

[54:53] So next slide please.

[54:57] This next slide is Medicaid and this came from healthcare policy and finance, and we do have

[55:09] the report numbers on a monthly basis, so we had numbers for state fiscal year 2223,

[55:15] but again you can see for Bloomfield as well as all of these other counties the trend is

[55:22] And it was increasing more during COVID, but I think the trend continued upward for all counties.

[55:32] Next slide, please.

[55:35] And the last slide is our Colorado Works TANF.

[55:38] And what's interesting about this slide is that for that particular program, what we saw in

[55:52] but as money was in the system with unemployment benefits and other supports from the

[55:58] ARPA and various funding for the COVID emergency or the public health emergency, that a lot

[56:05] of our households would cycle on and off, because they would have resources that would then

[56:12] make them ineligible for the program. And it would be increased. So now you can see that most of

[56:19] counties are back to pre-pandemic levels with the households that they serve.

[56:24] So these were the three, I just wanted to show you the trends because Council Member Ward

[56:31] had asked about how we compared to other counties.

[56:35] So this was in response to that request.

[56:38] Thank you.

[56:39] Thank you so much, Ms. Di.

[56:41] We appreciate the follow-up.

[56:44] Is that conclude your presentation, your update, Mr. Doors?

[56:47] It does. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll now proceed with public comments starting with in person if anyone

[56:54] Like to speak on this item now's the time to come up to the podium.

[57:05] The next is public comments on the phone

[57:08] Don't see any of those. So we'll go to questions from the board board member Ward and then Marshall.

[57:14] Thank you, Mayor. I just want to thank you all and health and human services for bringing my question back

[57:22] Um, to be honest, I kind of forgot the question.

[57:25] Less than you brought it forward.

[57:27] It's been so long since you've presented.

[57:30] Um, but thank you again for answering that question.

[57:32] I just have a few quick questions about the presentation.

[57:35] Some of the numbers real quick.

[57:38] Uh, the first one relates to the child welfare block grant.

[57:41] Um, the chart that's in the staff memo shows a decrease in that grant expenditure.

[57:52] Is that our county expenditure or is that the state overall first?

[57:59] It is a good question.

[58:00] Thank you for that.

[58:01] And I'm so happy that Vinita Dye is here to join me to help answer that question.

[58:18] But you're looking at in this grant or in this graph is just the congregate care expenditures.

[58:25] So typically congregate care expenditures foster care is an 80, 20-slit, 50% federal, 30% state,

[58:33] in 20% county. And this is just a snapshot of our congregate care expenditures and of which

[58:41] have decreased significantly over the years. And that's what we're trying to show you here

[58:45] is that because of the work that our prevention team has done that we're not that children

[58:53] and out of home placement are with kin or in foster homes and family like settings.

[58:59] Okay. Thank you. So just to clarify, what is the reason we're seeing that overall decrease

[59:06] is that because we're not having as many children in number having to place them to foster

[59:12] care, or can, et cetera, or is that a decrease in the level of funding we're seeing from federal

[59:17] and state partners?

[59:19] The, one of the primary reasons is that the family's first prevention act that was enacted

[59:27] But I think in 2015 or somewhere in 2015, in 2018, much or at the federal level, was going

[59:35] to diminish the amount of funds we could draw down from the feds, and if we didn't address

[59:43] these congregate care settings, because that has been deemed to not be good for children

[59:49] and out of on gear. So really it was driven by legislation and then of course state and county park.

[1:00:00] Our partners work together to make sure that we were in compliance.

[1:00:04] Okay, thank you. And then my last question so far relates to the overall table that was at the beginning

[1:00:12] of the presentation for sources and uses of funds. Two questions that fit in with it.

[1:00:19] One question is first under sources of revenues as other revenues and taxes. Can you kind of just for the public

[1:00:26] explain what does that entail?

[1:00:30] Where does those other revenues and taxes come from?

[1:00:33] Is that county taxes?

[1:00:34] Is that something else?

[1:00:37] These would be our millevee, and then we do have some fees, but not many in human services.

[1:00:44] So it's our millevee.

[1:00:45] All right, thank you.

[1:00:46] Thank you.

[1:00:46] The 1.5, I think, millevee, perfect.

[1:00:50] And then the last question that goes along with that item is, it says,

[1:00:56] So far, we use 73.39% of that.

[1:01:01] Why is that particular number so much higher than the average 37.6 we've seen for use of funds?

[1:01:10] Is there...

[1:01:11] I think typically what we've seen in the last couple of years is our sources and uses have increased dramatically because of food assistance.

[1:01:19] because food assistants, families were paid for the max

[1:01:24] apartments, and then there was also what we're called

[1:01:26] pandemic EBT benefits, which were for school-lates children,

[1:01:30] for lunch programs and whatnot.

[1:01:33] So all counties, including ours, those numbers, skyrocketed.

[1:01:38] I think we went from about $250,000 a month

[1:01:42] and food assistants benefits back when I started.

[1:01:44] to at one month we had one million eight because there was pandemic benefits issues and that sort of thing.

[1:01:52] So that's where where and those are 100% benefits, 100% federal.

[1:01:57] Okay. Thank you.

[1:02:01] Thank you.

[1:02:02] Can't remember Marshall.

[1:02:03] Thank you.

[1:02:04] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:02:04] A couple of follow-up questions from Council Member Ward.

[1:02:06] Just to clarify.

[1:02:08] The big the three snap Medicaid in can of funds.

[1:02:12] Are any of those funds coming from the city kind of broomfield or those all passed through from the state and federal government?

[1:02:24] For Medicaid, we, as broomfield, do not

[1:02:36] administration funding through hip-puff.

[1:02:39] So those are an 80-20 split.

[1:02:43] And it primarily, it primarily supports staff that are determining eligibility.

[1:02:48] Hickpuff pays

[1:03:00] and TANF is passed through and no TANF is a block allocation as well and it's about

[1:03:09] 85-85 percent federal and 15 percent

[1:03:15] and then one final one follow-up off of the presentation

[1:03:18] related to Council Member Ward's previous question on the county comparison do we happen to have those numbers

[1:03:23] audit per capita basis

[1:03:34] thank you very much Council Member Hankle thank you Mayor and Council Member

[1:03:40] Marshallian you just took my first question. I think I asked this last time too, but I think

[1:03:45] it's a hard thing to pin down. As far as we have more people moving in the broomfields,

[1:03:49] so generally we're going to serve more of the population with these benefits. I think that's just

[1:03:56] you know we can't necessarily say causational correlation, but we definitely need to look at that

[1:04:02] as far as our total population, but I think it's also hard to count our total population without

[1:04:06] some sort of census work. So I would like to see that next time per capita

[1:04:10] The second question is, is talking about, you know, just the relationships that we have

[1:04:17] with other entities.

[1:04:19] So, if you guys would mind explaining your relationship with room-field fish, we know that

[1:04:24] they are in a bit of a direct situation right now because what's happening generally when

[1:04:29] you see food scarcity or, you know, people really going to our food banks, it's because

[1:04:36] they're trying to pay their rent and they're trying to make sure that they stand their

[1:04:38] home.

[1:04:38] So what sort of relationship do we have with fish and what are what trends are we seeing alongside them?

[1:04:46] If you know.

[1:04:48] I want to put you guys on this box.

[1:04:49] I know you're kind of.

[1:04:51] Yeah.

[1:04:52] So proud of the relationship that we hold with fish.

[1:04:55] One of our core community partners among others that we're proud to partner with.

[1:05:02] And so the support, I think, going, you know, as a core of it.

[1:05:08] and I think programmatically we partner, a fair amount with fish, but I also, it would maybe

[1:05:17] have the need to share a little bit about our nonprofit grants that we put out to the community

[1:05:23] to help support some of that.

[1:05:31] Councillor member, that we have two grants that we received once the family first grant of

[1:05:40] 100,000 dollars that fish is administering to assist us

[1:05:46] with the family first prevention work.

[1:05:48] And then also we had another grant,

[1:05:52] well, the Collaborative Management Program,

[1:05:55] fishes taken on that program and they are administering

[1:06:02] that there's some changes coming through legislation,

[1:06:05] but I think we have a very close relationship with fish,

[1:06:08] and then we also have the non-profits,

[1:06:10] the non-profit funds that fish applies for every year and

[1:06:16] Burmfield's been quite generous with them over the years.

[1:06:20] So we have many multiple ways that we partner with fish.

[1:06:24] Okay, thank you so much.

[1:06:26] Yeah, sometimes when we walk through with people,

[1:06:29] working through the SNAP program,

[1:06:30] trying to figure out what they're eligible for at the grocery

[1:06:32] store can kind of be kind of daunting.

[1:06:35] I walk through that myself with some,

[1:06:37] and it's just it's very difficult.

[1:06:38] So, but I do appreciate the way that our staff has made that really accessible for people.

[1:06:44] I do love the way that our staff also moves people through the system a lot quicker than others.

[1:06:49] I will say that I've heard through many different resources that our county is one of the fastest to make sure that people are being served.

[1:06:58] And a lot of our nonprofits and other places are very envious of our other human services teams in providing that for people.

[1:07:06] Thank you.

[1:07:08] Thank you.

[1:07:09] Any other board member comments or questions?

[1:07:13] Next is the board's consideration of proposed resolution number 2023-118-bss.

[1:07:20] Will the clerk please read proposed resolution number 2023-118-bss by title?

[1:07:28] Resolution number 2023-118-bss acknowledging review of expenditures and electronic benefit transfers

[1:07:35] for the period January 1, 2023 to June 30th, 2023.

[1:07:40] Thank you.

[1:07:40] There are motion, council member board member Marshallson.

[1:07:44] I move the resolution number 2023-18-SBSSB adopted.

[1:07:49] Thank you.

[1:07:50] Is there a second board member hinkle?

[1:07:52] Second.

[1:07:53] Thank you.

[1:07:54] Is there any discussion?

[1:07:58] All right.

[1:07:58] Well, the clerk, please call the roll for the Board of Social Services.

[1:08:03] Come in.

[1:08:05] Tell Gideo. Yes, Henkel. Yes, Jisersky. Yes Leslie.

[1:08:24] Yes Marshallsion. Yes. Shaff. Yes. Ward. Yes Anderson. Yes.

[1:08:30] One more call for board member Leslie. Can you hear us?

[1:08:37] We'll move on of those misrages. Can I say it was unanimous or how do I handle it? No, I would say the number with one answer.

[1:08:47] Okay. So that passes with nine to one to one nine to zero with one option. Okay. That passes

[1:08:56] nine to zero with one absent. Thank you for that. Just want to get the record straight. Seeing

[1:09:02] there is no further business before the Board of Social Services that meeting is adjourned.

[1:09:08] Our first item under Council Business this evening is a public hearing and Council's consideration

[1:09:12] on second and final reading of proposed ordinance number 2223 relating to room fields employees

[1:09:19] review committee. I'll now declare the public hearing open. Council has a copy of the agenda

[1:09:24] memorandum, which I'll ask our staff to summarize. Thank you, Mayor. And this is the long awaited

[1:09:30] not Kelly Bellin that's walking through while walking down. But the employee review committee

[1:09:35] has been something that our employees begin working on during COVID. We've all been

[1:09:42] very impressed with the multi-disciplinary team. In fact, the nominations are back open again.

[1:09:49] This building you are going to give us a brief overview given it is second reading.

[1:09:54] Please continue. Good evening, Mayor. Mayor Potem, council. My name is Kelly Bailing. I'm a

[1:10:00] CIP project manager for the city and county of Brunefield. This evening, I'm here representing

[1:10:06] the Employees Review Committee. This is the proposed ordinance

[1:10:10] amending chapter 2-10 to the Brunefield Municipal Code relating to the Employees Review Committee.

[1:10:16] Can I get the next slide please?

[1:10:21] So just a little bit of background on the Employees Review Committee.

[1:10:24] The ERC was established in 1985.

[1:10:28] Originally this committee was established to support the city manager's office

[1:10:34] in reviewing the French benefits package for employees.

[1:10:38] We have now expanded the topics that this group covers

[1:10:42] to include workplace culture, employee recognition,

[1:10:46] and workplace policies.

[1:10:48] Members are elected by their peers to serve for a two-year term.

[1:10:53] And currently the responsibilities of the ERC

[1:10:57] are outlined in the room field municipal code.

[1:11:00] the section was originally approved in 1985 and was amended back in 2001. Next slide, please.

[1:11:10] So this proposed ordinance removes most rules from the municipal code in order to allow

[1:11:16] the ERC to establish a separate set of bylaws, similar to other boards, committees, and commissions

[1:11:22] throughout Bloomfield. The bylaws will allow the ERC to make adjustments and accommodate

[1:11:28] organizational changes, eliminating the need for amendments to the municipal code every time we

[1:11:34] make small changes to the committee. So I just want to outline some of the changes that we

[1:11:39] are proposing. Generally, they include topics around group composition and leadership, roles

[1:11:45] of ERC members, and the attendance policy, and also the election process. Next slide, please.

[1:11:53] So first, for proposed changes to the group composition and leadership, this proposed

[1:11:58] ordinance would defer the details of employee representation to the committee by laws removing

[1:12:03] them from the municipal code. So this includes things such as the grouping of departments

[1:12:08] for representation. The number of representatives on the ERC, we're proposing the removal

[1:12:15] of the alternate designation and I will get back to that here in a moment and also the definition

[1:12:22] of the leadership roles within the group.

[1:12:24] Next slide, please.

[1:12:27] The next set of proposed changes are around the roles of ERC members and our attendance policy.

[1:12:33] So the proposed bylaws introduce a more adaptable attendance policy and this is really

[1:12:38] a design to accommodate committee members whose job roles entailed greater unpredictability

[1:12:43] on a day-to-day basis.

[1:12:45] Since we represent all employees throughout the city and county of Brunefield, this can include

[1:12:49] job position positions such as patrol officers or employees that work for in public

[1:12:56] works. We also are proposing to remove the requirement that ERC members advise the

[1:13:02] city manager concerning the employee pension program. This is just a little bit

[1:13:07] outdated. There is a separate convention pension committee that's been

[1:13:10] established that provides feedback and guidance on the employee pension

[1:13:14] program, which doesn't impact all employees. Next slide, please. Finally, we are proposing

[1:13:20] changes to the elections policy. So again, these are items that would be removed from

[1:13:26] the municipal code and put into the committee bylaws. So currently in the municipal code,

[1:13:31] ERC elections are conducted by human resources. The bylaws would change this so that the

[1:13:37] elections would be run by the ERC's policies and procedures subcommittee. As I mentioned,

[1:13:42] I would get back to reference the references to alternate.

[1:13:46] Currently, the committee is comprised of 10 members and 10

[1:13:49] alternates.

[1:13:51] However, since we reconvened the ERC back in late 2022,

[1:13:56] we have found the contribution of all of our committee members

[1:14:00] to be incredibly valuable.

[1:14:01] And we'd like to remove that alternate designation,

[1:14:03] so the each department and group of departments

[1:14:05] has two full representatives, instead of one representative

[1:14:09] and one alternate.

[1:14:11] And then finally, we'd like to propose the amendment that seasonal and temporary employees

[1:14:16] employed at the time of the elections will be allowed to vote recommendations by the

[1:14:21] ERC to the City Manager's office or to the Human Resources Department do often impact both

[1:14:28] seasonal and temporary employees and we want to make sure that they have a voice in electing

[1:14:33] represents them. Next slide, please. So, in closing, I just want to note that employees

[1:14:42] have been notified of the proposed changes to the ERC, excuse me, to the municipal code,

[1:14:50] and movement of a lot of this language into a separate set of bylaws through monthly newsletter

[1:14:56] communications and we haven't received any feedback.

[1:15:00] On the committee, have voted unanimously to move forward with requesting an amendment to the municipal code and establish a separate set of bylaws.

[1:15:09] And this just means amendments to the bylaws in the future can be made as needed to best serve broomfield employees.

[1:15:16] So that concludes my presentation. If there any questions.

[1:15:21] All right. Thank you very much. We will proceed with public comment starting with in person. If there's anyone who'd like to be heard on this item, please come to the podium.

[1:15:28] share your name and neighborhood for the record and limit your comments for three minutes.

[1:15:35] Don't see anyone online.

[1:15:36] So questions from City Council are next.

[1:15:39] Members should limit themselves to questions during this portion.

[1:15:41] And the time to introduce amendments or state positions for or against this item is later.

[1:15:47] Are there any questions from Council?

[1:15:49] Council members.

[1:15:51] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:15:52] So just something you said made me think I can't remember the answer.

[1:15:56] If you covered it or if it was in the council memo.

[1:15:58] but regarding the bylaws and the approval of future changes to those bylaws, or those done

[1:16:03] by the entire membership within election, or those done by just the ERC.

[1:16:09] Thank you, Council Member Schaff.

[1:16:11] So changes to future bylaws would be made following proper procedure by members that are

[1:16:17] elected to the Employees Review Committee.

[1:16:20] Okay, so they'll have an opportunity to review those bylaws before they are changing

[1:16:28] change. Every employee has already had the opportunity to review the draft by laws, so the draft

[1:16:35] by laws that were included with the Council memo have also been shared with the employees

[1:16:40] in the City of County of Brimfield.

[1:16:42] First, there are a bit of future changes to those by laws. Will those be available for

[1:16:47] the employees to review?

[1:16:49] Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.

[1:16:51] Thank you. Any other council member questions?

[1:16:55] There are being no further questions. The public hearing is closed. Next is Council's consideration

[1:17:00] proposed ordinance number 2223 on 2nd and final reading. Will the clerk please read

[1:17:06] proposed ordinance number 2223 by title.

[1:17:11] Ordnance number 2223, amending chapter 2-10, employees review committee within the

[1:17:27] and final reading in order of publishing full.

[1:17:34] Is there any discussion?

[1:17:37] That's a member word.

[1:17:39] Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I just want to say I will be supporting this. I think it is great to have the employees actually making their own by losses, especially since Council cannot really be interfering with day-to-day operations and what employees do.

[1:17:54] So I don't think it's fair that we get to dictate how they should be represented when they should be represented.

[1:17:59] And what the laws that they are governed by be created by us, it should be created by the employees.

[1:18:07] Thank you.

[1:18:08] Thank you very much.

[1:18:09] Council Member Lim.

[1:18:11] I wanted to recognize the importance of this going forward.

[1:18:14] And at the same time, I am the Council rep on the medical care employees plan board of trustees.

[1:18:22] And we had the opportunity at that last meeting to recognize those who have served on that board for a long time.

[1:18:29] time for decades actually. So I went into recognize Officer Sean McLaughlin and Monty Heffner

[1:18:36] for their years of service to the medical board. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there any

[1:18:44] other discussion?

[1:18:50] No further discussion. We'll move forward to the vote on ordnance.

[1:18:53] Mayor, we did that. Oh no, you're in the right. I just want to clarify the motion and I might

[1:18:58] heard it wrong. Okay. Was the motion to publish by title or publish in full?

[1:19:05] Publish in full. And I just want to make sure that was intentional because

[1:19:09] typically on second reading we publish by title. It says by title in my script.

[1:19:13] Mine says publish in full. Can you read it?

[1:19:15] So I can read it if you like me too.

[1:19:18] That I know our clerk's office would appreciate that.

[1:19:21] All right. So instead of published in full, just publish by title.

[1:19:23] My title. All right.

[1:19:28] So Mayor, I will say.

[1:19:32] I'm ordinance number 2223 be adopted on second and final reading in order published by

[1:19:37] title.

[1:19:38] Thank you.

[1:19:38] Is there a second?

[1:19:39] Council Member Lim.

[1:19:40] Thank you.

[1:19:41] Any other discussion?

[1:19:44] Moving on from discussion?

[1:19:47] Seeing no further discussion, we'll move forward to the vote.

[1:19:50] Will the clerk please call the roll.

[1:19:52] Delgadillo, yes, Henkel, Jiserski, Leslie, Lim, yes, Marsh Olsion,

[1:20:02] Yes, chef, yes, Ward, yes, Anderson, yes, Cohen, yes.

[1:20:08] Thank you, that passes unanimously.

[1:20:11] The final item under Council Business this evening is a public hearing in Council's

[1:20:15] consideration, a proposed resolution number 2023-999, relating to the North area tanks and pump

[1:20:22] station.

[1:20:23] I'll now declare the public hearing open.

[1:20:25] We'll follow the city standard public hearing procedures.

[1:20:28] In this matter, the city is the applicant.

[1:20:30] City Council's role remains the same, which is the decision-making body on the land use application.

[1:20:36] First, staff will present a summary of the proposal.

[1:20:39] Next, we'll have the applicant's presentation that will last for public comments and final

[1:20:43] comments from the applicant and finally questions from the City Council members.

[1:20:48] Council has a copy of the agenda memorandum which I'll ask our staff to summarize.

[1:20:52] Thank you, Mayor Annaburt and Zetti, co-director of community development will begin the

[1:20:58] presentation.

[1:21:00] Her team member, our other co-chair of co-chair, but co-leader of community development.

[1:21:09] Katie Allen is also here. Director of Public Works Ken Rutt is here and for additional

[1:21:17] questions I just wanted Council to know that North Metro Fire Marshall Steve Gosling

[1:21:22] is also in the audience to feel the additional questions. With that Ms. Burton's Eddie, please

[1:21:26] kick us off.

[1:21:28] Thank you. Good evening Mayor and Mayor Protam, City Council.

[1:21:31] If I could have the next slide please.

[1:21:34] Room field is proposing a site development plan amendment to install three partially

[1:21:38] buried water tanks, as well as a pump station, to the south of the Anthem finally

[1:21:42] number 24 neighborhood, which is also called the Anthem Reserve neighborhood.

[1:21:47] The proposed infrastructure is necessary to provide support to new and existing development

[1:21:51] within the northern portion of Brimfield.

[1:21:54] The site is generally east of Lowell and south of Sheridan Parkway.

[1:21:58] The proposed location has been selected due to the elevation necessary for the water tank

[1:22:02] operations, as well as the proximity to the current and future developments that is needed

[1:22:07] to be served by the tanks.

[1:22:09] Ms. Allen, on behalf of the Capital and Proof and Division,

[1:22:12] we'll be discussing the site selection

[1:22:13] and greater detail as part of the applicant presentation.

[1:22:17] The proposed tank site in AMPM 24 has been identified

[1:22:19] as a future location for the water tanks

[1:22:22] for over 20 years due to the ground elevation.

[1:22:25] Brimfield's water system model identified

[1:22:27] a future water system capital expansion

[1:22:30] needs based on the future storage of this location.

[1:22:33] When the Anthem PUD was originally approved back in 2006, it established the uses permitted within the Anthem PUD,

[1:22:41] PUD planned unit development, the custom zoning for the Anthem area.

[1:22:46] The property was then that is now known as tracks B and E. It was then identified as track W32 as open lands.

[1:22:54] It referenced the municipal water storage tanks were an allowed use in track W32 subject to Bernfield approval.

[1:23:01] During the development review process, the Anthem 24 developers set aside property for

[1:23:07] future water storage as part of Anthem finally number 24.

[1:23:12] And that flat was finalized in 2016.

[1:23:15] Next up, actually, if we could stay there, I have more to say.

[1:23:20] Sorry, my presentation is going to be a little lengthy tonight.

[1:23:23] The 400 foot by 400 foot square track E was based on the best available information at the

[1:23:29] And that was, I should say, without a complete design done at that time, but it was based on the best information that we had.

[1:23:37] The approved site development plan for the site simply stated that the area would be a general area for future potential water tank, without additional clarification of the size or the configuration of the needed storage.

[1:23:50] Based on the knowledge available during the plotting of Anthem filing number 24, staff anticipated

[1:23:56] the need for a 6 million gallon potable water storage in this location.

[1:24:02] The reference to a future potential water tank on the STP is an alert of potential future

[1:24:07] development and was not a binding promise obligating the city to a specific design, layout,

[1:24:13] or number of tanks.

[1:24:14] The consideration of the proposed site development plan amendment is the process to consider

[1:24:19] the final design layout and number of tanks for this area of anthem filing number 24.

[1:24:28] We have two videos tonight to show where this site development plan is being considered,

[1:24:32] so if you could show the first video. This first video we have two because they show different perspectives.

[1:24:39] The first was taken with a drone and it starts facing south along low.

[1:24:44] It's kind of from the parking existing parking for the trailhead there.

[1:24:49] So the, the pump station will be just south of that parking area and then it pans to the east across the site of the future water tanks as proposed.

[1:25:00] You can see the anthem 24 neighborhood as we continue panning towards the north.

[1:25:04] There's low boulevard. You can see Sheridan Parkway in the distance.

[1:25:09] And then we're going to pan continuing to the west.

[1:25:13] Again, you can see that continuation of Sheridan Parkway.

[1:25:16] And the flattards are in the distance while grass and silver leaf neighborhoods and then we'll continue until we're facing south on the wall.

[1:25:27] Thank you for that video.

[1:25:29] So then the second video that we have is from the hilltop and it's more of a perspective from an individual standing on the hilltop.

[1:25:52] So this is the viewpoint from the general location of the tank site.

[1:25:55] It began facing south east and we pan across, sorry, it looks like our video isn't loading quite as well.

[1:26:06] Panning towards the north, you can see the Anthem 24 neighborhood,

[1:26:12] any west, and low, the flattards and the distance.

[1:26:19] See low, and share it in, and then we're going to continue panning back towards the south, and you can see the Wilcox neighborhood as well.

[1:26:29] You can see the existing water tank that is not a brim fill tank, but it is located on the open space there.

[1:26:37] Thank you for those two videos.

[1:26:40] Next slide, please.

[1:26:42] The brim fill comprehensive plan designation for this site is open lands.

[1:26:46] The comprehensive plan specifies that open lands are those public and private lands acquired or preserved in the public interest.

[1:26:53] They serve a variety of functions for brim fields, including conserving and protecting natural cultural,

[1:26:57] historic or scenic resources, providing opportunities for recreation, shaping the pattern of growth and development and preserving agricultural resources.

[1:27:07] The proposal as presented this evening is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation of open lands.

[1:27:14] While the water tanks will be constructed entirely within the designated municipal tract E, the proposed pump station and associated parking and generators will be located on tract B, which is dedicated as open space.

[1:27:26] The City and County of Brimfield Charter provides specific direction for construction within properties that were purchased with open space funds or those that were dedicated as open space by a developer, which is how of this property was acquired.

[1:27:41] The charter outlines the changes involving less than an acre of land are exempt from what we call that changing use requirements.

[1:27:50] The improvements located within tract B are a total of 0.85 acres, and do not trigger the

[1:27:56] change in use process described in the charter, but city council still needs to confirm

[1:28:01] the exception due to the size, and they also need to confirm the payment to the open space

[1:28:07] fund.

[1:28:08] For parcels exempt from the change in use provision, the charter still requires compensation

[1:28:13] to the open space fund for the use of the land.

[1:28:17] Right now, Brimfield is valuing the undeveloped land for the purpose of the compensation

[1:28:22] to the open space fund at $86,000 per acre, and applying that calculation to 0.85 acres

[1:28:30] of land, the payment to the open space fund for the use of the open space would be $73,100.

[1:28:37] The council resolution approving the site development plan amendment includes the approval

[1:28:41] of a payment of $73,000, $73,100 to the open space fund for the use of the 0.85 acres of land

[1:28:51] as required by the charter.

[1:28:53] Next slide, please.

[1:28:56] The tanks will provide reuse and potable water storage to residents and businesses that are

[1:29:00] located north of 144th Avenue, and as they mentioned are vital to providing fire protection

[1:29:05] and service to the areas in this portion of Brimfield.

[1:29:09] The proposed tanks will be partially buried, they also feature a flat roof style with approximately

[1:29:14] 8 to 11 feet of the tanks extending vertically out of the ground and about 25 to 30 feet of the tanks will

[1:29:21] be below the ground surface.

[1:29:24] The potable tanks have a diameter of 135 feet while the rease tank has a diameter of 154 feet.

[1:29:31] The pump station will be about 9,010 square feet and is approximately 30 feet in height.

[1:29:37] Fancy news to secure the site will be 7 feet, in height, and decorative metal style with

[1:29:43] some angled tips.

[1:29:44] This is an improvement from an early preliminary plan that had shown barbed wire, which

[1:29:49] is no longer proposed.

[1:29:51] Similarly, the flat roof of the structures is an improvement.

[1:30:00] To minimize visual impact of the tanks. The proposal will include associated generators adjacent to the

[1:30:08] pump station, as well as a relocation of the existing trail system in the hilltop view point. Once completed,

[1:30:14] it is expected that the tanks will generate one trip per day by a staff member typically via a typical passenger-style truck

[1:30:22] that would utilize the East West Trail from Irving Court to the tanks. They will also need to visit the pump station,

[1:30:28] which can be accessed from the Trailhead Parking area.

[1:30:31] I'll discuss a little bit more about access when we talk about the land use review commission

[1:30:35] meeting.

[1:30:36] Next slide, please.

[1:30:39] The study session was held in January of this year and the Memorandum was linked in our

[1:30:42] staff Memorandum for this year and tonight.

[1:30:45] The study session Memorandum included details about the site selection process and other sites

[1:30:49] that were considered for the water tanks.

[1:30:52] Based on the direction that was provided at that study session, staff moved forward with

[1:30:56] tanks in this location in the site development plan amendment was submitted and reviewed following

[1:31:01] standard development review process. Planning staff has followed the typical development

[1:31:06] review process to evaluate the proposed application. As is required for site development

[1:31:12] plan amendments, a neighborhood meeting was held last summer regarding the prior to the formal

[1:31:17] application being submitted. The land use review commission reviewed the proposal in July of this year

[1:31:22] recommended denial of the application by unanimous vote of 7 to 0 and again I'll provide

[1:31:28] a little more discussion about on our next slide.

[1:31:30] All public hearing noticed requirements were met for this project.

[1:31:34] As noted in more detail in the stock memorandum, a key issue was identified that residents

[1:31:41] have identified concerns with the proposed water tanks in this location.

[1:31:46] The correspondence folder for the memorandum includes emails and written correspondence

[1:31:50] as well as a report from the Brimfield Voice website.

[1:31:55] Next slide, please.

[1:31:58] Lirk, as we call it, Langease Review Commission, made a recommendation of denial, and

[1:32:02] wanted to take a little bit of time to walk through some of the concerns that were identified

[1:32:06] during the Langease Review Commission meeting, as well as some of their recommendations, although

[1:32:11] I should note they weren't a formal recommendation.

[1:32:13] The recommendation of Council is a recommendation of denial.

[1:32:17] During the Lirk public hearing, the Commission raised concerns related to maintenance vehicles

[1:32:21] and employees driving on King Court and increasing traffic within the community.

[1:32:27] It was also recommended by Laird that staff explore redesigning the existing parking lot

[1:32:31] and pump station access to provide direct access to Lowell Boulevard.

[1:32:36] Staff did discuss this opportunity with Brimfield's traffic engineer who advised against

[1:32:40] relocating the access to Lowell Boulevard. There was a letter of explanation that was linked

[1:32:45] to the staff memorandum with the more detailed explanation of why that was not recommended.

[1:32:51] Members of the land use review commission also stated that they felt alternative sites were not thoroughly explored for the proposal.

[1:32:59] The capital improvement division and coordination with the project consultant prepared an alternative site analysis which was presented to City Council in January of this year.

[1:33:08] Potential sites meeting the requirement for further review for feasibility and suitability.

[1:33:13] Developed properties including private properties and public parks were removed from consideration.

[1:33:18] which really left four additional sites for alternative analysis.

[1:33:23] Based on the results of the site evaluation,

[1:33:26] the original site was identified as the preferred project location

[1:33:29] and city council directed staff at the January study session

[1:33:33] to proceed with this location with the partially buried option.

[1:33:36] And that was what it was submitted as part of the site development

[1:33:40] plan amendment and is before the city council this evening.

[1:33:43] The Landry's review commission had provided a suggestion

[1:33:46] that staff explore landscape screening and Birmingham to the proposed tank area to provide additional

[1:33:52] screening.

[1:33:53] And staff explore this option as well.

[1:33:55] There were concerns identified with the ability to provide Birmingham and increasing vegetation

[1:34:00] however.

[1:34:01] The area adjacent to the designated tract E is city open space and does not have water or irrigation currently.

[1:34:09] The establishment of landscape materials significant enough to provide adequate screening of the tanks

[1:34:14] would require water and irrigation lines or frequent visits by water trucks. Without water,

[1:34:20] the landscape would not be able to survive in this location in our climate. Additionally,

[1:34:25] the open space area is intended to be restored to its natural prairie environment and screening

[1:34:30] materials such as ever greens are not consistent with species that are typically found in a habitat

[1:34:35] near a hilltop. Staff worked with the consultant to determine whether it was feasible to

[1:34:40] some berms around the water tank area. The biggest challenge there is the North West and West

[1:34:45] sides near King Court. The existing slope falls off very steeply in those locations. In order

[1:34:51] to place the berms in the area to a height that was great enough to screen the 8 to 11 feet

[1:34:57] that extends out of the ground. The slopes would need to exceed a 3 to 1 or 33% grade. Establishing

[1:35:04] vegetation on that steep of a slope would be very difficult and it would likely lead to

[1:35:10] erosion of the berm over time.

[1:35:12] A paved concrete maintenance pathway is required to allow for service vehicles to access

[1:35:18] the proposed tapes.

[1:35:19] Currently, the paved trail is located to the east of the tanks providing access to Irving Court.

[1:35:25] That's a coldissack, which provides the most direct access to access path to the tapes

[1:35:32] and track E.

[1:35:34] At the Land Use Review Commission hearing, it was suggested that staff explore

[1:35:37] and widening the portion of the trail that goes to the south and then to the west of the tanks,

[1:35:42] originating from the parking lot, but it's accessed from King Court.

[1:35:46] This is currently shown as an eight foot cross-refines trail.

[1:35:50] The intention of the suggestion was to eliminate maintenance vehicles accessing the site through Irving Court,

[1:35:56] and directing the maintenance vehicles to the scene point on King Court where I mentioned they also

[1:36:00] have to access to visit the pump station. Staff reviewed the suggestion and determined that the

[1:36:06] trail area currently shown will have less impact on the open space and allow

[1:36:11] greater length of the trail to remain cross your fines.

[1:36:15] Cresher fines is the preferred option to accommodate trail users and maintains the

[1:36:19] character of the open space area. The disc as discussed previously tank maintenance vehicles

[1:36:25] are anticipated to visit the site about once a day and will typically be using a standard pickup

[1:36:30] truck for those types of trips. So we do not anticipate the them causing significant disruptions

[1:36:36] to the community. Also during the Landry's Review Commission hearing, residents had identified concerns

[1:36:42] with sightings of a Chihuahuan metal metal arc in the open space near the tank. Details

[1:36:47] regarding the wildlife and environmental studies completed for this project were included with

[1:36:51] staff's memorandum for council this evening. There have been two professional biologists working

[1:36:56] on aspects of this application. Those biologists have confirmed that the Chihuahuan metal arc

[1:37:02] is not listed as a threatened or endangered species,

[1:37:05] so regardless of whether there are Western or Chihuahua in

[1:37:08] Meta-Larx present, the recommendations of the report

[1:37:11] would not have been changed. As is done with all development projects,

[1:37:15] a biologist will also be required to revisit the site prior to construction

[1:37:18] commencing. We call this a 20-day letter because the visit has to occur

[1:37:22] within 20 days of the beginning of construction. Once that visit occurs,

[1:37:27] there will be additional recommendations from that biologist

[1:37:31] based on that updated visit, and all requirements of the recommendations of that

[1:37:37] biologist report will be followed as this typical process for Brimfield.

[1:37:42] Next slide, please.

[1:37:45] The proposed site development plan amendment has followed Brimfield's typical development

[1:37:48] review process.

[1:37:50] The site development plan amendment must be reviewed, consistent with the Brimfield Municipal Code

[1:37:54] requirements, and will need to be reviewed against the findings of approval that are listed

[1:37:59] both in the memorandum as well as on the screen.

[1:38:02] They're probably a little more legible in your memorandum

[1:38:04] since I know it's hard to read those screens when there's

[1:38:06] that many words.

[1:38:08] That concludes staff's presentation.

[1:38:10] But Ms. Allen has the applicant's presentation as well.

[1:38:14] Thank you, Ms. Burton, Zeddy.

[1:38:16] Well, the applicant's representative,

[1:38:18] please identify themselves for the record

[1:38:20] prior to beginning their presentation this evening.

[1:38:24] Hi, good evening.

[1:38:25] Again, my name is Katie Allen.

[1:38:26] on the City and County Engineer.

[1:38:29] Thank you, Ms. Burton Zeddy, for the very thorough presentation.

[1:38:33] Where my slides duplicate, I will move quickly,

[1:38:37] since I know this is a long presentation.

[1:38:40] Next slide, please.

[1:38:44] So, Brumfield needs additional water storage

[1:38:46] to support the existing needs, as well as future growth

[1:38:50] in the City and County.

[1:38:52] A tank site has been planned for the Anthem 24 area

[1:38:56] for many years due to its location and site elevation, and it was first documented in planning

[1:39:03] and zoning documents in the 2006 Anthem West PUD, where it states municipal water storage tanks

[1:39:10] are allowed in tract W32, per CCOB approval that is now as Anna discussed now tract B and

[1:39:18] of Anthem 24.

[1:39:23] Tracti was dedicated in 2016 with the Anthem filing 24-platt.

[1:39:28] At that time, engineering staff assumed we needed 6 million gallons of water storage

[1:39:34] and requested a 400 by 400-foot square.

[1:39:39] That was based on actually the inner lock and tank, which is 6 million gallons, and

[1:39:44] that's the approximate area of that site, and so that was our basis.

[1:39:48] Next slide, please,

[1:39:54] 2018, the Public Works Department worked on a reuse model with

[1:40:00] right water engineers and that model and report indicated the need for a reuse water

[1:40:07] storage tank in this general area, a preliminary design and feasibility report for the project

[1:40:15] was completed in July 2022, which quantified the size and number of both potable and reuse tanks.

[1:40:23] The report also confirmed the need for a booster pump station for both the potable and reuse systems.

[1:40:30] So this project has proposed includes the construction of two three million gallon potable water storage tanks

[1:40:37] and one four million gallon reuse water storage tank and a pump station housing two booster stations.

[1:40:45] next slide please.

[1:40:49] Slide just shows the service area so it's everything in the City and County

[1:40:54] of Brunefield, North of 144th Avenue. Next slide.

[1:41:00] So I wanted to spend some time and go back

[1:41:02] through the Alternatives Analysis since this was brought up by the Land Use Review Commission.

[1:41:10] So the current site, the track DE is just under four acres and we're using an additional point

[1:41:17] five acres for the pump station, so when we went to look at alternative sites, we said,

[1:41:23] okay, we need to look for sites that are five acres are larger.

[1:41:28] And then the current

[1:41:29] site, the median elevation is approximately 5,450 feet. So we thought it would be

[1:41:35] reasonable to look for properties within 100 feet of that. And so that would be 500,000,

[1:41:45] 350 feet in elevation.

[1:41:48] And we were looking for parcels north of 144,000 new.

[1:41:53] So it's difficult to see on the aerial,

[1:41:55] but if you take the aerial away, those yellow geometric shapes

[1:42:00] are 16 parcels that met those criteria.

[1:42:04] The red, squiggly line is contour line 5350.

[1:42:10] And you can kind of see that some of those parcels

[1:42:12] just touch that contour line, or most

[1:42:14] them sit outside of it and we can talk about those later. So the center of that

[1:42:20] oblong area is the area that is above 53-50. Next slide please.

[1:42:31] So after we

[1:42:31] identified the 16 parcels we started reviewing everything in more detail. Four

[1:42:36] of the parcels are large, large, large residential lots with homes on them. And we

[1:42:42] felt like it was not the intent of the alternative side analysis to displace

[1:42:46] any residents. So the parcels of an R in them, or those residential lots, and we

[1:42:52] recommend that those not be considered as alternative sites.

[1:42:58] There are two developed parks. They have the green P in them. One is the wild grass park,

[1:43:03] just east of Sheridan, and the one to the north is Anthem Community Park. West

[1:43:08] half of Anthem Community Park is actually below 53-50. The east half is above. That's the area

[1:43:15] that has been under construction.

[1:43:17] There is vacant land there today,

[1:43:19] but the site is planned fully planned.

[1:43:23] And so for park uses, so we recommended

[1:43:26] that these two sites be removed from the alternatives

[1:43:29] analysis.

[1:43:32] Next, the very large parcel that says RES

[1:43:35] is the future site of the Broomfield Reservoir.

[1:43:38] Most of it is below 53-50 feet,

[1:43:40] but there is some area near shared in that as above it.

[1:43:45] There was a complete design for the reservoir in 2009, but that will need to be redone and updated.

[1:43:52] We don't know exactly the limits of grading. We don't know where the pipeline will go.

[1:43:55] And we felt it was most prudence to leave this site alone for that future reservoir.

[1:44:01] So we recommended that the reservoir site be excluded from the alternatives.

[1:44:06] And then the Wildgrass Open Space Ritz is OS.

[1:44:09] It's not, it doesn't really meet the criteria just touches the 53-50 line at the border so like 98% of it is below that line.

[1:44:20] So those parcels that those are eight that I just discussed so staff recommended that we take those off the list. Next slide please.

[1:44:29] Okay,

[1:44:32] so zooming in to the south, so we have three parcels here.

[1:44:36] We have Holy Family High School, and there are some undeveloped areas on the Holy family property that meet the criteria.

[1:44:47] But we are aware that Holy Family has expansion plans into those areas.

[1:44:53] They have submitted proposals in the past, so we felt like it wasn't really a reasonable.

[1:45:00] Sight to analyze and depths. Next, in the middle there is room field on property with the glass of reservoir and the water treatment plant.

[1:45:13] The vacant area in between has quite a bit of piping, so in reality the site is completely utilized. There's not spare area for tanks.

[1:45:22] And then further to the east is the hoops property.

[1:45:26] The south half is below the 53-50 line, but the north half is above it.

[1:45:30] Brunefield owns it. There's not future plans.

[1:45:33] So this became one of the sites we recommended for an alternative analysis.

[1:45:39] Next slide.

[1:45:43] Okay, going to the north across Sheridan from the reservoir properties.

[1:45:47] Brunefield opens lands.

[1:45:48] This property has been set aside also for reservoir construction.

[1:45:52] It was planned to help with the Earthwork operations of the reservoir.

[1:45:57] In fact, a bridge or underpass was installed undershared in about 2006-2007 to facilitate those

[1:46:05] Earthwork operations.

[1:46:09] So we felt like the south part of that parcel needed to be preserved for reservoir construction,

[1:46:14] but there was area to the north that could be evaluated for tank sites.

[1:46:18] So we recommended that this site stay on.

[1:46:24] And then the next property to the east,

[1:46:27] excuse me, is Anthem 24, the track east, the gray square.

[1:46:33] If you look over onto the aerial image,

[1:46:35] you'll see the red line.

[1:46:35] Those are oil and gas lines.

[1:46:37] So we have to stay away from those.

[1:46:39] But there are two areas we thought we could consider

[1:46:42] as the alternate tank sites.

[1:46:44] One southeast of the gas line.

[1:46:46] And then when north between the west of the gas lane between the homes and the gas lane,

[1:46:55] so those sites were added.

[1:46:56] And then lastly, there are two parcels owned by McWinney that met the criteria.

[1:47:02] The one on the east we call the boot parcel looks like a boot with a really long toe.

[1:47:06] Most of that parcel is below the 53-50 line.

[1:47:10] And then the other parcel is long and skinny and overlays on top of it.

[1:47:17] Combined, that was sufficient area. So we looked at it a little further.

[1:47:22] Unfortunately, those oil and gas lines shown in the aerial bisect, those properties.

[1:47:27] And it doesn't leave a large enough remnant parcel for the tank site.

[1:47:33] Okay, so we took these recommendations to the city manager to check for concurrence.

[1:47:40] if they agreed with our logic, and we got their agreement next slide.

[1:47:48] So, this is what we have, this is what we gave to our consultants to really evaluate these

[1:47:53] sites.

[1:47:55] So, say one would be the broomfield open lands parcel, say two and three are in anthem 24, and

[1:48:03] then site fours, poops property, and then we'll just say the original site for the current

[1:48:08] site plan. So our consultant evaluated these sites for proximity to existing utilities,

[1:48:17] proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, site-grading elevation and constructability,

[1:48:25] portable water system hydraulics, impact to project costs and operating costs,

[1:48:31] and project schedule impacts. Next slide.

[1:48:36] So this is a summary table,

[1:48:38] looking at those categories and criteria for each site.

[1:48:43] So proximity to existing utilities is actually looking

[1:48:46] at the likelihood of having utility conflicts

[1:48:51] that we would have to deal with or possibly relocate utilities.

[1:48:56] Site one has the most utilities to contend with.

[1:49:00] And so that ranked the lowest, the original site

[1:49:04] and site three or relatively clear of utility conflicts.

[1:49:08] So those ranked the highest and then sites two and site four,

[1:49:12] somewhere in between

[1:49:16] proximity to existing neighborhoods.

[1:49:18] This is exactly what it sounds like.

[1:49:20] All of these sites are generally near neighborhoods.

[1:49:24] We don't have a site that's out in the middle of nowhere.

[1:49:27] So we don't have any, none of the sites received four stars.

[1:49:32] But sites 1, 3, and 4 are slightly further from neighborhoods than the original site or site 2, so those scored higher.

[1:49:44] Side grading, elevation, and constructability.

[1:49:48] So sites that do not have a hill require more excavation to partially bury the tanks.

[1:49:55] So this analysis looked at the same conditions as the original site and applied those to the different sites.

[1:50:00] So we assume they would be partially buried in all sites.

[1:50:06] So sites that don't have a hill require more excavation, which is more costly and harder to construct.

[1:50:12] Also a hill can provide natural screening of the structures.

[1:50:17] And sometimes the ability to set the tank lower, the pump station lower than the tanks, which is in our current proposal, which is advantageous.

[1:50:26] So, the current site scored diast for constructability and elevation, site 3, which is to the south and east, also an anthem 24, is ranked second, because it's also on a hill.

[1:50:39] It is 56 feet lower, so that's why it didn't score as high as the current site.

[1:50:47] Site 2 is on a hill, but it's kind of sandwiched between a pretty significant ravine and the gas lines, so this makes it difficult to construct.

[1:50:56] It's also 90 feet lower in elevation.

[1:51:01] And Site 1 is quite a bit lower.

[1:51:02] It's the lowest spot, 93 feet lower than the existing site, and would require excavation of the pump station about 17 feet below grade.

[1:51:12] And then site 4 is actually flatter and would require the most earthwork to partially bury the tanks and to maintain the elevation difference between the tanks and the pump station and the site is 69 feet lower than the original site.

[1:51:31] The next criteria looks at potable water system hydraulics, specifically pump sizing and horsepower requirements, as well as the ability to isolate the tank from the water treatment plant and the main distribution line from the water treatment plant.

[1:51:44] plant. If something were to disrupt the 24-inch line leaving the plant, it could impact

[1:51:50] the ability to deliver water to the northern portion of a broomfield. So the locations

[1:51:57] east of Lowell, including the original site in sites 2 and 3, are ranked higher than sites

[1:52:03] 1 and 4 because they are more isolated off the water treatment plant. Location 4 is ranked

[1:52:10] lowest due to its proximity due to the water treatment plant.

[1:52:14] And the original site is ranked the highest because of its elevation it's going to have

[1:52:19] smaller pumping requirements because gravity is doing more of the work.

[1:52:25] In fact, to project capital costs and operating costs is next.

[1:52:29] The capital costs differences are largely due to earthwork and excavation and operating

[1:52:35] costs relate to the ongoing pumping costs.

[1:52:37] The original site has the lowest pumping cost and the lowest earthwork compared to the others.

[1:52:44] Followed by sites 3 and 4 and then sites 1 and 2.

[1:52:49] And then project schedule impacts.

[1:52:52] So changing sites would impact the schedule because it would necessitate, excuse me, a redesign.

[1:52:59] So, in this table, the original site has a few

[1:53:04] scheduled impacts and all other four sites would hit the schedule.

[1:53:11] We should acknowledge though that sites two and three are in

[1:53:14] room-filled open space and if they were moved into open space

[1:53:18] that they would exceed the one acre and so the change in use process would be

[1:53:24] required.

[1:53:27] My understanding of it is that Council could approve the change in use, and then there

[1:53:32] would be a 90-day waiting period following that resolution.

[1:53:36] If there was a petition against the change in use, it would then go to the ballot.

[1:53:41] So those two sites have theoretically more scheduled risk than the other sites.

[1:53:47] And, Mayor, before Miss Allen continues, we appreciate Council's patience as we know

[1:53:55] that you all have already seen all of this and directed to the current site.

[1:54:01] But, for the public, we thought it would be prudent to ensure that there was at least

[1:54:07] a summary of the additional site analysis on what I had to appreciate going over the alternative

[1:54:13] of sight analysis because it was mentioned in the Lerc recordings that that was not thoroughly

[1:54:20] vetted, or we didn't thoroughly explore these alternatives. So I'm glad that we are reviewing

[1:54:26] that for folks who didn't see it. Sure. Yeah. And let me clarify. The reason that this presentation

[1:54:34] was not provided to Lerc was because Council had already directed to this site.

[1:54:45] So in summary

[1:54:45] the alternatives analysis over all the original site ranked highest in every category except

[1:54:51] proximity to existing neighborhoods. And as manager Hoffman just stated council directed us to

[1:54:59] proceed with the site following the January study session.

[1:55:04] Okay, next slide. So we proceeded to

[1:55:10] developed this site plan. As Anna noted, the project includes two three million

[1:55:16] gallon puddle tanks and one four million gallon reuse water tanked within

[1:55:20] tract E. The construction of the pump station to the southwest off the current

[1:55:26] parking lot and trailhead would be in tract B and taking up a point eight five

[1:55:34] acres. The proposal includes landscape screening around the pump station in

[1:55:38] landscape enhancements off of King Court and Irving Court where there is existing irrigation.

[1:55:45] There will be additional fill or burning for the reconstructed overlook.

[1:55:51] And as Ms. Burton said, he mentioned, we are not proposing to extend irrigation and plant

[1:55:55] trees around the tanks themselves.

[1:55:58] We have steep slopes in some areas that make this very challenging.

[1:56:03] It's not typical application in open space.

[1:56:06] And we don't recommend introducing irrigation water around the tanks.

[1:56:12] Next slide, please.

[1:56:18] Okay, so this slide shows the access to the tanks from Irving Court.

[1:56:26] As Merck Miss Burton said, he mentioned, this would be concrete to allow the inspector

[1:56:32] to drive their truck to the tank site.

[1:56:35] It's planned as, as is normal, it would be one pickup track per day.

[1:56:42] This is not an unusual situation, from field as many utility stations in open space, including the

[1:56:49] Resue Heights lift station, the Locomore lift station, the Willah Rental lift station, the Outlook lift station,

[1:56:58] This is, you know, a pond, aeration station, and so on.

[1:57:02] The photo below shows the Outlook live station

[1:57:07] and the access location off of birthed trail.

[1:57:12] So, in this location as well, one pickup truck

[1:57:14] enters between those houses on the path.

[1:57:19] Over the short distance on the lake link trail

[1:57:21] to the Outlook station.

[1:57:23] This is a similar scenario.

[1:57:28] Next slide, please.

[1:57:29] The

[1:57:33] pump station will also be inspected once per day with a passenger pickup.

[1:57:38] They will enter through the existing parking lot off of King Court.

[1:57:45] As an expert in that he mentioned, the land use review commission thought a separate entrance off of Lowell should be provided for that one pickup truck.

[1:57:56] It's obviously a very low traffic volume and was not recommended by traffic engineering.

[1:58:02] Next slide please.

[1:58:08] This just goes over the open space charter requirement.

[1:58:11] But I think we went over that in detail with the payment to the open space fund.

[1:58:17] Next slide please.

[1:58:20] This is elevations of the proposed pump station.

[1:58:24] The proposed architecture matches other the Bernfield municipal building suite of materials,

[1:58:29] including the egg plant exposed block with the beige accent striping.

[1:58:35] and the brown or bronze standing seam middle roof.

[1:58:41] Next slide.

[1:58:47] The slide shows the tank elevations.

[1:58:50] They are partially buried tanks, and they feature flat roofs.

[1:58:53] And we'll be painted in neutral color,

[1:58:55] consisting with the natural surroundings.

[1:59:00] The potable tanks will have four and a half feet

[1:59:02] to 11 feet above ground, depending where you are on the slope.

[1:59:07] And that goes to the top of the rail, actually, that elevation.

[1:59:14] The reuse tank varies from 5.75 feet to 10.5 feet above ground.

[1:59:22] 25 to 30 feet of the tank is buried below grade.

[1:59:25] We'll be buried below grade. Next slide, please.

[1:59:31] All right, so these are perspectives.

[1:59:33] And let me try to get you oriented.

[1:59:35] So the first full row is a perspective

[1:59:40] from a little boulevard looking to the northeast.

[1:59:46] On the left is the view with immature vegetation.

[1:59:50] The middle graphic shows mature vegetation.

[1:59:52] So you can see the trees got bigger.

[1:59:55] And the photo on the right shows the pump station at night

[1:59:57] with the motion detection lighting trip.

[2:00:00] A mature vegetation on the left, mature vegetation, and then the pump station with the motion detection activated.

[2:00:12] The picture in the upper right corner is in a nighttime emergency situation with all weights activated.

[2:00:21] Next slide.

[2:00:24] Okay, this slide has perspectives from King Court.

[2:00:29] So the top row is, as you approach the turn-off into the parking lot.

[2:00:36] So you can see the tanks up on the right.

[2:00:40] The first image on the left is with immature vegetation.

[2:00:44] The middle picture is with mature vegetation.

[2:00:48] And then the black picture is at night.

[2:00:52] The middle row is further east, approximately where the car is parked in the top row.

[2:01:02] You can see on the left is the view with immature vegetation and mature vegetation and then at night.

[2:01:12] And then the last row is from Irving Court, so you are looking southwest on the left is

[2:01:23] immature vegetation and then mature vegetation and then at night.

[2:01:28] Next slide.

[2:01:33] I don't know if you can see the numbers, but the top row represents views 1, 2, and 3.

[2:01:40] These are essentially along the backyards, along west 154th Avenue.

[2:01:46] So the first graphic on the left is the most eastern viewpoint, so it's looking into the existing retaining walls as you can't see the tanks from there.

[2:01:57] Then moving west about midway down 154th Avenue, again you're looking into the retaining walls, you can't see the tanks.

[2:02:05] And then moving to the west side of 154 Avenue, the retaining walls pull away, they move south from there, so they're further in the distance, and you can start to see that tank.

[2:02:18] One of the potable tanks in that view.

[2:02:22] The bottom, a three-photers show the views from the overlook.

[2:02:26] So bottom left is looking south west, so you can see one of the tanks in the view, because they are to the south.

[2:02:32] The middle one is looking to do west, the tanks are not obstructing the western view,

[2:02:38] and the one on the red is to the northwest, and the tanks are not in that view.

[2:02:43] Next slide.

[2:02:47] This slide just sort of zooms in.

[2:02:49] It shows the existing parking lot in the aerial photo, and then the proposed changes on the left.

[2:02:57] Currently, the sidewalk and trail are on the east side of the parking lot.

[2:03:02] It will be relocated to the west side, so the trail can wrap around the future pump station.

[2:03:07] And also, OSTAC requested a trail connection to Lowell Boulevard.

[2:03:13] That's the straight across east, west, trail connection.

[2:03:18] The generators are shown in the plan.

[2:03:20] The photos below are similar generators, similar generator in the two different views.

[2:03:27] I believe this generator is at the water treatment plan.

[2:03:33] and next slide. Last slide. If approved, the proposed schedule would be for staff to

[2:03:42] bring a construction agreement to Council later this fall.

[2:03:50] If Council approves the

[2:03:51] construction agreement, the contractor would begin procurment of long lead items, submit

[2:03:56] requests for permits, and finish pre-construction activities. The contractor would move on

[2:04:02] and early 2024 to begin extensive site work operations.

[2:04:08] Construction access off of low will be created.

[2:04:11] The contractor will have trailers in the lay-down area.

[2:04:15] During construction and for safety, the western half of the open space area will be closed.

[2:04:20] That includes the trailhead parking off of King Court.

[2:04:25] Construction is expected to take 24 months to complete.

[2:04:28] testing and start-up would be in late 2025 to allow for the tanks to be operational for

[2:04:34] use in spring 2026. That concludes my presentation and we'll turn it over for questions.

[2:04:43] Thank you very much, Ms. Allen and Ms. Burton Zetti seeing that it is 801. I think this

[2:04:48] would be a good time for us to take our 10 minute recess and come back at 811 to start public

[2:04:54] comment. So thank you. We'll see you at 811.

[2:15:07] Welcome back, everyone.

[2:15:15] Welcome back. Would everyone please take their seats so we can proceed with public comment.

[2:15:27] Thank you so much.

[2:15:29] We're going to start the public comment period, which will be limited to 90 minutes, but we should be fine. We don't have full sign up for those here to make public comment tonight. Thank you.

[2:15:39] We also want to share with the residents that council has reviewed the emails and correspondence submitted to the city and they have been added to the record.

[2:15:47] If your comment repeats what a person said before, we request that you indicate your agreement

[2:15:52] without repeating everything that person said prior, so help with time, and we appreciate

[2:15:57] your cooperation.

[2:15:58] We hear from, we'll hear from six in-person individuals and one phone collar until we hit

[2:16:03] the limits addressed, but we won't exceed those.

[2:16:06] Priority will be given to those who indicated their room-filled residents.

[2:16:11] As we call your name, please come to the podium, state your name and neighborhood for the record,

[2:16:15] or limit your comments to three minutes.

[2:16:19] If you're joining by phone,

[2:16:21] please press star three and state your first and last name

[2:16:24] and neighborhood for the record.

[2:16:25] There's two people in the queue.

[2:16:27] So we will start.

[2:16:28] I'll go ahead and call the first five.

[2:16:31] I'll call the first six.

[2:16:33] First is Leonard Giuliano.

[2:16:35] Then there's Amelia.

[2:16:37] Rocksy Jewel.

[2:16:39] Adam Go Betty.

[2:16:41] Chelsea May and Christine Brasas-Brasas-Brasas-Kas.

[2:17:00] I've been the Wilcox neighborhood.

[2:17:05] I'm going to start with, I thought I would have had it, but other people in front of me, but

[2:17:08] hypocrisy is that's all I've ever heard from the Anthem Reserve neighborhood from the residents.

[2:17:14] For every emotionally issue, they will identify the very presence of their development,

[2:17:19] as had approximately 30 times the impact on the hill now they're trying to protect.

[2:17:23] What they're saying is ignore the needs of the entire city and county, put under blinders and only look at less than five acres that will be visible by less than 25 houses that could coincidentally sit more than 18 feet above the ground.

[2:17:39] I would like to speak factually now, within the last two weeks the public works departments for the city and county of Brunefield,

[2:17:45] major hydrant water pressure over a five-day period along Lowell Boulevard. Approximately

[2:17:52] 30 feet lower than the existing hydrants in Anthem Reserve Development. The report revealed

[2:17:57] the water pressure regularly dropped below 40 psi and interestingly enough, these pressure drops

[2:18:04] were not isolated after our irrigation usage. This occurred in the daytime hours too. Additionally,

[2:18:14] using rule-of-thumb calculations, the pressure at Anthem Reserve would most probably be under 30 PSI,

[2:18:21] and it's no wonder why several of the homes already have installed booster water pumps in their houses.

[2:18:28] I'm sure that they're hoping that their insurance companies don't find out about this because that's

[2:18:32] a significant drop in water pressure, and there's no fire flows. The need for the water tanks has been

[2:18:44] just speakers, changes in the proposed plan address issues that were recently identified

[2:18:51] by the tremendous growth to the north and the martial fire incident.

[2:18:55] Now I understand that failure to maintain a water system is one of the issues that governmental

[2:19:01] immunity can be waived, which means not proceeding with this project in the optimal position

[2:19:08] with the elevation and stuff could open the city and county to significant financial judgments.

[2:19:13] To reiterate, you have a responsibility to provide the necessary fire flows to the entire

[2:19:18] city and county, including the most vulnerable neighborhood, Anthem Reserve.

[2:19:24] I'm saying, you have to protect them too.

[2:19:26] This is in their best interest.

[2:19:29] I open this with the word hypocrisy and would like to close with the same subject.

[2:19:34] Anthem Reserve is significantly vulnerable to catastrophic fire with their high-density

[2:19:39] track homes with combustible sightings at the top of a hill surrounded by plenty of

[2:19:44] vegetation and wood fences. If such an unfortunate band were to occur, I can assure you

[2:19:50] there'll be some of the residents filing suit against city and county. If the water

[2:19:56] supply is not, ultimately, provided. Thank you.

[2:20:10] Hello again, my name is Amelia. I am a resident of Burmfield City in County. I'm here to

[2:20:15] speak to you about the serious concerns that I, as well as many other of the residents with

[2:20:20] in room field, have about the proposed development of the water tanks, and the large pump

[2:20:25] house as well as generators.

[2:20:27] The first concern is about the threats that the water tanks will pose to the neighborhoods

[2:20:32] as far as where they are located, being on top of the hill, they are overlooking a community

[2:20:38] with several homes, and those homes have been in the area ranging from two to even decades

[2:20:43] long. In the event of a rupture, what is the plan for how that water is going to be contained

[2:20:49] or what the path of least resistance is, which is how water goes. Where is it going to go

[2:20:54] other than into the backyards and the homes of these residents? Another concern is about the restricted

[2:21:01] access to the neighborhoods in the area and how this building process is going to cause significant

[2:21:06] danger to the residents. Because the emergency services vehicles will be restricted from access

[2:21:11] to some of the residential properties.

[2:21:14] This concern is very near and dear to my heart

[2:21:16] because my own father died from a severe stroke

[2:21:19] after emergency services vehicles

[2:21:21] could not reach him in time.

[2:21:23] Another concern is about the danger and unnecessary threats

[2:21:27] that are going to take place to the wildlife

[2:21:28] and their natural habitat in this area.

[2:21:31] So water tanks are being built on a site

[2:21:33] that has already become home to wildlife,

[2:21:36] including their nesting grounds.

[2:21:38] And while the metal larke may not be listed

[2:21:40] on some of the protection websites, it is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,

[2:21:45] which means that even its nesting rounds are not supposed to be damaged, and those

[2:21:49] are nesting rounds.

[2:21:51] Another concern is about the irresponsible and excessive industrialization of this community

[2:21:56] area.

[2:21:57] The proposed water tanks are just one of several industrial projects that have been proposed

[2:22:02] for Northern Room Field, and it feels as though the city is sacrificing the quality of

[2:22:06] for the residents of this city and exchange for the industrialization.

[2:22:11] Another concern is about the waivers that residents in the community were being forced to sign,

[2:22:18] labeled Exhibit S.

[2:22:21] Home buyers were being forced to sign these exhibits under Dores,

[2:22:24] with threats of not being allowed to close on their home.

[2:22:28] These waivers essentially absolve the city of any and all liability in the event of an accident or disaster.

[2:22:34] This is not only unethical, it is unfair to force people to sign these waivers, and it is unlawful to force someone into signing a contract while they are under to rest.

[2:22:46] Another concern, not only about the unethical and illegal verbiage of the waivers, that would allow the city and county to essentially plow down a neighborhood child without any liability of responsibility being held to the city and county.

[2:22:58] This is unacceptable, and it is inhumane.

[2:23:02] Thank you for your time.

[2:23:03] Thank you.

[2:23:09] We're not going to have clapping because it's just going to add time. So I appreciate your enthusiasm, I do, but it just adds time to the meeting. Thank you.

[2:23:19] Rock CGLL, Lakcomor.

[2:23:22] I'm actually for this project. I'm from the plains. You need the tanks. You need them as high as you can get them.

[2:23:30] You run out of water.

[2:23:32] Nobody's going to be living in those homes when you rent out of water.

[2:23:37] So, when you're the other, you're going to have to get something.

[2:23:43] So, if you decide on not doing these tanks, that's up to you guys.

[2:23:48] But you need the tanks for the people to have water for multiple reasons.

[2:23:54] Not just for the fire danger, but because someday you might just need that water for drinking.

[2:23:59] But if you don't have the water, you're not going to be home because they are going to

[2:24:04] DM your home.

[2:24:05] Thank you.

[2:24:07] Thank you.

[2:24:13] Adam Govettie, Ward 5, McKay Landing.

[2:24:18] So optimized is not optimal.

[2:24:22] Now I've actually spent quite a bit of time up there on what I think some of us lovingly

[2:24:26] call Mount Brune Field and it's something special.

[2:24:32] So the video we saw earlier didn't quite capture it.

[2:24:37] That's not a criticism, I've done some filming up there as well,

[2:24:40] and I certainly couldn't capture it either.

[2:24:42] So we need to think about these things.

[2:24:44] It's something pretty special.

[2:24:45] It's obviously something that we all feel strongly about.

[2:24:48] Some great see so many of my neighbors here.

[2:24:51] Particularly good because I know it's harder to connect on next door these days.

[2:24:55] So a bad decision was made back in January.

[2:24:58] And I get it.

[2:24:59] It's a dull, boring topic to spend council and staff time trying to look more into the alternatives.

[2:25:05] The amazing staff did so much work even for what we saw here.

[2:25:08] I wish we were better about sharing this information more broadly.

[2:25:11] But the council has a chance.

[2:25:13] You know, the 100% against from the Lerk Review, that's strong feedback.

[2:25:18] We were hearing from our neighbors, that's strong feedback.

[2:25:21] The work that was already done, even though more work wasn't done,

[2:25:25] because staff was directed not to dig into it further.

[2:25:27] You know, back in January there was more exciting topics like bringing in hot button national

[2:25:33] and state issues to our little town, but this is the boring dull stuff that we need to focus on.

[2:25:42] And, you know, it's something that's been neglected for years, you know, 20, 2018, to 2022.

[2:25:48] The operating budget goes up 53% but public works only goes up 1% I know it's not as much fun

[2:25:53] is talking about other uses of water, like a four and a half acre lake.

[2:25:59] That's going to take 11 million gallons.

[2:26:01] I think twice as much, more than twice as much is what these towers were

[2:26:04] told of potable water.

[2:26:07] But these are the things need to be prioritized.

[2:26:09] These are the things we need to spend more time on.

[2:26:13] So I'll just strongly ask that we deny this application and then look

[2:26:18] into other more appropriate ways to shore up the water system.

[2:26:21] And I'll just make a more general ask that we prioritize these kinds of discussions boring as they are, because that's what our city needs the most.

[2:26:29] Thank you.

[2:26:30] Thank you.

[2:26:34] Thank you.

[2:26:35] Council and staff, Bloomfield Day, it was great.

[2:26:38] I'm Christine Brazanskis from Anthem.

[2:26:41] And my ask is, you've all read my email that I've been emailing I think for the past year now.

[2:26:47] But I just want to reiterate that my concern is this hilltop is such a special place, and there are alternatives to the partially buried tanks.

[2:26:59] There are. We can bury them. We're looking at a price tag right now around 80 million.

[2:27:05] There is other procurement methods that we could use to probably get that price tag down and achieve the goal of burying the tanks.

[2:27:15] I mean, a lot of people aren't really thrilled with the location, but if we're going to be

[2:27:21] stuck with the location, let's find a win-win solution and bury these things. Denver does

[2:27:28] it all the time. It's standard practice and a design build agreement. You bring another contractor,

[2:27:38] Seymour, I am still shocked that we have a contractor on board that is, in my opinion,

[2:27:44] not been thoroughly bedded and has not been able to provide a constructability to you and

[2:27:50] and value engineering that could drastically change the outlook of this project and my

[2:27:57] ask would be that you spend the time denied this now and send it back for further review.

[2:28:05] Thank you.

[2:28:06] Thank you very much.

[2:28:07] Chelsea May?

[2:28:08] Yeah.

[2:28:09] Okay.

[2:28:09] We're going to have a quarter.

[2:28:14] I'm Chelsea May.

[2:28:15] Bromfield resident.

[2:28:16] Do you need to restart the clock?

[2:28:18] Yes.

[2:28:19] Thank you.

[2:28:20] Thank you.

[2:28:21] We all love water.

[2:28:22] I don't think anyone in here is denying the fact that we all love water, and we all agree

[2:28:26] that Bromfield needs water.

[2:28:28] I think the question is where.

[2:28:30] And I'm not convinced that the alternative site study really looked at other sites that didn't

[2:28:38] I mean, take us to the direction of the answer that we wanted and I think we need to re-look at some sites and see if we can find it a win-win solution.

[2:28:48] Per section 173820 or to 20 of the code and as stated in your proposal, the decision of the city council should be based on whether the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed amendment to the site development plan, which is the whole reason we're here because this was not intended to be used the way it's being used.

[2:29:06] meets the following standards among others.

[2:29:10] Standard one, the proposal should identify and mitigate

[2:29:13] potential negative impacts on nearby properties

[2:29:15] and maximize potential positive impacts

[2:29:18] to nearby properties.

[2:29:21] Clearly that's not the case.

[2:29:23] One of the reasons this project was rejected

[2:29:25] by the land use commission was the numerous potential

[2:29:28] negative impacts that this would have on our community.

[2:29:32] Lots of open space trails, 30 minutes a week

[2:29:34] high-decipled sounds from testing an extreme large generator with 100 yards of a neighborhood

[2:29:41] filled with families and children, demolishing one of the most beautiful view tops in the

[2:29:45] area, which can be seen from miles away, not just from 16 houses, literally building an

[2:29:52] industrial tank project in the backyards of a residential neighborhood. And that's the reason

[2:29:59] in that this project.

[2:30:00] Act was done the way it was. I know we're saying, you know, we only needed 400 by 400 feet track to bury this one tank, which is what the original plan was. And now things have changed. But what hasn't changed is the people. The people are still there. And when we're looking at alternative sites, I think we should look at sites where there's not people. And there's there's plenty of industrial areas around room field that we can look at. There's one, six youth in here. Here on next to the firehouse, there's the home equipment development that hasn't even been done yet. Why aren't we looking at taking

[2:30:29] some of that land. We don't have to bury the tanks, but doing something that's not going to impact people.

[2:30:36] The proposal, one of the standards was also that the proposal should include adequate facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.

[2:30:43] I think we've heard that this project is going to create a hindrance to pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.

[2:30:49] The project will, as designed, will eliminate an entrance to the neighborhood during this long construction process.

[2:30:55] It's going to decimate newly created trails and demolish and already established ecosystem created over decades and decades, which can't be easily replaced.

[2:31:04] I have a lot more to say, but I guess in my 12 seconds left, I'll just say, you know, we're your constituents and we all love water and we want the same things that you do. We just wish that you would listen a little bit more to understand and set of response so we can find a solution together.

[2:31:20] So. Thank you. We're going to go to one of our residents on the phone and then we'll do that's Andreas Miller and then in person, we will have Dave Matthews, David Matthews, Mike Pierce, Andrew Costa, Ted Wallace and Erica doll. If you'll want to line up, but we're going to go to the phone right now and.

[2:31:45] Andreas Miller, you live, you have three minutes.

[2:31:53] I've heard a lot tonight from kind of like an adult perspective by thought.

[2:31:57] You can call, you know, if this came from a team perspective. So my name is Andreas.

[2:32:02] I'm your resident Ruth Alcarado, and I live in Andamers.

[2:32:06] I am 14 years old, and I'm here to address the 10 projects like everyone else has been.

[2:32:12] So our things, open sources are not possible and as most know,

[2:32:15] There are important assets that contribute to our communities well-being, and identity, these

[2:32:20] areas provide a gateway for residents, seeking refuge from the House of Buckeau State

[2:32:24] of the Lights, and are important for living a healthy life.

[2:32:27] They serve centuries for bikers, walkers, and wildlife like offering recreational opportunities

[2:32:33] in promoting physical and mental well-being.

[2:32:36] These faces are some sources of quality of life with gyration room fields, as well as others

[2:32:41] outside of room fields.

[2:32:42] Many of my friends will commonly use these shields for biking, socializing, and getting

[2:32:47] lives in the city.

[2:32:48] I also know many other teams use this space as well for socializing, biking, walking

[2:32:52] and working.

[2:32:54] I think it's important to highly, most teams might age R for extending this structure.

[2:32:59] You know, our routine part of that is stuck.

[2:33:02] And other utilities we daily have lots of room for improvement.

[2:33:05] I think lots of degrees.

[2:33:06] Although infrastructure is very important, it's one thing that tears something out that's

[2:33:10] and put something new, that's something we teens cheer for, and it's improved it for sure.

[2:33:16] But it's something completely different, it's already developed.

[2:33:20] More specifically, it was in 40 years ago.

[2:33:23] I kind of want to highlight the fact that the city is already invested

[2:33:26] to financial resources and developing and maintaining and then help talk.

[2:33:31] This investment is like, you guys have done a really good job.

[2:33:34] You guys were on the good track of creating open spaces.

[2:33:42] And a lot of like communities back down Colorado,

[2:33:46] there's less and less open space.

[2:33:48] But given the resources already been on Anthem Hilltop,

[2:33:51] it raises questions about if that's really worth cutting it out

[2:33:54] and dropping over $40 million on what our team's online.

[2:33:59] That was literally just developed.

[2:34:01] This was just something me and teens and family are very pressure

[2:34:04] this is not a good move forward. While I acknowledge the importance of water

[2:34:08] infrastructure and clothing, fire, hydrant and water pressure being well, you can still

[2:34:13] sell these products with the difference. I don't know why it keeps coming up during the

[2:34:17] meeting where maybe fire hydrant pressure is lower, whatever, and we're being hit the

[2:34:22] critical. We are for water. But you can sell these all of these problems. I'm putting

[2:34:29] somewhere else. Like there's, I think it was the site that ranked second on the list.

[2:34:34] But you can easily, if you did that site instead, this would be so much better for people

[2:34:39] in wildlife. And it would still sell well, it's problems.

[2:34:44] All right, Andreas. Can you answer two for that?

[2:34:47] Can you wrap up your thoughts, please? Your time is expired.

[2:34:51] But go ahead and make your final thoughts.

[2:34:56] Sorry.

[2:34:56] I request the ECD Council to evaluate and deny this proposal immediately. Thank you for your time.

[2:35:02] Thank you very much. David Matthews. Good evening. As some of you know I serve on the charter review committee

[2:35:10] I'm supposed to tell you I'm David Matthews, and I will then add them. So some of you know

[2:35:14] I serve on the charter review committee and over the last several months

[2:35:17] I've personally come to learn about the time commitment that serving on council fixed.

[2:35:22] It's far more than I originally thought and I can't expect all of you to be fully educated on every single issue

[2:35:28] And I know it's budget season and in our last charter view town hall, it was mentioned that the budget document was something around 1,000 pages.

[2:35:37] In the document tonight with all the attachments for the Water Tank Project is over 200 pages long.

[2:35:43] And knowing what I know now, it would be impossible for me to expect the Council members to fully review this project and have an understanding of what CCOB is asking you to approve tonight and have a full understanding of the history of the project.

[2:35:55] When Anthem filing 24 was approved, those members of City Council were very clear that if there

[2:36:00] were to be any changes to the hilltop, the public would be involved in the public's opinion would be valued.

[2:36:07] That Council also required a disclosure be made to all buyers that the water tank was part of the site plan.

[2:36:13] I work in the real estate industry, so I was able to read and understand my title commitment, which had somewhere around 50 exceptions, including the PUD filing.

[2:36:22] I knew there was a water tank coming, but upon further investigation, the city engineers said the tank would be buried, so I wasn't really concerned with it.

[2:36:30] There was never a mention of multiple tanks or a 9,000 square foot pump house that would be built three houses away from me.

[2:36:38] More importantly, there was no disclosure made by the builder or developer about this water tank, and the average home buyer had no idea this was even a plan for one tank.

[2:36:46] and CCOB never followed up with home buyers to make sure they got proper disclosure.

[2:36:50] Even though other disclosures are part of the permitting process, and most home buyers weren't notified if they had already closed after that until after that June 2022 meeting.

[2:37:01] In my opinion, CCOB had plenty of opportunities to make sure home buyers were made aware of what they ignored this.

[2:37:06] In one of the very first meeting minutes about the project, there's a line that says something along the lines of,

[2:37:12] We will do this project, and we'll notify the public, but with an approach as an FYI approach,

[2:37:18] and we won't release the list of public feedback. This doesn't match the spirit of what the

[2:37:23] previous city council wanted to see happen with this hilltop. The attitude of an FYI approach

[2:37:28] has been felt in every interaction between CCOB and the public regarding this project, starting with

[2:37:34] the meeting in June of 2022. That meeting was filled with misinformation, such as telling residents

[2:37:40] of the project would be fence with chaining fence and barbwire and that it wasn't in the budget

[2:37:45] to bury the tanks. There has been no real effort to take in feedback and you can read

[2:37:51] CCBOB's responses on the voice and feel that overall tone that they have towards the residents

[2:37:57] concerns. I understand the need for water and I simply request that you amend the plan to move

[2:38:02] the tanks to a better location with less impact on the residents or bury the tanks as a city

[2:38:07] you said would happen. There are so many special places or there's not as many special places as this

[2:38:13] hill in our city so please don't be the ones to ruin that for us. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:38:20] Mike Pierce?

[2:38:24] Hi I'm Mike Pierce. I live in Anthem to thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight.

[2:38:29] You're aware that lurk voted unanimously in July 7 and nothing to recommend denying the project

[2:38:34] in this location. The three reasons cited for that decision were the proposed that did not

[2:38:39] identify and mitigate potential negative impacts on nearby properties. It did not identify

[2:38:43] and maximize potential positive impacts on nearby properties. And the proposal did not provide

[2:38:48] for open area at a rate of not less than 40 percent of the developed bull site in a residential

[2:38:53] areas. When coming to these three conclusions, the commissioners uttered a few quotes. The

[2:38:58] fallen quotes that I think to a good job of explaining why this project is being proposed in

[2:39:03] wrong location. Commissioner Mikkelson said, that doesn't sound like the best thought

[2:39:07] out design. She continued, you guys feel like you've been misled. That's us because

[2:39:12] developers weren't forthcoming. I know there's a responsibility of informing potential

[2:39:16] buyers. And, quote, my note here is I agree a lot with David just said, if the responsibility

[2:39:23] was on the developer to inform us all of what this product was going to be, what are

[2:39:27] the teeth behind that? Like if they failed to do that, what's the repercussion I'm going

[2:39:32] of one. Commissioner Willford said, I feel the pain in the room. I have the same pain.

[2:39:38] I don't necessarily feel like all of the access and layout is as good as it could be for

[2:39:42] the neighborhood adjacent to this development. Commissioner Goodenoff said, I know it's hard.

[2:39:47] It's hard to listen to it. Maybe we could try harder. Commissioner Lynn had a number of quotes that

[2:39:52] I wanted to cover here. He begins with, this is certainly, in my opinion, a poorly chosen site,

[2:40:00] despite its functionality because of the negative impact of the neighborhood and to the general

[2:40:04] public. There's no place to replicate this view. I still don't have the confidence that

[2:40:09] we have full clarity on how deeply these alternate sites have been explored. I'd like to

[2:40:14] see more robust communication in particular with the residents who have come tonight to

[2:40:18] delineate the full disclosure of those feasibility studies rather than just here's a high

[2:40:24] hill that should work best for all of this. There are other high points in the area. They might not

[2:40:29] be as high, but where's the dollar value in choosing a lower site with a bigger pump station

[2:40:33] that has less of an impact to a residence?

[2:40:36] He goes on to say, so we buy a bigger pump and put the tanks near the industrial buildings

[2:40:40] that are going up over there.

[2:40:42] I realize it's not optimal, however, the negative impact to 100 different families and robbing

[2:40:47] one of the highest points in our town as a vista, as an attraction to put in the infrastructure

[2:40:52] rather than spending more on a pump and making a more efficient installation, hey, you don't

[2:40:57] to bury the tanks, it would be cheaper for the tanks to move it over towards 160th.

[2:41:02] His last quote was, lower elevation, bigger pump house, let's take that type of consideration.

[2:41:08] My own thoughts, that's the end of that quote.

[2:41:10] My own thoughts in my last few seconds here, room field has grown successfully up through

[2:41:14] up through now without the need to place water tanks on this particular hill.

[2:41:17] I'm not confident enough research has been done to find an alternate location that will

[2:41:21] satisfy elevation and cost requirements without being built in someone's backyard.

[2:41:25] I would just ask what is the point of lurk if they vote seven and nothing and we don't follow their recommendation. Thank you

[2:41:32] Thank you.

[2:41:38] See you counsel Andrew Costa and the reserve

[2:41:42] I want to stop by saying how how much is a foreigner? I appreciate that I hope that the young kids in here can appreciate what it means to have a representative government

[2:41:50] So to Todd and Heidi for everything you've done and the communication you've had with us

[2:41:57] It's been greatly appreciated

[2:42:00] I want to echo the sentiment regarding the land use commission because I think much of the

[2:42:09] reluctance to get behind this project or get behind the city staff has been the dismissive

[2:42:15] nature with which our current questions have been addressed. We have had months of this. It took

[2:42:22] the land use commission a two hour hearing to shoot holes in it not to vote 43 not 52 not 61

[2:42:30] in two hours, they voted seven to zero, and that was just, and I think about like we've spoken

[2:42:38] about these alternative sites. You know, they put up three stars and four stars. What is three stars?

[2:42:45] What is four stars? How much is three stars worth? And then we also talk about like we're building

[2:42:51] these things have a usable life of 50, 75 hundred years. Where is the solar plan? Where is the alternative

[2:42:58] energy plan to make this more green. Like there are so many questions that haven't been answered

[2:43:04] that when you vote yes you vote yes to spending $80 million of our money with so many

[2:43:12] question marks that are number one not aligned with the overarching goal of being a resident of

[2:43:18] broomfield and being part of this community but also you know what are we striving to be not for

[2:43:24] us today, but for the generations to follow, are we going to be the ones that go, oh yeah,

[2:43:30] that last remaining hilltop, it was $7 million more to do to bury it at the time.

[2:43:35] And if you guys remember, I sent you an email, $7 million across all the residents comes out

[2:43:40] to $91 over 50 years to bury the tanks. So I think it's about perspective. A lot of work has

[2:43:49] done, but sometimes just stepping back and realizing you will never regret voting no tonight.

[2:43:57] But your kids could very possibly regret that you've heard yes, and that one spot is not gone forever.

[2:44:05] Those are your time. Thank you very much. Ted Wallace or I mean, I don't think I don't really hear you.

[2:44:17] Council members, Mayor Pro Tem, Mayor, I'm Ted Walhouse from Anthem Reserve.

[2:44:26] I really have a lot of empathy for the tough decision you have to make tonight.

[2:44:33] Requires you to really be thoughtful and think through an enormous amount of information.

[2:44:40] City manager Hopman, same to you.

[2:44:43] I know that you are, you're juggling 10 million plates over there and it's very difficult and it's probably very easy for you to hit the easy button on this.

[2:44:54] What I start to have trouble with in terms of the empathy is to do.

[2:45:01] A lot of conversations about us doing our due diligence. And we have tried. I don't know about you, but I've been brought up in an environment where I've been taught that none of us succeeds without the help of others.

[2:45:15] Do you recognize in our, your constituents in this community? We have engineers, not only engineers, but engineers that specifically has specialized knowledge and expertise in exactly these kinds of projects.

[2:45:27] And they brought ideas to the table, we've had a little bit of an audience,

[2:45:35] and we've asked a lot of questions, but we really feel ignored.

[2:45:40] I looked at these presentations tonight, there's lacking information and there's filters there.

[2:45:45] In the study session, no disrespect.

[2:45:49] But Mayor Pro Tem, you asked a question, did the residents know about this project?

[2:45:57] See, manager Hoffman, you said, bless their hearts, they really want to filter this information.

[2:46:02] the way they see fit for their point of view.

[2:46:07] I would suggest to you that the filter needs to be on the other side of the fence.

[2:46:13] You are filtering information and you're not complete with the information

[2:46:18] and we brought ideas to the table and we don't feel listened to.

[2:46:26] You have an opportunity to push the pause button and stop this.

[2:46:30] Let's look at these locations.

[2:46:33] We don't think that they've been looked at very carefully and why do we say that because of the

[2:46:37] information that we have and we may not have all the information, but this is a community

[2:46:42] and your constituents care.

[2:46:46] I would ask you to pause.

[2:46:48] Do your due diligence, do the right thing.

[2:46:51] And we did Mayor Protem, get an email from the City Engineer and said a single very

[2:46:55] take right before that meeting with only less than 50% of the community done.

[2:47:06] Two options. Think about relocating. Possibly bury the tanks and preserve that beautiful hilltop.

[2:47:12] Thank you. Thank you.

[2:47:18] Eric, it's all. I live in Brunefield. Okay so other than Boulder and I mean there's

[2:47:25] all series other than Boulder what other city or county in the Denver metro area

[2:47:29] has a view like that. Boulder doesn't even have a view that expansive but I

[2:47:33] can guarantee if they did they wouldn't put a pump hose, free water tanks, and a

[2:47:38] seven foot fence on that spot because they recognize the importance that open space

[2:47:42] has in our communities. By the way, have you seen that fence? It literally looks like

[2:47:47] maximum security present.

[2:47:49] Anyone who argues that we are only complaining because it affects our views, you are dead

[2:47:54] wrong.

[2:47:55] As more and more areas fill in with housing and commercial projects, this space will have

[2:47:59] even more value.

[2:48:00] In 10 years think of the growth and how important it will be to have this hilltop area

[2:48:04] to get away from it all.

[2:48:06] I love water, water is awesome.

[2:48:09] No one said we don't need water towers.

[2:48:11] Why do they have to be in the gem of broomfield?

[2:48:13] Why would they lead us on to believe it was a beautiful open space and build a trail and

[2:48:18] benches only to rip it all out?

[2:48:22] Why should industrial things be in residential neighborhoods?

[2:48:26] Why go so far out of your way to make it neighbor friendly when you could make it super

[2:48:31] duper, un-navor friendly in an industrial area?

[2:48:36] You could pump to your heart's content somewhere else.

[2:48:38] The alternative sites are all a little bit less than 100 foot difference.

[2:48:43] Are you seeing your pumps can't pump 100 feet more?

[2:48:47] How does 100 yards from residents still earn you two stars for how much it affects neighbors?

[2:48:54] 100 yards is nothing.

[2:48:56] Just curious, what does it take to get zero stars?

[2:48:58] Does it literally need to be next to my toilet?

[2:49:02] All your criteria for why alternative sites won't work involve money or machines having to dig deeper.

[2:49:09] Are you doing this by hand with garden shovels?

[2:49:12] You're saying money is more important than preserving the view.

[2:49:16] Just remember, once you ruin this open space, you can never unrewen it.

[2:49:21] I guess I'm just like almost brought to tears because I just feel, it's hard, I'm from

[2:49:29] Boulder and what I've seen them do in the last seven, eight years and all the upper

[2:49:34] growth and I just, it concerns me and there were areas in Boulder and Bloomfield now that

[2:49:41] I'm new here that I always thought were open space and then suddenly boom for sale for

[2:49:47] Please, for commercial sale, and it makes me realize that what I think we have is shrinking

[2:49:53] greater and greater and greater, and the reason I moved there is for that view.

[2:49:58] I don't want you to not build them there because I moved there.

[2:50:01] Has nothing to do with me, and anyone who goes up there, you'll meet people from all over

[2:50:05] not just people who are coming directly from Anthem Reserves, so I don't really appreciate

[2:50:11] the privileged comments, because I'm doing this for everybody.

[2:50:15] Thank you.

[2:50:16] Thank you. Our next three speakers will be the last ones for the three minutes, and that'll be

[2:50:23] Braden Peters, Summer on the phone, and Ryan, Brasantzus.

[2:50:31] It will start with Braden,

[2:50:37] remaining four speakers.

[2:50:40] Hey, you're terrible.

[2:50:46] I was going counsel. Sorry, I'm a little bit new to this. You'll have to bear with me.

[2:50:51] But I just come up here. I'm probably going to be one of your youngest speakers besides Ryan back here.

[2:50:57] But we both live in the Anthem Reserve.

[2:50:59] And my name is Brandon Peters.

[2:51:01] Sorry, I apologize, a little nervous.

[2:51:04] But I do have lots of memories from this place.

[2:51:07] And whenever I talk about this part of town,

[2:51:11] it's always Mount Brumfield, Adam called it.

[2:51:14] It is by far the most beautiful place

[2:51:18] that we have in the video that we were shown earlier

[2:51:20] does not show the true beauty of what that place holds up there.

[2:51:25] It's something remarkable, and we talk about, you know, tons of people coming into

[2:51:30] broomfield.

[2:51:30] You ask yourselves why, why are people coming into broomfield, and it's because it's beautiful.

[2:51:35] This is the pinnacle of why broomfield is beautiful is this top, this hill top right here.

[2:51:42] And just the other night, me, my brother and my little sister walked up to the top of the hill.

[2:51:46] We could see Starlink.

[2:51:47] It's beautiful view up there.

[2:51:49] Super crazy.

[2:51:49] I thought we were being taken over by UFOs at first.

[2:51:52] There are many other places for these towers that we have looked into.

[2:51:55] I've heard many things.

[2:51:56] I don't have very many factual things to tell you tonight.

[2:51:59] It is more speaking from my heart,

[2:52:02] but it is very important to me that this place stays beautiful

[2:52:08] because it is the reason why people come here.

[2:52:11] It's the reason why people are moving here.

[2:52:15] And I heard something about, you know,

[2:52:17] like we build houses up there, but now water towers,

[2:52:20] You know, it's because the houses are beautiful. We want to live in a beautiful area. Water towers are not beautiful.

[2:52:27] No amount of sheet metal. How bronze or copper it is. We'll never be beautiful.

[2:52:32] I do think that there are alternative options to this and hearing, you know, I was in part of the housing contracts.

[2:52:40] But, you know, if we were told that there were going to be put underground, I as a homeowner would expect them to be put underground.

[2:52:49] And you know, Anthem, especially one of its main selling points is its trails.

[2:52:54] This, again, I'll use the word pinnacle.

[2:52:56] This is the pinnacle trail.

[2:52:59] This is when people hike these trails, they go to this spot.

[2:53:03] The amount of times where I go when I see an unfamiliar car parked at the top of that cul-de-sac,

[2:53:09] up at the top there to see a group of four or five kids up there.

[2:53:12] When I go up there and I see the kids that I coach for eighth grade lacrosse, room field

[2:53:16] There's going up there because I told them three years prior to go there, it's a special place, and it will be continued to be a special place moving forward, and I sure hope you guys put that into consideration.

[2:53:30] Thank you very much.

[2:53:31] Thank you.

[2:53:33] We're going to go summer on the phone and then we'll get to you Ryan.

[2:53:36] So summer, it is your turn.

[2:53:38] Can you hear us?

[2:53:42] Okay.

[2:53:43] All right.

[2:53:43] Go ahead.

[2:53:44] You can start whenever.

[2:53:45] I'm a resident of Springfield, and there's an enough income reserve as well.

[2:53:54] I will also reiterate that this is not and never has been an arrangement against the need for water.

[2:53:58] We all love water, and we know it's incredibly important to know the property here.

[2:54:03] I'm going to review committee's commission, excuse me.

[2:54:06] are unanimously voted to a reference

[2:54:08] Niles of proposals 7 to 0, as you've heard,

[2:54:11] many of the other residents on reference

[2:54:13] singing detail, they determined that the

[2:54:15] lurk determined that the review standards

[2:54:16] that were required to be met were not met.

[2:54:19] That's why they voted unanimously to deny.

[2:54:22] And these members of the commission

[2:54:24] are not residents of the answer were served.

[2:54:27] They were informed, educated, and post-important questions

[2:54:29] and had to misguide concerns

[2:54:30] and the follow-up information

[2:54:32] from the city did not fully rectify.

[2:54:34] So much so much though that they voted unanimously.

[2:54:38] It's quite curious to see that the presentation we heard tonight,

[2:54:41] strategically left out significant concerns that

[2:54:43] lurk communicated during the meeting where they voted to deny.

[2:54:47] And it seems that there were picking and choosing and minimizing

[2:54:51] in a way that was convenient for the presentation.

[2:54:54] Lerke had informed and educated and significant questions and concerns

[2:54:58] and communicated those many of the residents, including myself,

[2:55:02] we're at that meeting. It was important that they stayed for over two hours and many questions

[2:55:10] that can turn from the residents. There's a recording and transcript of that meeting,

[2:55:15] and I would encourage all of the residents to go and listen to that to get a much further

[2:55:19] mixture of the issues and concerns and attack all of the group's fields.

[2:55:23] One significant concern that Laura Cad was that there was minimized was that the paving

[2:55:29] have the existing trial for training to make the tank maintenance truck that will drive up

[2:55:33] and down at daily. It wasn't just a recommendation to keep the tank maintenance truck out

[2:55:41] of the neighborhood. It was, there were significant concerns about keeping the existing

[2:55:46] trial that's used for recreation and putting tank maintenance vehicles daily on it when adults

[2:55:53] and children and animals continue to use that for recreation. That is a significant concern

[2:55:58] or residential room fields, as the trail is meant for foot traffic, it's meant for kids and adults and children to play and explore.

[2:56:10] And daily we're going to put a maintenance truck up and down that to drive up and down.

[2:56:14] Hoping that somebody doesn't get hit that, you know, that that's kind of the day.

[2:56:20] Maybe the maintenance worker isn't paying as opposed to the attention, because he's dropped

[2:56:24] to drive up and down the trail, that's meant for people to walk on and play on, to go

[2:56:29] for a daily maintenance as the tanks and hoping that's the children that we allow to explore

[2:56:36] and play freely in an environment, and they never had that quite frankly, has very few safe places

[2:56:43] for them to explore, we're taking that away from them.

[2:56:47] And the plan to pay that is it was a significant concern, it poses a danger, it poses

[2:56:54] a huge liability for the city.

[2:56:55] Is me summer, can I wrap up, show me the decision to do that?

[2:57:01] And we do know that summer, we want the summer, in your time, has expired, can you wrap

[2:57:09] up your thoughts?

[2:57:14] Can you hear us, your time is expired.

[2:57:16] Can you please wrap up your thoughts?

[2:57:20] Yes, sorry.

[2:57:21] Quickly.

[2:57:24] Is it all?

[2:57:26] We're concerned that we're going to put our children

[2:57:28] and residents of Brunefield who use the trail at risk

[2:57:30] because they use more land to create a separate pace path

[2:57:33] as they should.

[2:57:34] It would extend over one acre and require a change of use to put up about it.

[2:57:37] All right.

[2:57:38] Thank you.

[2:57:38] you're in the field market. Thank you, you're four minutes now. I'm sorry, your time is expired.

[2:57:43] We've got to move on. Ryan, it's your turn.

[2:57:47] Hi, I'm sorry, I don't know if you guys can hear me.

[2:57:50] Uh, as you can tell, I've never done this before, but...

[2:57:52] It's okay.

[2:57:54] This...

[2:57:54] Friendly.

[2:57:55] You promised me.

[2:57:58] This hilltop means the world to me.

[2:58:00] I've gone up there, and I...

[2:58:03] I never really...

[2:58:05] We don't...my family doesn't go to church as much as like...

[2:58:07] we should, I know that. But when I go up to that hilltop, it connects me to God, I feel.

[2:58:15] Like it truly hits something, when I go up there sometimes I just go up and break down crying,

[2:58:23] for no reason. Just because it just feels good to get up there. It's mainly because of you.

[2:58:30] It'd be completely ruined if you put these tax in, like, genuinely.

[2:58:36] Unless you're 15 feet tall, you're not seen over that.

[2:58:40] Like, and in the video, it didn't show the beauty of where, like, it made a point.

[2:58:47] I feel to go over those rocks and that bench, where it's just a beautiful circle of rocks

[2:58:55] an amazing bench, which is a monument to a close family friend and it doesn't show what

[2:59:06] this hilltop truly means and it's an amazing place and I know like many of my friends

[2:59:15] go up there constantly and feel the same exactly as I do and even that parking lot that's

[2:59:23] amazing place for my friends to go and just talk and have a community between us all.

[2:59:30] And I know this is kind of a sob sorry but this does just truly mean more of me, this hilltop

[2:59:39] and I make it a point to go up there as much as I can. I know I get busy but it is just a beautiful

[2:59:46] mind-carriage all you got.

[2:59:52] It's just, you put these tanks in, it's just ruling that natural beauty.

[3:00:00] I don't have very much more to say. I didn't really prepare this all just from the heart. And yeah. Thank you

[3:00:06] guys for your time. I really appreciate it. Thank you, Ryan. It was very eloquent. Now we have

[3:00:12] four more people signed up for two minutes of public comment. That's the 16 through 19. And we

[3:00:17] do have time if anybody else wants to add on. So next we have Lyndon Peters, Michelle Farmer, Steve

[3:00:24] Harris and Johnny Way.

[3:00:39] Hello council, like many of my other fellow speakers here. This is also my

[3:00:43] first time doing this. But I can tell that you guys are very friendly. I think it has been made

[3:00:49] clear that this place is a very special place for a lot of people. However, I would like to

[3:00:55] harp on it a little bit more specifically. This is not just a room-filled resident issue. This

[3:01:01] is not only just a Anthem Reserve issue, this spans to all of our neighboring towns and communities

[3:01:07] and even beyond that.

[3:01:11] To a lot of my friends, this has become a place of a prayer, a second a place for people

[3:01:17] practice the guitar, maybe seeing something like that, sunrise and sunsets and also being

[3:01:23] there at night is also just amazing.

[3:01:26] But yeah, so basically, me being up here, I just wanted to really explain to you guys that when you're making this decision you're not making this decision only for room field, you're making this decision for the neighboring cities and communities around us, this is not only beneficial to the people of our neighborhood or even our city, this is beneficial to everyone, and I'd appreciate it if you would consider not putting tanks out through in this sort of people.

[3:01:54] That's it. Thank you.

[3:01:56] Thank you very much.

[3:02:01] Hi, my name is Michelle Farmer from Anthem.

[3:02:03] I didn't realize I had two minutes, so I'm going to try to skip through a little bit.

[3:02:07] So I'll go fast.

[3:02:09] Last year I was blindsided to learn about a massive water tank project.

[3:02:13] It was never disclosed to the initial residents.

[3:02:16] And now you've increased the project from one small tank to three enormous ones and a huge pump station.

[3:02:22] Since this started, you allowed and zone for a beautiful residential neighborhood and open space to be built.

[3:02:29] I understand if this was meant for tanks, but a neighborhood should have never been right next to it,

[3:02:34] especially when the people buying homes didn't even know.

[3:02:37] Now you're increasing the initial scope, more than threefold increasing the cost from 15 to 80 million of taxpayer money.

[3:02:44] These massive tanks will be located 150 feet from homes.

[3:02:48] The access point for construction will be next to a park, a kids park, or massive equipment will clog up one of only two ways to enter our entire neighborhood.

[3:02:58] I'd also like to say that out of all the alternative options, all the other ones are right and anthem neighborhood.

[3:03:04] You're right back to where you are with some of those other options. It preserves the hilltop, which would be huge, but the other options are still right in all of everybody's backyard right there.

[3:03:17] I hope you've gone up there yourself and really looked before blindly voting on this project.

[3:03:22] The views will take your breath away like everyone said.

[3:03:25] When you look at eerie from afar, all you see is the dump.

[3:03:28] When you look at room filled from afar, you will see three massive water tanks, what a shame.

[3:03:34] You have the power to ask the important questions and understand why isn't this isn't being put in industrial location.

[3:03:40] location. There are water-takes and cities that are flat. Kansas is flat, Texas is flat. They

[3:03:46] found a way that it doesn't have to be placed on an entire highest elevation and uses

[3:03:51] the best pumping technologies. As an elected official representing your constituents, you

[3:03:58] will be responsible for the significant loss of open space, breathtaking views, and the devaluation

[3:04:04] of homes in many neighborhoods. Please do the right thing, evaluate industrial locations, and

[3:04:10] don't proceed with the only option shown to you tonight, or even some of those ones that

[3:04:15] meet five acres in a certain height elevation. It may be the hard choice, but it's the right

[3:04:21] choice for your citizens. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[3:04:28] I didn't know that I was tied to two minutes

[3:04:29] also, so I'll try to get this in pretty quick, but it's a mayor. Thank you very much. Mayor,

[3:04:35] Mayor, Pro Tem, Council Member, staff, my name is Steve Derris.

[3:04:39] Live in Anthem Reserve and purchase that property in April of 2020.

[3:04:46] So 2020, not 2022.

[3:04:49] Prior to that, my wife and I moved to Brunefield in 1996.

[3:04:53] We lived in Merrimonti Farms for 24 years.

[3:04:58] Raise our family.

[3:04:59] Okay, so when to high school here, when to middle school,

[3:05:01] when to coal school, this is home.

[3:05:04] Okay.

[3:05:04] We got to a point where the kids moved out of school.

[3:05:07] Hey, let's get out of that house and in our money farms and let's go find a house that we

[3:05:12] want to retire in and live there probably to the end of our days.

[3:05:15] And that's what we thought we did at Anthem Reserve.

[3:05:19] So you know, one of the things that was brought up earlier and, you know, this is a beautiful

[3:05:23] view shed and all that, but one of the things that really has me and I'm a civil engineer,

[3:05:28] I've been doing a lot of work and professional engineer but when we bought the property in April

[3:05:35] actually is a year prior to build that house there was no notification we were notified in our

[3:05:41] title papers hey there's the area airport you know you're gonna have planes flying over got it

[3:05:46] hey there's fracking under here got it sign that but when I look at page eight of the council agenda item right

[3:05:55] Now, fourth paragraph, the anthem filing number 24 sub division improvement and site development

[3:06:01] and plan specified that the developers of the residential lots shall be responsible for

[3:06:06] notifying residents of the future tank project.

[3:06:10] A number of residents have reported to staff that notice was not provided prior.

[3:06:15] I'm one of those.

[3:06:15] We call ourselves the OGs.

[3:06:17] I was a fourth house in there and I've asked many of our neighbors.

[3:06:22] is this? Did you have exhibit F? The answer is no. The statement continues to go on in the

[3:06:30] state staff report. The lack of notice is not precluded. The proposal from being considered

[3:06:34] by the city council. The two builders within the community, copper homes and epic. Most of

[3:06:41] our FSR epic have received communication from staff requesting that notice is be provided moving forward.

[3:06:48] moving forward. I already bought that property, okay. So I have a little bit of time and

[3:06:55] hopefully you'll grant me a little bit more. Exhibit F as we've been discussed about.

[3:07:01] I'd like to read that to you. And it's something that was part of filing 24. It was

[3:07:11] required by, because when I moved in and then we started hearing a year or two later

[3:07:15] there's going to be tanks on the hill and I'll wet.

[3:07:18] So we started looking into the zoning and planning that are

[3:07:20] proven sure enough, there's that square on 24.

[3:07:25] And I go, well, there it is.

[3:07:26] And we should have known that.

[3:07:28] It was there, I didn't do my homework.

[3:07:31] But exhibit F, not being in our title paperwork,

[3:07:34] really concerns me.

[3:07:34] And it can concern all of you that are buying a house

[3:07:37] in Bloomfield or anywhere.

[3:07:39] It's called proximity to future development

[3:07:41] of water storage tank and future ball field lighting,

[3:07:45] which I didn't know about either when I bought my house.

[3:07:48] Acknowledgement, Anthem, Brunefield, Colorado,

[3:07:51] Lot, Blank, Filing, Blank, Address, Blank.

[3:07:54] Purchase your acknowledges that the lot which is being purchased

[3:07:57] is located in the close proximity to future development

[3:08:01] of water storage tank and Anthem community park,

[3:08:07] which will have development of lighted ball fields.

[3:08:11] Okay, I play softball.

[3:08:12] I play softball here since 96, I love softball.

[3:08:15] I'm okay with the lights in the park, but the responsibility or liability whatsoever, and

[3:08:22] someone mentioned this, for claims, any claims, or clauses of action, either in law or

[3:08:29] an equity arising from any and all impacts on the light or the purchasers quality of life

[3:08:36] in parentheses, resulting from a related to land development, a future water storage tank

[3:08:43] as shown at Anthem filing 24 site development plan or the installation of lighted

[3:08:47] buff fields as shown in the preble creek filing to site development plan as such may

[3:08:53] be amended from time to signature lines upon signature and sale of the home builders with

[3:09:01] Anthem filing 24 will record this document with the city and county of Brunefield. So did the

[3:09:06] city and county of Brunefield have any responsibility to make sure that Anthem epic or copper

[3:09:12] informed us of this and it was included in our title work, I'm looking into my title company

[3:09:17] to see if their insurance will cover what may happen to our property values with the tank

[3:09:22] and the lighted ball fields. We bought this house three years prior to where the information of the

[3:09:27] tanks came up. So with that I'd like to close long time resident made a lot of equity in our house

[3:09:36] Mayor Monty Farms rolled that equity into Anthem reserve and that was going to be our final

[3:09:41] place.

[3:09:42] I'm not sure if that's the case now and that's sad.

[3:09:45] My kids still live in the area, room field, home.

[3:09:49] So when we looked at some of the options in the stars and this and why staff decided or

[3:09:55] city manager decided to throw it out, I think about all the fracking, you guys have all been

[3:10:00] involved in fracking, and these water lines or oil and gas lines that go through some of

[3:10:07] these parcels.

[3:10:09] There's a lot of us that do oil and gas and are associated with it, those lines can

[3:10:13] be moved.

[3:10:14] And to simply throw out those option locations, because water and gas lines from the oil

[3:10:19] developers, which we all love, we never even asked them to move.

[3:10:23] That was our casting mirror.

[3:10:25] Okay.

[3:10:25] I saw your face, so, you know, just in closing, you know, we were notified of airports fracking,

[3:10:34] but did the city fall down, did the developers that had approved Anthem and 24, let us down

[3:10:42] by not letting know these facilities would be in, that's impacting our property values, and

[3:10:47] maybe my children's, you know, future, you know, on the value of that house.

[3:10:53] So thank you very much for listening, I get long-winded, my wife's listening, she said, don't talk to you long.

[3:10:59] So I'm glad.

[3:11:00] Thank you.

[3:11:00] It's all right.

[3:11:01] Thank you very much, Mr. Wade.

[3:11:03] I'm the Mr. Dares.

[3:11:04] Donnie Wade?

[3:11:05] I'm Johnny Wade.

[3:11:05] I get some batting cleanup here, but thank you so much for listening to me.

[3:11:09] I actually am last because I wanted to reserve judgment a little bit.

[3:11:13] I hadn't seen the other options.

[3:11:15] And when I saw them, I thought a couple of things.

[3:11:18] One, diligence.

[3:11:19] Thank you for that.

[3:11:20] And two, what a great problem to have.

[3:11:23] We have a growing city that needs more infrastructure.

[3:11:25] It's fantastic.

[3:11:26] And we have a neighborhood full of people

[3:11:27] who care about the beauty of the city.

[3:11:29] That's also fantastic.

[3:11:30] So we're doing pretty well here.

[3:11:33] From my perspective, I think this is a measure of values.

[3:11:35] I don't know what those little dots mean,

[3:11:37] but we can weigh them however we see fit.

[3:11:40] And some of those dots for the neighborhood

[3:11:43] and the livelihood of people who are living there

[3:11:47] and the people living room field,

[3:11:48] Those seem to matter to me a lot, and maybe we just like weigh those little more.

[3:11:53] Maybe that's a value judgment that we make as a city, that we can grow, we can accommodate

[3:11:59] all these things that are happening, and we can continue to have this, but we can also balance

[3:12:06] that with the things that we value internally as a city.

[3:12:09] And so I guess my challenge to you would be like, make that judgment.

[3:12:13] There are other viable options.

[3:12:14] We proved it. They might be a little bit less optimal. If you're weighing the other things more,

[3:12:19] but if you're weighing the things that matter to us as a city, more, they seem perfectly reasonable.

[3:12:24] So have a great night. Thank you. Thank you very much. We do have a person who called in a little

[3:12:29] bit late, so I'm going to go ahead and go back to the phone. And it's Bella, you're on and you have two minutes,

[3:12:41] Hi, my name is Bella Jobman. I am 10 years old and I am a fifth grader. I just wanted to say that I really love that hill. It is one of my favorite places in the entire neighborhood and I love to go up to my friends and my family. I love to bike up there and I love to do a lot of things up there and when I heard that this plan was my

[3:13:10] I have taken place, it did not make me feel very happy and really have that place for the rest

[3:13:29] of the time that I live here because it is a very nice place that I love to interact with

[3:13:38] of the people on and when I walk some of the dogs that I walk, I walk them up there.

[3:13:45] I walk them all around that one spot because it is a very beautiful spot and I don't want

[3:13:54] that to be ruined because people wanted to put in water tanks that can be putting somewhere else

[3:14:01] that did not, that does not affect where at least probably 100 people with already when there's

[3:14:09] still being house is built. I also want to say that I have been tired of hearing the

[3:14:15] construction and the fact that it's almost done for building houses and that it might

[3:14:22] happen again. I just don't really want that to happen. So thank you for your time.

[3:14:29] Thank you, Bella, is there anyone else who would like to speak now at the time?

[3:14:36] We don't have anybody else on the phone.

[3:14:39] All right then, well thank you all so much for your thoughtful comments and for being patient.

[3:14:45] We do appreciate your engagement,

[3:14:49] but does the applicant have any final comments?

[3:14:54] Okay, we're going to move on to questions from City Council members should limit themselves

[3:15:00] Questions during this portion, the time to introduce and amendments in state positions for or against this item is later. Are there any questions from Council? Council member Hinkle and then Cohen.

[3:15:12] Thank you, Mayor, and I have a question. This is just a long-winded first question.

[3:15:17] I do want to say, though, because you have to address a room like this. Thank you so much for being here.

[3:15:22] Really means a lot. I remember being on that side for so long and for a lot of the same reasons, I'll be honest.

[3:15:28] So thank you staff, the applicant, which is also staff and especially our city manager staff

[3:15:34] from meeting with me, Todd, Andrew, Ted and Eric and Eric.

[3:15:38] If you can hear me we are missing you tonight.

[3:15:41] Thank you for the engagement tonight from the residents too.

[3:15:44] And I was there in the neighborhood yesterday and I feel you with the sounds of the construction

[3:15:49] in that area.

[3:15:51] I got tired of it after being there for about two hours.

[3:15:53] I agree with Chelsea May and Erica Dalin that I don't think anyone here doesn't want the water, that isn't the question here.

[3:16:01] I noticed that the applicant presented alternative alternate site analysis and it surprised we didn't explore the area between the one number one spot and the number one two ranking spot.

[3:16:11] Like a few residents have asked for.

[3:16:12] Many why aren't we looking at removing the awful eyes sore of the old water tower that

[3:16:17] doesn't work anymore by the mount replaced them with new these new water tanks in

[3:16:21] negotiate the 5G cell tower to make income off the site.

[3:16:26] So my question is now I know the application is for this site only so I can't be off

[3:16:31] too off from this particular application but I just want to know who owns the land to

[3:16:37] the south and to the southeast and is it open space or is it considered open lands?

[3:16:50] The land to the southeast actually surrounding all of the water tank parcel is owned by the

[3:16:56] city in County of Brimfield. It was dedicated by the developer as open space. So all of

[3:17:01] that land surrounding the one tract where the tanks are proposed is open space. Okay. Thank you.

[3:17:10] Okay. Second question is, we had Mr. Mike Pierce's questions where they answered and addressed

[3:17:16] to email this, just basically the results of the work, you know,

[3:17:21] results in highlighted a few items in there.

[3:17:24] Can we address that tonight, or do you want to address that

[3:17:26] after my next question?

[3:17:31] So remember, with there, we did include in the staff memorandum

[3:17:35] details of how staff took the recommendations and the statements

[3:17:40] and the comments that it occurred at lurk and followed up on those.

[3:17:45] And we also included some in the presentation was if there's one

[3:17:47] that I missed or you'd like a little more information.

[3:17:51] I believe he highlighted the parts who said the proposal should identify and mitigate potential

[3:17:56] negative impacts on nearby properties.

[3:17:59] The proposal should identify and maximize potential positive impacts on nearby properties and

[3:18:03] so on.

[3:18:05] Those were the findings that were listed in terms of what the Land Use Review Commission believed

[3:18:12] were the findings of the required findings where a site development plan that they believed

[3:18:16] the evidence that they saw at the public hearing were not being met and what we did in the

[3:18:22] memorandum was extrapolated. The comments that they had and the issues that they brought

[3:18:26] forward. All of that discussion we believe was feeding into how they made that determination

[3:18:33] for those findings.

[3:18:36] We're addressing that. And then I had sent off an email today because Mr.

[3:18:42] John Card contacted us with the questions below. He had a question regarding the water

[3:18:48] tanks and is concerned about the water pressure, how that might change in the development

[3:18:52] and could possibly actually the water pressure be lower in that neighborhood.

[3:18:57] He also wanted to find out how his water pump affects his property value in relation to

[3:19:02] the new tanks and if the tanks would affect his home value in this manner, do we have

[3:19:07] an answer to that question?

[3:19:10] Mr. Rut, can you address the PSI question?

[3:19:14] Because I know the minimum PSI, I believe, was from a lurk hearing that I listened to was 40 PSI.

[3:19:21] Are we looking at what their PSI is currently and how the water takes might affect that pressure?

[3:19:32] Mayor Mayor Protem and council members, thank you for the question, council member Henkel.

[3:19:39] We did a pressure gauge off of Irving Court in a West 154th Avenue.

[3:19:46] And that pressure low reading was 36 PSI. So that is below the 40 minimum. Our standards

[3:19:56] and specs require 20 PSI for fire protection and 20 PSI for single family. So that's

[3:20:03] why the minimum is that 40. So that the current pressure that we tested was on September

[3:20:10] And that was for, except the area of Irving Court in 154th, and it was well below.

[3:20:20] What was well below, 40th?

[3:20:21] It was 36.

[3:20:23] The pressure was 36.

[3:20:24] Two that neighborhood.

[3:20:26] Two that neighborhood.

[3:20:27] So that means that every house has some sort of water pump to raise the PSI levels.

[3:20:31] Is that correct?

[3:20:32] That I do not know how those houses were built.

[3:20:39] That would be a building permit.

[3:20:41] Yeah, is that they already have a low pressure, especially on that west end?

[3:20:46] What I'm hearing from those neighbors over there?

[3:20:48] I would like to know how the tanks would affect that pressure for them.

[3:20:52] If we would actually make it even lower for them.

[3:20:59] Yeah, and we'd like to probably make this a longer answer than that question.

[3:21:05] Because I'm going to get into a little bit more pressure.

[3:21:07] And we have a third-party engineering firm called Arcadia.

[3:21:14] That is not the design engineer, but is our water model engineering firm.

[3:21:19] We had them run the water models on the north area,

[3:21:24] system improvements without the water.

[3:21:29] from the years 24, beginning in 2024 through 2026.

[3:21:35] The water pressure in the areas of Wildgrass,

[3:21:42] McKay Landing,

[3:21:45] Wilcox,

[3:21:49] Spruce Meadows,

[3:21:51] Anthem 24, Anthem Ranch, and the north area of Anthem

[3:21:57] just above Prospect Ridge, all will drop from the

[3:22:01] typical 60 to 80 will drop down to the 40 to 60 range. So all of that area will be influenced

[3:22:10] without the tank.

[3:22:14] So without the tanks, the pressure drops, what happens with the tanks?

[3:22:18] With the tanks, those pressures are restored.

[3:22:21] Two, what? What's that? Two normal operating ranges, which for us is the range for our

[3:22:28] standard specs is between 40 and 125.

[3:22:32] We typically run about 60 to about 110 roughly.

[3:22:38] And so the other pieces that there are two areas,

[3:22:42] Irving Court obviously is under will be under the 40 PSI.

[3:22:46] King Court there will be some under 40 PSI.

[3:22:50] In the Wilcox there will be some under 40.

[3:22:53] Screws metal will also have some under 40.

[3:22:57] And so I guess my direct question is these water tanks are directly supposed to be in assisting that residents in that area.

[3:23:08] They're just worried that their pressure will actually go lower and everyone else is going to go higher.

[3:23:12] So you're in agreement that that particular neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods will also increase.

[3:23:18] Correct.

[3:23:18] The water tanks will improve the pressure throughout the area.

[3:23:24] Okay, and we don't have a measurement exactly on that one.

[3:23:27] You just said, they'll go out of the range.

[3:23:29] Yeah, they'll go back to our normal operating range.

[3:23:31] Okay.

[3:23:31] And as the city continues to grow north, the pressures get worse.

[3:23:37] 26 to 28, pretty much all of Wilcox will be under 40.

[3:23:43] We will have one of our north distribution lines that will be hitting max design on our

[3:23:49] feet per second.

[3:23:52] Mr. Roderick, I'm not going to leave that, please.

[3:23:54] What's that?

[3:23:55] Will you explain what it is that you just said?

[3:23:58] There is a North pipeline that comes out of our plant.

[3:24:02] You feed the North area with two basic pipelines.

[3:24:06] One that comes out of the North to Wagras and then across the low.

[3:24:10] That's a 24 inch pipe.

[3:24:12] That will meet the max.

[3:24:15] We'll exceed our five foot per second.

[3:24:17] flow design. So that will hit up to that design,

[3:24:23] contract our criteria between 26 and 28. And then we go a little bit further out to 28 through 30.

[3:24:32] The pipeline along the low will also meet its max design criteria in

[3:24:39] feet per second and also the line along 144th will also hit that max design.

[3:24:45] And that's if we don't have the tanks that's if we do not have the tanks, okay, all right

[3:24:51] Yeah, so speaking of the northern area. I'm just curious if there's been a lot of talk about the non-potable water

[3:24:58] You know if we could separate that if we could put in a different spot

[3:25:02] I did already hear the ethylare carrying. I did listen to all of that

[3:25:05] I know we've discussed it before. I'm just curious as we plan into the future

[3:25:11] We've already gone even more north in Birmingham, but we're going to head even more north

[3:25:16] than that.

[3:25:17] So we still have a lot of land, even even east of I-25, across the highway.

[3:25:25] What's the plan for water up there?

[3:25:29] The, these north area tanks would serve that area.

[3:25:36] To what density do we, to build out to 125?

[3:25:40] If I think that's a good idea.

[3:25:41] I think that's a good idea.

[3:25:43] This is a good idea.

[3:25:43] I think that's a good idea.

[3:25:44] Our billed up project?

[3:25:45] Max Population is 125,000.

[3:25:48] That's what we're planning for.

[3:25:49] Okay for that density.

[3:25:51] That's all the questions I have for right now.

[3:25:53] Thank you, staff.

[3:25:54] Thank you.

[3:25:55] Councillor Maynard Cohen.

[3:25:57] Thank you, Mayor.

[3:25:59] I wanted to follow up sort of what Councilmember Hancock was talking about.

[3:26:03] Because this has been planned for a long time.

[3:26:05] I think Council, if I dare speak for my colleagues, approve the concept plan, because the engineering

[3:26:10] seems correct, you know, you naturally put water at the highest elevation. So, in that sense,

[3:26:16] it makes sense. I wanted to branch out beyond that to other factors, because I think it was Mr.

[3:26:21] Matthew's comments that resonated with me that when the Council originally approved this spot,

[3:26:26] they were envisioning one tank that was fully buried, and they did say in their minutes,

[3:26:31] they wanted to preserve that rich.

[3:26:34] And I wanted to clarify, when did we go from one to three?

[3:26:38] What was the factors that prompted that?

[3:26:41] I assume it's growth, obviously,

[3:26:42] but I just like some clarity of when that happened

[3:26:44] and how that decision was made.

[3:26:47] And then also, that lines, what we went from Barry

[3:26:49] to partially buried.

[3:26:54] Thank you, Council Member Cohen, for the question.

[3:26:57] Katie Allen, sitting in County, Engineer.

[3:27:00] So in 2016, we envisioned six million gallons

[3:27:03] of potable water.

[3:27:04] We still have six million gallons of potable water in two, three million gallon tanks.

[3:27:10] The third tank is reused water tank, and that wasn't recommended until 2018, but the reused water

[3:27:19] master plan. The two tanks, two smaller tanks, versus one larger tank, was a recommendation in

[3:27:28] preliminary design report from, I think it was July 2022, so that is the timeline, did

[3:27:36] that answer your question?

[3:27:39] So, it was a recommendation based on population growth that we needed to increase our quantity.

[3:27:44] No, the quantity did not increase.

[3:27:45] The quantity didn't change the three.

[3:27:47] It was just operationally.

[3:27:50] Oh, and you asked about very tinks, sorry.

[3:27:53] Yeah, we were originally assuming the tank would be buried.

[3:27:57] And I, we had three options during a preliminary design above grade, above ground, partially

[3:28:05] buried and below ground and presented those options to the city manager with cost estimates.

[3:28:13] And it was a decision to meet in the middle, I guess, to various much as we can, but

[3:28:19] not fully, very, and for cost.

[3:28:21] From an engineering perspective, it could be buried fully.

[3:28:24] Yes.

[3:28:25] And still operate, but at the elevation you want them to operate it.

[3:28:30] It's just a matter of cost.

[3:28:31] And we would have to get those estimates correct, which we don't have right now.

[3:28:37] We have better estimates from April that they're not design level, pricing.

[3:28:47] There's nothing engineering that would prevent us from fully bearing it in your operations.

[3:28:51] I think it would be important to note that we would still need the area of fenced.

[3:28:55] Right.

[3:28:55] But I'm just curious about, originally the plan was to bury it fully, and I know that's a concern.

[3:29:01] Follow up on that in terms of the alternative sites.

[3:29:06] And it was hard to consider after the engineering points to one to think about the second best spot.

[3:29:11] But the second best appears to be site three.

[3:29:15] And there's a wonder if you could quantify for me just so better understand what challenges that would present.

[3:29:21] that if we just went to site three, you know, obviously there are going to be neighbors over there

[3:29:24] who might have something to say about that.

[3:29:27] But the thing that struck out to me was it's 56 feet lower, which sounds like a substantial

[3:29:32] challenge there that we have to elevate them.

[3:29:35] But is there, could you just quantify for me a little bit what time-cost challenge is that

[3:29:41] presents?

[3:29:42] Sure.

[3:29:43] So as I mentioned in the presentation, that is open space, so now instead of less than

[3:29:48] here we'd be looking at more like five acres, four and a half acres, so that would trigger

[3:29:53] the open space change and use process.

[3:30:00] So, that's one. Two, we'd be, you know, it's moving closer to diverse metos and different neighborhoods. So, it might have the same neighborhood response, I guess.

[3:30:15] And then, we don't have a design, so I can't quantify construction costs comparison.

[3:30:22] Operationally, it would be bigger pumps to make up the elevation difference.

[3:30:27] How high would they necessarily be? Can you guesstimate if we put it in that spot?

[3:30:34] The elevation of the tanks.

[3:30:41] 60 feet lower, so the median elevation. We're talking 53, 90-ish.

[3:30:51] Our engineer Nicole Rachelson with Burns and Mac to elaborate.

[3:30:57] Mayor Prudgen Castle. I'm Nicole Rachelson. I'm the project manager for this project from Brudgen McDonald.

[3:31:03] So I think the question was, at alternative site 3, can we estimate approximately the elevation

[3:31:11] of the tanks?

[3:31:13] So I don't remember off the top of my head what the elevation was at site 3, but in the evaluation

[3:31:19] we are assuming this is still in relatively close proximity to residents.

[3:31:24] We would likely at least at a minimum want to partially bury the tanks, which would mean approximately

[3:31:32] 20 to 25 feet below grade. So in addition to that alternative site 3 is much flatter. So

[3:31:41] it would require then extra excavation on top of that for the pump station to maintain the required

[3:31:47] elevation difference between the bottom of the tank and where the pump suction happens to provide

[3:31:53] enough pressure to the pumps. So operationally does that add concern cost to this long-term operation.

[3:32:00] It does, so because the pumps are having to pump an additional 60-ish feet into the system and increases the operation, I think we have it in memo actually, it has the memo, 30-ish percent.

[3:32:17] And then in addition to that, we would require larger pumps, so there would be capital costs in addition to that of not just the pumps, but the variable frequency drives that.

[3:32:29] run the pumps, all the electrical and the structure, what have to be

[3:32:33] absized, the building would likely get a little bit larger.

[3:32:37] So, those are all capital costs to consider, but in terms of long-term impacts

[3:32:41] that those operational costs to be.

[3:32:43] So, if we went to, say, all site three, we would just have to include that it would be a larger

[3:32:49] space of land, used up, and more costs for a bigger pump station, some operational cost,

[3:32:55] increases, and if it would say what we can measure that against the other costs of the

[3:33:00] original site, can you quickly know, wrap up? Because it has been raised by a number of people

[3:33:06] saying, why can't we just go to an industrialized site? And I think to, I think it was part

[3:33:11] of the presentation, all the, quote unquote industrialized sites are at a much lower

[3:33:14] elevation, correct? Correct. We're in this location in that zone, because this is the highest

[3:33:21] innovation and that reduces our costs and makes a better operation.

[3:33:26] So if we did move to the fire station over and over the closer to baseline that would

[3:33:32] be substantial increase in long-term costs in operation costs.

[3:33:35] Okay.

[3:33:36] Thank you.

[3:33:37] That's all for now.

[3:33:38] All right.

[3:33:38] Thank you.

[3:33:40] Mayor Potemges.

[3:33:41] Mayor.

[3:33:41] If I may.

[3:33:42] If you follow up on your question on operation costs.

[3:33:46] Just for an example.

[3:33:48] Extra 100 feet of pumping elevation.

[3:33:50] would increase our electrical cost 150 percent.

[3:33:58] May a part-time GZR ski.

[3:34:00] Thank you.

[3:34:01] I do want to start by just saying I do appreciate all the citizens that come out tonight.

[3:34:05] I really did appreciate the young kids that we're here.

[3:34:08] I can never get my kids to come here.

[3:34:10] I've been on Council for eight years and they won't even come here and watch me.

[3:34:15] And I also did the young gentlemen that unfortunately left,

[3:34:18] I was really impressed by that as well.

[3:34:21] And I do want everyone to make sure, no matter how this turns out tonight, definitely be sure

[3:34:25] that being here tonight is huge, and your voices are being heard when we're at the other.

[3:34:31] So I want you to, you know, rest assured of that, no matter how this turns out.

[3:34:36] I did have questions regarding the, the absolute, I do appreciate it through the questions

[3:34:40] by council member Cohen.

[3:34:41] I had questions on site three.

[3:34:44] Can you just, this is very, this is verified for me, site three, where is it actually located?

[3:34:48] And I got a sort of a, just a bit on the map, but it's going to make sure, straight on the corner of, so, federal looks like in a 150-second or something.

[3:34:58] That's what I see in it.

[3:35:00] Is it on that corner?

[3:35:02] Just east of the existing water tower that's there?

[3:35:10] Yes, correct east of the existing water tower.

[3:35:14] So north of 150-second.

[3:35:15] Right, right.

[3:35:16] Right, right.

[3:35:19] Right, right.

[3:35:21] And I guess my takeaway from what I heard on the answer just now was, you know, functionally

[3:35:26] that site could work, but there, you know, there are obviously maybe some neighbors over there

[3:35:32] that are going to be potentially upset.

[3:35:34] And then ultimately it comes down to cost and it sounds like you're not sure at this point,

[3:35:40] you know, how much that would cost additionally.

[3:35:43] And I guess I'm hearing the same thing with the, you know, partially buried versus buried.

[3:35:47] And then we talked about this few months back,

[3:35:49] again, it sounds like it really comes down to costs.

[3:35:52] So it's my understanding, and if I'm wrong,

[3:35:54] definitely let me know on this,

[3:35:56] trying to figure out who pays for this extra cost,

[3:36:00] if we went to one of these other routes.

[3:36:01] So I saw that it's coming from the licensing fees

[3:36:05] for future development.

[3:36:06] Is that accurate?

[3:36:09] Then

[3:36:20] looking for Ms. Richie, but that is correct.

[3:36:22] That's our understanding that this developer

[3:36:26] or tap fees, license fees, pays for our new infrastructure.

[3:36:33] So it's a little more complicated to a little more complicated than that.

[3:36:41] And part of that is the decisions that have been made over the last decade with regards

[3:36:46] to growth from residential and commercial are tapping the system.

[3:36:51] So when we're completely segregating out, that's why when we look at

[3:36:56] the Enterprise Fund last week, that it's a comprehensive approach to be able to say, one of

[3:37:03] the reasons that we're in the shape that we're in with regards to the Enterprise Funds

[3:37:08] is because of the heavily reliant being heavily reliant on those tapfees, and not having

[3:37:15] that combination of existing services and levels and growth, because if we continue to say,

[3:37:25] OK, on those tap fees, growth is going to pay its own way.

[3:37:28] I mean, we continue to have this conversation.

[3:37:30] That is a misnomer.

[3:37:33] It simply doesn't make sense then, and it certainly

[3:37:38] doesn't make sense now.

[3:37:40] So the bottom line is if there is the increases that we're

[3:37:47] building into the budget for October, for the enterprise funds,

[3:37:51] includes the tank. If those prices change, those overall fees for each one of those other components

[3:38:01] will also change.

[3:38:04] So to say, it's more than just the tap fees in.

[3:38:07] Sure.

[3:38:09] And what other components are those?

[3:38:12] Let's try to figure who pays for this.

[3:38:17] Every single resident is going to pay for this.

[3:38:19] Okay, so it's that just coming from the is it is a majority if you come in from the increase to a fees

[3:38:26] You can't you can't know no, no, no, we I I appreciate working through it

[3:38:32] Similar to what we talked about last week when we have those tap fees in order for a development to actually pay itself

[3:38:39] I'm sorry to pay its own way we'd have to increase tap fees a thousand percent

[3:38:45] Which means we'd have absolutely no development

[3:38:49] So someone say, geez, that's great.

[3:38:55] Others would say you can't pick and choose, right?

[3:38:58] Whether it's residential or commercial.

[3:39:01] So you squeeze the bubble, it's going to come out

[3:39:04] in one direction or the other.

[3:39:07] So again, we have to get into the black from a utility

[3:39:14] perspective, but we aren't going to be

[3:39:17] charge enough for a tap fee in order to compensate for

[3:39:24] these tanks or for any modifications

[3:39:26] with regards to bearing them or additional operational costs.

[3:39:33] I guess that makes sense to me because I was trying to figure out how many additional

[3:39:36] 10 fees are we going to have and how is that going to cover the millions of dollars of

[3:39:40] a share expenses.

[3:39:42] And of course, if that's coming from the 10 fees, that's going to be covered by the developers

[3:39:46] with them, we'll pass that on to the people that are about purchasing their homes, I'm assuming.

[3:39:52] Purchasing the homes, and then there's the capacity perspective from those top fees, right,

[3:39:59] which is why it's so important to be saying how much does it cost to develop here?

[3:40:04] And again, I'm talking about less residential.

[3:40:08] The mayor and I, we're having communications earlier about the developments that have are in the pipeline now.

[3:40:15] So, we're kind of coming back to Mr. Ruts, and I don't think it was quite clear enough.

[3:40:24] It's clear to me because we continue to have these conversations, but for the community in council,

[3:40:30] what happens when you don't have that water pressure, it's not just, it's an issue when you're taking a shower,

[3:40:37] or it's an issue when it's an issue for our infrastructure.

[3:40:40] When you have builds up a pressure, when you have additional users coming on to the system, it busts

[3:40:49] those long overdue maintenance pipes.

[3:40:54] So it behooves us to be able to have adequate flow from point A to point B. When we're talking

[3:41:02] about what the price is for those tap fees, if we tap that out, no pun intended.

[3:41:11] What happens is it becomes excruciatingly difficult to have those developments during the pipeline

[3:41:20] now, the residential and the commercial, the commercial that's coming on board up there and

[3:41:29] Those are ongoing conversations about those that have already paid for the tap fees.

[3:41:36] So we have some of those big commercial developments.

[3:41:40] The proposed IKEA is coming, excuse me.

[3:41:46] And we have other commercial development that

[3:41:53] the PSI is going to continue to be an ongoing

[3:41:57] issue as well as what the long term approaches for those tanks, the reservoirs, and the service

[3:42:04] delivery levels.

[3:42:06] So now that's why I try to simplify this, if I understand it, what I am hearing is right

[3:42:11] now we have a current budget for our water, you know, this has been discussed, revery recently.

[3:42:18] And we are likely going to be five facing increases as individuals, as individuals, as

[3:42:24] whole cells. As you mentioned, the current water rates have not been paying for themselves over

[3:42:31] a long period of time. If we go ahead and choose a different option, whether it's option 3,

[3:42:40] or the bearing of the tanks, that's going to cost more money one way or the other, sounds like

[3:42:46] we're not sure how much. That's going to blow the budget out, it sounds like, and then we're going

[3:42:52] have to go back, you're going to find the money from somewhere, whether it's coming from

[3:42:55] tap fees or whether that's an additional increase to individual water rates, commercial

[3:43:00] and residential. Is that a summary? Yes. Okay. Well, thank you. Excuse me, I understand you

[3:43:07] know how this would play out. A couple other quick questions. There's just things that I

[3:43:12] heard from some of the residents. The one thing that did bug me a little bit, I know there's

[3:43:17] a big concern. It seems like over due diligence. And I feel like reading the stuff that

[3:43:21] that I've seen in our packet and hearing presentations

[3:43:24] that the city did do significant due diligence on this project.

[3:43:27] So I'm just kind of concerned and confused

[3:43:29] why there was a disconnect there.

[3:43:31] I'm not sure if there's a communication issue

[3:43:32] with the residents when I get information out.

[3:43:36] And I don't think this is a question.

[3:43:37] I'm not sure you have any answer to this.

[3:43:39] But it is something that struck me as concerning.

[3:43:44] And I did hear something about citizens being required

[3:43:47] to sign waivers when they purchase their homes

[3:43:50] was that accurate?

[3:43:51] Did we have waver the man?

[3:43:52] And then this may have been from builders that we're throwing some out of the book, but

[3:43:56] as a city, did we have waver is it waver requiring Ms. Burt and Zeddy?

[3:44:00] Thank you, Mayor Pertem.

[3:44:02] So the waiver, I believe that they were talking about was also called Exhibit F. Exhibit

[3:44:07] F was attached to the subdivision improvement agreement when anthem filing number 24 was originally

[3:44:12] approved.

[3:44:13] And it was the requirement that when the builders moved forward that the builder provided

[3:44:18] then was intended to provide a notification to the buyers.

[3:44:22] And these notifications are often added

[3:44:26] to subdivision improvement agreements.

[3:44:28] Bermfield staff does not have a way to verify

[3:44:30] that those are completed.

[3:44:31] These are private transactions

[3:44:33] that are completed between the builder and the future purchaser.

[3:44:38] So it was intended.

[3:44:40] They provided exhibit F, which included some language.

[3:44:43] I believe it was read here tonight,

[3:44:45] and required that the buyer's sign exhibit F as part of their documents to verify that they had received it.

[3:44:52] That wasn't something that was coming from the city though, right?

[3:44:54] That that wasn't one of our documents.

[3:44:56] It wasn't our document, but it was included in the subdivision improvement.

[3:45:02] So the sub-division improvement agreement specified that the builders would need to have disclosure, a waiver given to the, is really disclosure, I guess, a notice to the, to be honest.

[3:45:14] That's correct.

[3:45:14] and a draft of it was included in the signed SIA.

[3:45:20] And then I heard a question about if there was a rupture of a tank,

[3:45:27] what would happen?

[3:45:28] I mean, or a line, what does that ever happen?

[3:45:31] Is that anything possible?

[3:45:33] Is that a real risk?

[3:45:35] Is there a plan if they does happen?

[3:45:39] There are water tanks.

[3:45:39] I know across the country in a very old ones.

[3:45:42] So, again, I'm happy to address that one.

[3:45:45] So,

[3:45:50] our tanks are designed to rigorous engineering standards to prevent ruptures from happening.

[3:45:58] Some examples are we designed for specific climate.

[3:46:03] We designed for specific seismic activity in the area.

[3:46:07] We also, before our design, have a geotechnical investigation completed to help us understand the soils and what we are building.

[3:46:17] the structure in so that we can, again, design properly for the concrete structure to withstand

[3:46:24] the loads from the soil, the loads from the water, the settlement expected in the area.

[3:46:30] One example of that is that all these structures are built on what are called drill shafts,

[3:46:36] so basically super deep cylindrical support structures so that they don't move so that they don't

[3:46:44] So that they withstand climate shifting around the loads, the pressures, all that typical

[3:46:54] lifespan for a tank like this is somewhere on the order of 75 to 100 years.

[3:47:01] So the only other thing I could address in terms of safety measures is that if there were ever

[3:47:08] of currents where the tank was being filled and the proper measures when the tank was at its

[3:47:19] maximum fill height did not work. There is an overflow pipe that is completely free of mechanics.

[3:47:29] So it just happens automatically when the level on a tank reaches a certain height goes through a pipe

[3:47:35] to Sienna Resvore. So in the event that there was ever a failure in the other fail

[3:47:42] safes that we design into how the pump station operates and how the fill and draw works

[3:47:47] on the tank. There's that additional safety factor there as well.

[3:47:51] Okay, thank you. Last quick question. There's a comment that Denver regularly berries their tanks

[3:47:56] is that accurate? Is this sort of a standard now? Or is it just sort of something that they do

[3:48:03] I wouldn't say that it's a standard, I think it's a decision that every utility makes based

[3:48:08] on the site, the location, the budget available, and the hydraulics.

[3:48:12] All right.

[3:48:13] Thank you.

[3:48:14] Thank you.

[3:48:15] Council Member Marshallsson.

[3:48:17] Thank you, Mayor.

[3:48:20] One question for all of them.

[3:48:21] I can't.

[3:48:23] Mayor.

[3:48:23] Protemster.

[3:48:24] Yes.

[3:48:26] Comments.

[3:48:26] Questions on the tap.

[3:48:28] Sure.

[3:48:28] everything.

[3:48:30] Monitoring from the budget discussions is that this is a CIP project.

[3:48:36] And CIP projects are paid for from the tap fees versus operation from the rates.

[3:48:42] Is that correct?

[3:48:44] It is.

[3:48:45] And we don't like, it's not best practice to mingle them.

[3:48:49] It is not.

[3:48:50] So if this project increase in cost for whatever reason, it already has.

[3:48:57] is now it's 80, because of engineering and everything else.

[3:49:01] Because of the, yeah, primarily it was because of the phase

[3:49:04] of the design.

[3:49:07] So that increased cost, whatever it is, say this project

[3:49:10] went up another 40 million.

[3:49:13] That comes out of the CIP rates, the tap fees, right?

[3:49:16] So we'd have to just the tap fees going forward

[3:49:19] in the future to make up for this.

[3:49:24] And how much, of course, would be up for discussion later,

[3:49:27] but yes.

[3:49:32] We went through the study session, and I was one

[3:49:34] of the ones that indicated.

[3:49:36] In Councilor Marshall's, so to clarify,

[3:49:40] so we have the two, so we have the three different buckets

[3:49:42] that we've talked about last week,

[3:49:44] so it's all under the enterprise funds.

[3:49:47] Three different buckets, each one of those buckets

[3:49:49] has the CIP, it has capital, and then it has operations.

[3:49:54] Right, so when you talk about not mingling,

[3:49:56] we're not only talking about not mingling the buckets,

[3:49:59] we're also talking about not co-mingling the CIP

[3:50:02] in the operations pieces, which are each funded by different sources.

[3:50:07] So in order to build design or ongoing maintenance,

[3:50:16] would come out of that same bucket, but funded differently.

[3:50:21] So I just have some questions about the specifics of this.

[3:50:24] This is right.

[3:50:24] You mentioned that the additional, for each additional 100 feet,

[3:50:28] we're talking about 150% increase in electricity.

[3:50:31] do we have an estimate of what the cost of that is? Do we have any idea?

[3:50:45] I do not have that with me tonight. I'll have to get back to you with that.

[3:50:49] And then it's been mentioned that the current tank up there, who owns that?

[3:50:56] And did we explore buying it, tearing it down and putting one or more of these tanks on that site?

[3:51:02] Current tank is owned by Mile High Water District.

[3:51:05] I was built somewhere, we're estimated somewhere in 1970s, it is a still tank.

[3:51:15] So we have conversations about the tank itself but not about purchasing at this point.

[3:51:22] I know the size of a lot that that's on.

[3:51:24] I don't know the size of a lot that it is on, it's roughly about a 2 million gallon tank.

[3:51:29] What's it usually smaller than the significantly smaller than what we need?

[3:51:33] Council Member Marshalls, and that was one of our very first outreach and engagement was

[3:51:41] can we repurpose it? What would it look like in order to, and I know that there's communication

[3:51:47] out there that it's not in their best interest to help us do anything because they're making

[3:51:53] so much money on the cell towers. I guess it's a relative term.

[3:52:04] But again, it's been empty for 10 years, and it's significantly smaller than what we are looking for.

[3:52:15] So again, all of those kind of part of that due diligence is to outreach and gauge, make that call.

[3:52:23] Certainly, we were hoping that the response would have been different.

[3:52:31] And then on the alternative sites, I know questions have been asked about 2 and 3, but those

[3:52:37] are open space that likely require ballot measures that might are

[3:52:44] standing.

[3:52:45] Ms. Allen, potential ballot measure, if in fact some other steps were taken, Ms. Allen

[3:52:54] walk us through that one more time if you would please.

[3:52:57] I will try. I would like Kristen Pritz to correct me if I get it wrong. My understanding

[3:53:04] from reading the charter council can approve a change of use by resolution. Then there's

[3:53:10] a 90-day waiting period. If a petition is filed in that 90-day waiting period, then my

[3:53:16] understanding is it goes to ballot.

[3:53:19] Those are just one person can file a petition?

[3:53:21] Would you come up and clarify for us, please?

[3:53:37] A Christian Pritz Director of Open Space and Trails.

[3:53:40] So I will look to Nancy Rogers, our city and county attorney to always correct me.

[3:53:45] But I believe there is an opportunity if a petition is filed that the council could reconsider.

[3:53:52] Their decision and perhaps change that decision.

[3:53:57] But if it's not done, then there would be a vote and that would be of our residents here in Brazil.

[3:54:06] So that would delay.

[3:54:07] If a vote was, it would delay the projects significantly.

[3:54:11] Nancy, does, I guess the question is, is it only one person has to file or is it a certain number of signatures or how does that work?

[3:54:19] It's a certain number of signatures.

[3:54:20] It's a petition signed by the registered electors equal to a amount of at least 10% of the total voters who cast ballots in the prior municipal elections, so you need to have a petition of a certain amount and our clerk's office would help get that amount.

[3:54:38] And then because of that, I actually have a question about site four.

[3:54:43] Is it my understanding that that is right adjacent to our current public work facility on 144th?

[3:54:54] You said it was a broomphold on the land,

[3:55:00] right?

[3:55:01] So it's part of the hoop's property.

[3:55:04] The new municipal shops are right on 144th.

[3:55:09] I don't know how many hundred feet north of that it would be, but it would be north of

[3:55:12] community ditch, just south of Silver Leaf, because that property is pretty long, north

[3:55:21] southways.

[3:55:22] Okay.

[3:55:23] If we can put the presentation of, I can do better than Armway.

[3:55:26] But South of the current trial selection slide back up, please.

[3:55:32] Let me give you a slide number.

[3:55:35] I guess my question is, since that city on land and it seems like it's farther away from residents.

[3:55:43] Was it explored to put that one fully above ground or even putting it on stillts like this jewel has mentioned in the past?

[3:55:52] No, it was not.

[3:55:53] Okay, so we would have an estimate of how much that would save or cost or the issue of the site for is that it's

[3:56:05] right in line with the water treatment plan. It would be filled right off the 24 inch transmission main.

[3:56:11] That is not best practice because it's not isolated from the system. It would cause more risk to the system and I would refer to Nicole for more information on that.

[3:56:23] that was system hydraulics, why is the least favorable spot?

[3:56:28] There would be a way to avoid that.

[3:56:29] I mean, given that it's right, it seems like since it's right,

[3:56:32] in my layman's turn, thoughts is right next to the treatment plant.

[3:56:35] So it's closer to the source, so it would be easier to fill.

[3:56:43] So you are correct that it would be easier to fill, since it's

[3:56:46] right next to the treatment plant.

[3:56:47] There does come with some operational challenges with that as well.

[3:56:51] They have to very precisely operate the fill and drop the tank to prevent the overfilling.

[3:56:57] But the larger concern here is the direct connection to that 24-inch line because it creates a single point of failure within the system.

[3:57:08] So if any disruption to that 24-inch line does occur, it prevents delivering water to the entire northern portion of the system.

[3:57:15] So, and it is required for a tank in that location to be directed to that line in order for a to operate properly.

[3:57:24] So, with site for all other things considered that was really, I think the biggest drawback.

[3:57:30] Okay, thank you.

[3:57:32] On our current current tank, the current site,

[3:57:34] I know I'd asked the question in email from staff last week about what the cost savings would be if we put it fully above ground.

[3:57:41] Do we know we have a cost estimate of how much we would decently cost that we bury it fully?

[3:57:48] I know we would save $7 million if we put the graph up around versus partially buried, but do we know the current estimate to fully bury it?

[3:58:04] Yeah, it's also pretty close to 7 million higher than the current one.

[3:58:12] But we still have to have fences and some correct.

[3:58:15] And this cost estimate, let me, so this was from April, so it's more recent than what was presented in January, but we don't have plans so it's still an estimate.

[3:58:28] Okay, and then two last questions.

[3:58:32] One, in my email correspondence with staff, it was estimated that if we made a condition for approval on this particular STP, it would likely be about a three to five month delay.

[3:58:45] If, instead, Council voted to deny this thing and say, Council designed it and wanted to do a different site.

[3:58:55] What kind of delay would that cause?

[3:58:58] Do we have an estimate?

[3:59:02] Council member, so if we were to move away from this particular site, we would need to start the development review process over.

[3:59:12] If you'll recall, the neighborhood meeting was done around, I think, was the end of June,

[3:59:17] ish 2022 and we are in September 2023 and I think that would be a good estimate for impact

[3:59:26] on time frame.

[3:59:27] And what is it currently?

[3:59:28] If we approve the site, what is it currently related to go online?

[3:59:43] Council Member Marshallsson, in my presentation, I said it would be online spring, 2026.

[3:59:48] So if we delayed another year, year and a half it would be 20, 7, 28.

[3:59:54] Correct, or 27 or later than later in 20, 27?

[3:59:58] Do we have a ability to...

[4:00:00] Fix the water pressure issue that residents are seeing now, pending this being built, is our way to up the pressure in some way.

[4:00:09] No. And that's really the

[4:00:21] point of the project. We're all fully aware of how difficult this is.

[4:00:25] And the bringing it online in 2026 corresponds with the approvals that are already in the pipeline for new development that's coming on.

[4:00:35] So this isn't, this isn't, again, this isn't only for new development, this is for current and as new comes online, that current will continue to decrease.

[4:00:54] So it's Mr. Ratt clarify for me. What is in the, what is in the existing pipeline, again from a timing perspective, how much latitude is there for a 24 say 18 to 24 month delay? I don't want to say worst case scenario and I don't want to say best case scenario.

[4:01:22] we all know best case scenarios never happened, but the interim of what can be expected during

[4:01:30] that time frame.

[4:01:35] Again, Ken Ratt, Director of Public Works. According to the water model

[4:01:41] that our KDS ran for is beginning in 2026, parts of Anthem 24 will be below the 40 PSI,

[4:01:54] which means they may not have enough PSI for fire protection.

[4:02:00] That will also include Wilcox

[4:02:05] spruce metal.

[4:02:07] All of those will drop below the 40 PSI pieces of those.

[4:02:11] It also will are 24 inch line from the water plant up to wild grass.

[4:02:15] That also serves the north area to low.

[4:02:19] It will also be at its max design in a feet per second.

[4:02:25] along with the other drops and pressures and all the other neighborhoods.

[4:02:29] So as we delay those project, obviously more and more of the system becomes where we

[4:02:38] can't meet fire flow protection and single family, PSI.

[4:02:47] Thank you very much, Council Member Ward.

[4:02:49] Thank you, Mayor.

[4:02:52] Miss Allen, I think this question is probably the best for you to answer.

[4:02:55] Can you go over why exactly if we were to fully bury the tanks?

[4:03:01] The parcel was still have to be fenced in?

[4:03:11] There is, it's called America's Water Infrastructure Act,

[4:03:16] which was put into place in 2018 after there were

[4:03:20] significant natural disasters that impacted

[4:03:23] communities ability to deliver water to their customers.

[4:03:27] Part of that was for all water utilities to go through

[4:03:31] an evaluation to help them figure out how to be more resilient and to protect their

[4:03:39] service to their customers from emergencies,

[4:03:45] from human threats, from anything that could

[4:03:48] happen to the water system that would mitigate their ability to deliver water. So one of

[4:03:55] those things that is emphasized as a physical security.

[4:03:59] It is a potable water resource and so requirements

[4:04:04] by the government to secure the site

[4:04:09] at all water distribution facilities

[4:04:11] for potable water are in place.

[4:04:14] Part of that is to fence the site

[4:04:16] and prevent public access.

[4:04:19] All right.

[4:04:19] Thank you.

[4:04:20] I know that was covered in the study session,

[4:04:21] but I thought it was important to,

[4:04:24] over that again since we haven't had that study session since January.

[4:04:31] One other question, I know the study session, it was listed about $14 million for the

[4:04:39] project and now it's up to $80 million.

[4:04:41] Is this $80 million what Council can expect to see roughly when you go out to bid and start

[4:04:50] construction or is there a potential for a more cost increase?

[4:05:02] I'll try to handle this one, you guys can pop in if you want to add more, but so I believe

[4:05:09] the $14 million number was a previous from a long time ago before we were involved.

[4:05:20] When Burns McDonnell was brought on board, we did a preliminary design estimate,

[4:05:25] 2022

[4:05:28] which was around 50 million. So since then the design has progressed but also the market

[4:05:39] these days is very volatile and fluctuates and so we brought on a contractor CMGC as you

[4:05:57] just fluctuations in market. Part of it is we added things to the design to understand it better.

[4:06:05] So from our involvement, the cost has gone from 50 to 80 million, not from 14.

[4:06:14] Either way, the cost has gone up. It has. Can we expect this 80 million to be the final number

[4:06:20] or when you start construction? Because there are potential that number could increase.

[4:06:25] So, one of the benefits of having the contractor onboard and working with the engineer throughout the majority of the design is that we're able to provide a more accurate cost estimate at this stage.

[4:06:37] That being said, I don't believe we have Garney's final cost estimate yet, so I don't want to speak to that. We will for the October Council session.

[4:06:44] From that point, we do not anticipate a change in costs unless there is a significant change in design conditions or an addition to the scope.

[4:06:57] All right, thank you.

[4:06:59] I know one of the questions that residents have both emailed along with spoken about tonight is the vehicular, the one truck a day.

[4:07:08] up and down the trail, which I know is not uncommon.

[4:07:13] I experienced multiple vehicles on some days on the U.S. 36 bike path for maintenance.

[4:07:20] What is the rate of accidents that we experienced that are reported to paramedics and

[4:07:28] from Phil PD as it relates to bikes, pedestrians with maintenance vehicles?

[4:07:35] I have no idea.

[4:07:41] Mr. Boogers going to come and give us an update on that.

[4:07:45] Good evening.

[4:07:47] Great question.

[4:07:48] Jeff Ruger, deputy director of Public Works 32 years have been in the water department.

[4:07:52] We have over 14 lift stations and five booster stations and six tank sites.

[4:07:58] And that particular question is a great question.

[4:08:02] And we check stations on a daily basis to make sure it's secure, it's safe and that type of thing.

[4:08:08] Our staff do this seven days, three and six, five days a year, and there's not one spin and action associated with our stations being checked that type of thing.

[4:08:20] All right. Thank you. That's what I was thinking the answer was, but I wanted to make sure.

[4:08:24] Thank you Mr. Ruger.

[4:08:26] My last question is I know this process has started since roughly 2016, 2017 about tanks being placed on this property.

[4:08:39] When the five sites were proposed to the city manager's office, whenever that date was,

[4:08:47] what was the timeline from that date to when all the alternative analysis were completed,

[4:08:55] what was that final date to when that the current site was proposed and decided on my staff?

[4:09:09] I can't remember where to think we started the Alternatives Analysis, Falls, September

[4:09:15] October last year, 2022, and we had the Alternatives Report a couple of months later

[4:09:22] ready for the January study session, so it was finished, I guess, December, early January.

[4:09:28] Okay, how long does an alternative analysis site typically last, whether it be for the city,

[4:09:33] or a third party developer, or does it be very, I think it's on project.

[4:09:38] on what the project is and what you're looking at.

[4:09:41] All right. Thank you. That's all my questions, Mayor.

[4:09:43] Right. Thank you. Councilmember Lim.

[4:09:48] I think many of my questions have been answered. Let me see.

[4:09:54] There was a suggestion made in the public comment that we could save money by other procurement methods

[4:10:03] that would provide enough to fully bury the tanks.

[4:10:06] could staff or could the applicant, could the applicant comment on whether that statement

[4:10:15] would be reasonable?

[4:10:31] Councillor Stroud, the process we have followed is the process we would recommend for any

[4:10:37] complex project.

[4:10:39] It's the process we followed for instance for the BCC facility for all of our major utility

[4:10:46] projects.

[4:10:46] We issue an RFP for construction services for both pre-construction and construction and we get

[4:10:56] proposals back from qualified contractors.

[4:11:00] We got two proposals for this project.

[4:11:04] The project team recommended gardening construction.

[4:11:07] I don't have my notes in front of me, but I think they've built 43 tanks in Colorado.

[4:11:15] They have done this over and over again in neighborhoods and we felt that they were far

[4:11:20] and away the most qualified contractor for this.

[4:11:23] So we bring them on for pre-construction and they scrub through the plans and they look

[4:11:28] for constructability and they evaluate tank types and materials and make recommendations

[4:11:35] to the engineer for the most cost-efficient design.

[4:11:39] Then when the design is progressed or finalized, they bid the work, they don't do all the

[4:11:46] work.

[4:11:46] So they are competitively bidding all the specialties of the work and that bidding process

[4:11:51] is open to broomfield to participate in and to review.

[4:11:55] So we are getting competitive pricing on all aspects of the project and we're getting the advice

[4:12:02] from the contractor is to how to save money in the design.

[4:12:06] So we're not getting caught off guard with a full set of design plans

[4:12:11] that may not be as constructable as possible and then bidding it.

[4:12:16] So we are very confident in this methodology.

[4:12:21] And we've had success with it on our most complex projects.

[4:12:27] OK, thank you.

[4:12:29] One other sighting question, I think that hasn't yet been addressed.

[4:12:36] One of the residents in their public comment suggested that we could open up some of the sites by moving the oil and gas pipelines.

[4:12:48] So that was a definitely referred to in staff's original 16-site, not the four sites, but the

[4:13:00] 16-site overview, so could you address that comment by the resident is that reasonable

[4:13:08] to think that anyone would do that, that we could accomplish that?

[4:13:21] Councilmember Lynn, we did not look into moving the island gas and I don't know if someone from

[4:13:28] strategic initiatives is here but it was so much council involvement in the linements of

[4:13:36] pipelines and easements we felt like that wasn't something we just take lightly and move.

[4:13:51] Other questions don't have to do with sighting that are still that weren't completely addressed.

[4:13:56] And in your presentation,

[4:14:00] you referred to the safety of the relative safety of the situation

[4:14:12] with the one truck a day coming to the site, so that was that was covered.

[4:14:19] There was an email that had another safety concern that the resident cited that there were frequently

[4:14:34] teenagers climbing on top of the current tank, mild high tank.

[4:14:40] Could you address how this site will prohibit that?

[4:15:00] Councilperson LEMJIFER, the site security defense that Nicole explained earlier, they have security alarms and that type of thing that activate our system, it's sent to us by Skeda, and then our staff would report out there to check the site out and make sure that there's nobody on the site and that's, it's more vulnerability studies and that type of thing so that there's no access on top of it.

[4:15:30] of the tanks or any type of tampering or vandalism. Carbon road is a good example. You'll rarely

[4:15:41] ever see those tanks painted since those security pieces have been put in. And did I understand

[4:15:48] that there would be motion sense in the lighting depictions? There would refer to motion sensors.

[4:15:54] So how closely would someone have to be to that area for the motion sensors to go on?

[4:16:03] I think there's space to evenly around the fence to be activated as movement happens in that type of thing and on the tank site itself.

[4:16:12] The purpose of that is we didn't want the tank site to light up at night.

[4:16:18] And then we have the abilities to come to the site and turn everything on if we were needed to go up there to do maintenance.

[4:16:24] into our check for security.

[4:16:30] Okay, thank you.

[4:16:31] Those are my remaining questions.

[4:16:33] Thank you.

[4:16:34] Next is Council Member Anderson.

[4:16:39] Thank you.

[4:16:40] I think most of my questions have been already asked,

[4:16:42] but I do have some probably the more important questions

[4:16:48] that I have seen over time.

[4:16:49] Okay, so if we are just a quick history here

[4:16:53] on January 17th of 2023.

[4:16:55] this past year, we had a study session and some of us sitting up here wanted, we were providing

[4:17:02] direction to do that RFP and to look at the alternative, the alternative moving the one tank

[4:17:07] down. The ultimate direction of this console was not to do that, so here we are, and I don't think

[4:17:12] this is a, I just feel like we passed that moment in time because we need the water. We keep hearing

[4:17:18] And yet, we miss that opportunity to try to relocate these tank tanks.

[4:17:26] So assuming that we're, you know, I'm still like given up on the potential to find a better solution,

[4:17:32] but it just feels like that point is narrowing.

[4:17:36] So the really question comes down to, is that hilltop park and preserving that view,

[4:17:40] and I know I'm constantly losing myself as these questions,

[4:17:43] at that meeting about raising up that northern part,

[4:17:48] make sure that that, that, that new location is just as,

[4:17:53] it provides us, that's saying 360 degree view.

[4:17:55] I know staff is going to look into it.

[4:17:57] And so I am focusing now on drawing 2L-104.

[4:18:01] So I don't know if there's any way to pull these drawings or not,

[4:18:03] but I think, Ms. Allen might know what this view is of the,

[4:18:10] The elevation of the top of the existing hill where the tanks are going to go and where the park currently is and then the new section north of it and it looks like the elevation is identical to the top of the hill.

[4:18:24] So you're not going to get that extra 8 feet to get up above the tanks and get that.

[4:18:28] I mean, is there any, this is where I just wish we could do a little bit more and find a way to take a little bit more dirt and build that up just a little bit more.

[4:18:34] that was where one of my questions earlier today was leading is can we can we just get that

[4:18:41] that new location elevated enough that you could still get that 360 degree panoramic view

[4:18:47] and try to restore as much of this carcass possible. So that was what those questions were going

[4:18:52] is and to get that designed in and not just review it afterwards to see what the best possible view we

[4:19:00] could get. It's going to guarantee that panoramic view any possible way. Thank you.

[4:19:04] Amber Anderson. Thank you for the question. So it gets a little confusing when we're

[4:19:10] locating trails. We want to make sure that we have an opportunity even after construction

[4:19:15] is done to really take a moment after the construction is done. The grading is in place. We walk

[4:19:22] those trails typically to make sure that the trail alignment as is shown in the site development plan

[4:19:27] is really what maximizes the view. Where exactly should the bench be? We might plan for it in one

[4:19:34] location, but maybe if it had just been planned for a feet to the north, we would have maximized

[4:19:39] a better view.

[4:19:40] So that's why there's a note in the site development plans often when we're talking about

[4:19:44] trail alignments that says the trail will be staked, and there'll be an opportunity to walk

[4:19:49] the trail with staff prior to the final construction and surfacing of the trail.

[4:19:54] And you'll see that pretty frequently with a lot of our site development plans, and that's

[4:19:58] case here. The overlook area was built up, but there's not really a way without bearing

[4:20:05] the tanks to make it so high up that you wouldn't with looking to the south be able to

[4:20:12] see the top of the tanks. But we have tried to build up that area where the overlook

[4:20:18] would be and we've done our best to locate where we believe the trail alignment will be

[4:20:24] well-reserving the ability to walk that staked trail after construction, to really make sure that we've

[4:20:31] maximized those views, like you were saying, trying to get the most view out of that over look space.

[4:20:40] Do you know the compared to the top of the hill where the current park is and the new location of the plant hill?

[4:20:48] Do we know what that height, are they the same height?

[4:20:51] It's a little bit higher. I don't have that exact measurement.

[4:20:56] It's a matter of feet higher, but it is higher.

[4:20:59] The new location.

[4:21:01] Okay, so potentially when you're standing there in the top of the rock,

[4:21:03] maybe you could eventually see?

[4:21:07] You will still see the top of the tanks.

[4:21:12] All right, thank you.

[4:21:12] And then I am still interested, though,

[4:21:15] and if this console is willing to just...

[4:21:19] You'll get that quote to see what...

[4:21:21] Is it really $7 million to take those tanks down just a little bit further and bury them?

[4:21:25] I would love to still get that quote so if it was not too...

[4:21:30] If we can front-front that direction here to just get that quote even if it's not fully very close for the down.

[4:21:35] I don't know, just something where we can closer and closer to preserving that view.

[4:21:44] Councilmember Anderson, so we have the estimate from the contractor, but we can't get an exact quote without a design.

[4:21:50] So, we're not, we have to detail design documents to get an actual price, so we have the best available information from a contractor, and that's seven million, I'm sure.

[4:22:04] Okay, so we can't get the estimate.

[4:22:06] Okay, and then what I would say, so if we were bearing the tanks, there will be some redesign.

[4:22:10] The tank has to be re-evaluated structurally and so on, foundations, all of that, so it's not just a...

[4:22:18] add more dirt. You can't just go out and get a close estimate of what the cost would be correct.

[4:22:25] It's not just the earthwork. Okay, that's helpful.

[4:22:29] I guess. Okay, and then here's the other question I don't think we've talked much about.

[4:22:34] What is the actual, what does this construction phase look like that?

[4:22:38] We've here, it's give me like 24 months, but how much of that is actual earth moving?

[4:22:43] How much of that is bringing tank pieces on site?

[4:22:45] And how much of that is just like the tank is already basically constructed and you're just

[4:22:49] working on the internals of it.

[4:22:52] Like, just how disruptive is this, and then we'll all of the, we'll all of the derpy

[4:22:56] removed in the materials brought on site straight off of low on to that construction site,

[4:23:01] or would it, and would there any, be any construction, traffic, traffic at all, going in

[4:23:05] around the two entrances to Anthem Reserve?

[4:23:08] Good evening, Mayor, council members, I'll do my best.

[4:23:13] So stop me if I've missed one of those.

[4:23:16] Yes, we will be bringing all of the construction equipment off

[4:23:19] of the load is how we'll do it.

[4:23:23] Of course, when we do things like transplanting the trees,

[4:23:28] we'll need to be probably coming on to Irving Court

[4:23:33] to do that.

[4:23:34] Also, there will be a discharge line that will cross Irving

[4:23:42] court, so we'll disrupt Irving Court for a week, maybe two during that time period.

[4:23:51] I'm sorry, do you want to? I started at the last question. Do you want to start at the first question?

[4:23:57] Oh, time frame for construction. 24 months is we're trying to be a conservative estimate on that.

[4:24:06] So they'll come in, clear and grab the site,

[4:24:12] excavate, and at first, and then we'll start

[4:24:16] working on building the tanks at that time.

[4:24:21] At this point, we don't have a detailed schedule because we haven't finished, we're just

[4:24:26] finishing the design, and that is what they are working on, and so we will be able to provide

[4:24:30] that to you when we come with the GMP.

[4:24:34] I will tell you, some of the longest lead items for the project will be in the

[4:24:42] pump station, will not be actually building the pump station, but will be the components

[4:24:46] within the pump station.

[4:24:48] The generator,

[4:24:51] there are controls such as the

[4:24:58] pumps themselves.

[4:25:00] those all right now are extraordinarily, we're talking like 52 weeks to get some of these

[4:25:09] things that we used to be able to get in three, six months now we're talking over a year.

[4:25:17] I guess I'm just trying to look at the, what does it feel like as a resident living in that area?

[4:25:22] Is this going to be constant all day for weeks at a time of earth moving or is it?

[4:25:31] And like, how many weeks of earth are just restricted?

[4:25:33] The earth is moving.

[4:25:35] And I probably don't have a really good estimate on that,

[4:25:38] but probably three to six months.

[4:25:45] That's probably a good range.

[4:25:46] So what it really will be is they'll excavate the site,

[4:25:49] and then they will build the tank.

[4:25:51] And then they will come back and put the dirt back

[4:25:54] around the tank.

[4:25:56] So there'll be some early earth moving.

[4:26:00] Then we'll see a lot of the construction.

[4:26:02] and then they'll come back and build it back on.

[4:26:10] I have, so thank you.

[4:26:12] All right, thank you.

[4:26:13] Council Member Shaft.

[4:26:16] Thank you, Mayor, I appreciate the questions

[4:26:17] of the residents of my fellow council members.

[4:26:20] I, you know, many of my questions have been answered already.

[4:26:23] I do appreciate the comments from residents tonight,

[4:26:26] as well as emails before today.

[4:26:27] I appreciate staff for your presentation

[4:26:30] and the work on this project.

[4:26:31] So questions, we heard comments tonight about that.

[4:26:35] What certain residents had been aware of that there was going to be one very tank that's what they were informed and that's what they thought was going to happen

[4:26:46] So can you talk to me about what the realities of that one tank would have done to this hilltop?

[4:26:53] I'm going to have Mr. Rut.

[4:26:55] I think one of the pieces earlier as Mr. Rut makes his way when they're talking about one tank.

[4:27:01] Um, I think Miss Allen had clarified that the, that the, that the amount, the gallon amount

[4:27:08] hadn't changed, what changed was the two and really it's about redundancy that you

[4:27:13] can take one off the line.

[4:27:14] And it gives my, my question is specific to that tank, my, my thought is that tank would have

[4:27:20] been located on the hilltop and it would have been surrounded by fence, yes, it would have been

[4:27:23] buried.

[4:27:24] Is that correct, Mr. Red?

[4:27:29] It was indicated to be buried.

[4:27:31] Yeah, that was what the indication was.

[4:27:33] The diameter basically is twice the size of two of them together, right?

[4:27:39] So if the tank is 132 foot diameter, roughly one tank would be 262 foot diameter.

[4:27:46] So the amount of space of concrete is similar because we still have to hold the 6 million gallons.

[4:27:52] The operational reasons to do it in two tanks is it provides us to operate the system more

[4:27:59] effectively and to minimize possible future issues with water quality. EPA recommends

[4:28:09] that you exchange all the water in the tank less than three days. Larger tank takes longer

[4:28:17] time to get through all the water. Smaller tanks allows you to operate that more efficiently

[4:28:21] based winter, winter usage is obviously a lot less than winter, or than summer usage.

[4:28:27] So by having the two tanks, it provides us with those opportunities.

[4:28:31] It also provides us with maintenance opportunities, where we could take one system off,

[4:28:36] one tank off clean, and we clean every tank every year, so we'd be able to take one off,

[4:28:40] run the other tank, and then swipe them back and forth, improve water quality.

[4:28:46] I mean, I guess I understand the advantages of going to the two tanks, but I just want to clarify.

[4:28:51] So we would have had one tank up on the hilltop, fully buried, but fenced around that.

[4:28:58] Yes, the fence would still be required for access to that, that hilltop would not be there.

[4:29:04] Yeah, we'd be the same as it is currently.

[4:29:05] Perfect, thank you.

[4:29:08] It was, there was public comment about this project, closing down one entrance to the neighborhood during construction.

[4:29:15] But I just heard that the majority of the construction will be coming off of the wall.

[4:29:20] Is this a temporary construction road?

[4:29:25] That's correct.

[4:29:26] The construction access is actually going to be off a low from the most part not go through the community.

[4:29:31] There are a few minor things that we have to do.

[4:29:34] But majority of it will come off a low.

[4:29:36] So there will still be two entrances to the community.

[4:29:40] Correct.

[4:29:40] Yeah.

[4:29:40] We need no changes for that.

[4:29:44] So the trails.

[4:29:46] This was a response that you sent to a council member,

[4:29:49] experts about the trails. And how those are going to be changed, how the current trails will

[4:29:54] be changed. And new trails will be added. So could you walk us through?

[4:30:00] How that trail will be changed and how many more feet of trail trail will be constructed with this project?

[4:30:11] It's what slide is that?

[4:30:14] I believe this slide's at the very end.

[4:30:18] How can you put this slide 30 up please?

[4:30:21] And this slide will give you a graphic of where we're going to be seeing changes in the trail.

[4:30:26] So let's just wait for that for a moment.

[4:30:35] Okay, so in this picture, the turquoise trail that you see, that is the existing trail, and that is going to be removed.

[4:30:45] The existing trail then goes up to the top of the hilltop over to Erwin court and carries on through toward Sheridan.

[4:30:53] So the white line there is the existing trail.

[4:30:56] What will be removed is that turquoise area and that is 465 lanyol feet.

[4:31:06] The trail to replace that area is that black dotted line, that's a new trail.

[4:31:13] And at the very top, we've done our best to estimate where that trail from the existing

[4:31:20] overlook, which is where that blue dot is, over to generally where the new overlook will be placed.

[4:31:28] That entire linear footage is 871 linear feet.

[4:31:33] You'll also notice off of low boulevard, there's a very short dotted red trail.

[4:31:39] That is the one that OSTAC requested.

[4:31:42] The reason for that was that when you're on the sidewalk there on low, you'll be able to quickly

[4:31:49] go on to the Crusher Finds Trail and get into the open space.

[4:31:54] We do have a lot of runners and cyclists on our open space and trails advisory committee.

[4:31:59] I think that was a comment that they thought would be nice for users of the trails to

[4:32:06] have that direct access.

[4:32:08] That linear footage is 109.

[4:32:10] And the

[4:32:15] last question I have is, we looked at all these, I guess there were four other alternative sites.

[4:32:23] Is there, or has there been any notice for the homeowners of a water tank project being constructed near these alternative sites, such as the residents of Spruce Meadows or Silver Leaf?

[4:32:33] Ms. Britain, ready?

[4:32:35] Thank you, sir.

[4:32:36] We followed our typical notification for this project, which includes a thousand feet.

[4:32:41] We also placed a notice in the paper, and there's signs on the property, but with the alternative site analysis that was presented at the study session, there was not notification for each of those sites as it was a study session.

[4:32:53] Okay, and I guess I'm talking to two different notices.

[4:32:57] So when those homes were built or purchased, were those in their construction documents, was there noticed that there would be a water project in one of those alternative sites?

[4:33:07] there was not. Great. Thank you. That's all the questions I am there.

[4:33:11] Oh, thank you very much. Councilmember Leslie.

[4:33:16] Thank you, Mayor. This is probably the most frustrating

[4:33:20] discussion since I've joined council. There just doesn't seem to be an out. It seems like everything

[4:33:29] is I know you can't do this. No, we can't do that. No, we can't do this. And yet there's gotta be

[4:33:36] some solution here that would get as close or two and win win and then then not and yet I don't

[4:33:44] hear that coming coming forward. Every question seems to get a response of no that that's not

[4:33:51] doable or that's that much more expensive or whatever. So I'm feeling a bit frustrated and so I

[4:33:57] I guess I'm empathizing a bit with the residents who have stressed themselves to tonight.

[4:34:02] But let me just ask this question. There's a lot of land up there. It's beautiful

[4:34:07] spot. I've been up there, I've taken photographs up there. I empathetic to this

[4:34:13] virtual nature of that spot, it's a unique and there aren't too many of them.

[4:34:28] And I

[4:34:34] and south closer to the existing tank, allowing the front area where the overlooked

[4:34:41] currently is just to stay where it is. There seems to be ample land. We don't have to

[4:34:52] bury the tanks all the way to protect that overlooked, as would increase the cost, but by moving

[4:35:01] further to the east and south, we might be able to preserve that overlooked and at least address

[4:35:09] one of the primary issues that have been raised to none. So rather than say, no, you can't do it

[4:35:17] or the soil changes when we go a foot further to the east. Why isn't that possible? And that could

[4:35:28] at least allow for the overlook to be protected as it currently is.

[4:35:34] Thank you, Chancellor. We did cover that, but maybe you had to step away. Would you like to explain

[4:35:39] that again, Miss Allen?

[4:35:45] Thank you for the opportunity. So Eastern South is essentially alternate

[4:35:49] site three in our analysis. And I don't, I don't think we said no, you can't do it. You gave

[4:35:57] pros and cons of each site. Alternative site three is in the open space. It would trigger the

[4:36:02] in space charter requirement. It's a lower elevation. It's closer to other neighborhoods.

[4:36:09] And it would require a redesign of the tank itself and going through the process again for the

[4:36:20] site development plan. Yeah, I mean, I heard that before. I was here. I was starting.

[4:36:27] But you're not, there are really that existing tank is not that close to any of the neighborhoods.

[4:36:35] In fact, the construction of these tanks would be closer to Anthem reserve right there above the kind of overhang when you're in the neighborhood looking up than if they were moved in the other direction.

[4:36:53] and they really are a lot of homes that close.

[4:36:56] They're further away, and then there's a larger neighborhood

[4:36:58] down below, I understand that.

[4:37:01] Yes, it's a slightly lower elevation,

[4:37:04] but I don't know that, you know,

[4:37:07] from an engineering perspective,

[4:37:09] that should prevent the necessary pumping and stuff

[4:37:14] that needs to be done.

[4:37:15] Again, we're talking about feet difference here.

[4:37:20] It just seems to me that something like that

[4:37:22] be given a much more serious look rather than just, you know, we can't do it because it's

[4:37:29] closer to another neighborhood. Well, we can't avoid that, no matter where we got all of the

[4:37:35] sites that were indicated as potential alternatives are closer to the other exact one. One of

[4:37:40] the residents suggested an industrial site, but we all covered that. We know there aren't any industrial

[4:37:45] sites that are at the celebration. So it seems to be something like that might be more of a compromise

[4:37:51] And maybe there's some additional costs associated with it, but it would preserve one of the primary issues that has been presented to us as a concern.

[4:38:01] And one that I understand as I said I've been up there in a number of times.

[4:38:05] So I would encourage us to think about how do we get closer to a win-win here than we currently are because we're not.

[4:38:19] And that's a shame. And again, it's nobody's fault. I mean, this project has been there for years.

[4:38:30] But for whatever reason, the residents when they were building their new homes were informed properly, it's not the city's fault.

[4:38:39] But it's the reality of the part of the problem that we're having here.

[4:38:44] So my encouragement would be to see if we could find not necessarily a total change, but

[4:38:51] a solution that may be right there in front of us that would help at least address most

[4:38:58] of the concerns that have been raised to like, so that's my position, I care.

[4:39:03] Thank you, Councilmember Leslie.

[4:39:06] Everybody's spoken that wants to speak on the first round, so I'm going to speak, I

[4:39:13] have

[4:39:14] some questions.

[4:39:14] So, to Councilmember Leslie's question, it is a land use designation issue with site 3, because

[4:39:23] it's designated open space.

[4:39:29] Yes.

[4:39:30] Where the tanks are proposed right now is a specific track that was dedicated to broomfield,

[4:39:36] not as open space, but as open lands for the purpose of the tank.

[4:39:40] The surrounding property, including the area around the mile height tank and the property of the

[4:39:46] that it catered to you and filled for open space.

[4:39:50] So that would trigger another layer of approvals,

[4:39:54] which would add time and possibly a reversal

[4:39:58] if it goes to the public process by a vote, correct?

[4:40:02] That's correct.

[4:40:03] All right.

[4:40:04] And so this is a two year project roughly, right?

[4:40:08] And it was 2026 when we reached critical mass.

[4:40:14] So we've got about enough time, 24 months to get this done.

[4:40:23] That is correct.

[4:40:25] So the model indicates that 2026 is a critical.

[4:40:30] And can you clarify Mr. Rut?

[4:40:33] The pumps for the most part, they put water in the tanks.

[4:40:36] But it's the gravity, the pumps don't put water in the tanks.

[4:40:40] What is the process of the pump putting water in the tanks?

[4:40:44] So the tanks would be filled from the water treatment facility, so the pipe line is like currently go up low

[4:40:50] with fill the tanks and

[4:40:52] then from the tanks the water would grab the feet down to the pump station and from the pump station

[4:40:57] It adds the water and the pressure back into the distribution system and

[4:41:04] The gravity serves what purpose typically when you build water tanks you prefer to have them at a elevation where the whole system can be fed gravity

[4:41:12] that's the most cost-effective O&M process.

[4:41:18] Given this side, it's not tall enough to do that,

[4:41:21] particularly since we're partially burying them,

[4:41:23] we have to pump it.

[4:41:25] So we do have to pump it to pressurize the system

[4:41:27] and provide additional supply.

[4:41:30] Thank you, don't go anywhere.

[4:41:32] Because I want to address one of the comments from earlier this evening

[4:41:36] about the water pressure and how it is lower in some areas,

[4:41:41] like Wilcox, which happened after the Anthem reserve was built,

[4:41:49] the failure to maintain

[4:41:50] a water system is that something that we could be penalized for on the fire code with

[4:42:01] fire mitigation, and maybe Chief Goslin can weigh in.

[4:42:07] It is one of our responsibilities under our Safe Drinking Water Act to meet certain requirements

[4:42:12] within our distribution system.

[4:42:15] And you do that a lot with maintaining proper pressure,

[4:42:19] proper tank design, enough storage.

[4:42:22] Those are ways we meet those requirements.

[4:42:25] One of the big issues is as the developments that

[4:42:30] have already been approved and partly are under construction,

[4:42:33] as they come online, they will draw more water down

[4:42:37] the elevation away from the higher elevation,

[4:42:41] which is what's causing the pressure issues.

[4:42:45] So as baseline develops, as the development's north of Highway 7 developed, that already

[4:42:52] approved, it's taking water downhill, and so the higher elevations ones will fill the

[4:42:58] effects sooner of the drop in pressure.

[4:43:03] What would be most impacted if the tanks are not approved would it be newly approved development

[4:43:08] or existing?

[4:43:09] It'd be existing.

[4:43:10] And those neighborhoods in most impacted would be?

[4:43:15] The major ones would be Anthem 24 and Wilcox are the two major ones that have the most impact.

[4:43:22] And then there's also impact to Spruce Meadows.

[4:43:26] Some impact to Wildgrass, some to McKay Landing, some to Anthem Ranch, and Anthem Highland.

[4:43:33] I

[4:43:37] wanted to go back to another statement that was made about emergency access with this

[4:43:44] project's restrict emergency access to the residential area in any way.

[4:43:50] No, because we have our construction access off of it.

[4:43:56] Is it true though that they don't see those, like the, what was it called, form 41, whatever,

[4:44:03] the waiver?

[4:44:05] Is that really not presented to home buyers until closing in the closing documents?

[4:44:10] If it is presented at all,

[4:44:15] typically we would like to see those at the time that a contract is entered,

[4:44:20] but what the residents have reported is that it was provided to them the exhibit F at the closing.

[4:44:27] Or not at all, yes, as or not at all. So it sounds like we need just like we did with oil and gas.

[4:44:34] Notification, we may need to revisit informed consent and that these disclosures are made well in advance.

[4:44:43] So people aren't getting this at the, you know, the last hour when they've already moved basically.

[4:44:50] So I think we need to improve that process and I know it's not relevant.

[4:44:56] Now but it is relevant to now because I believe it informed consent.

[4:45:01] And that obviously didn't happen to some people.

[4:45:06] Well, that's all my questions for now.

[4:45:12] We'll go to second round. Two minutes. Council member, motion.

[4:45:17] Two questions, Mayor. First of all, relating to the fence, if we bury the tank.

[4:45:24] First of all, how deep is the tank buried? What the top of the tank underground? How far down is that?

[4:45:36] Are you asking in terms of how much cover there is over the top of the tank?

[4:45:40] So we don't have a design for that, but I would estimate somewhere on the order of 2 to 5 feet.

[4:45:46] So someone who, for some security purpose, somebody have to be really involved to dig down to the tank.

[4:45:52] I guess my question is, is the, is the, is the fence require, is that a requirement by law, like if state or federal law,

[4:45:58] was that best practice, or what we recommend?

[4:46:00] It's a requirement now to fence, um, potable water sites.

[4:46:04] And is it the entire site or is it just the access?

[4:46:07] I'm assuming the tanks have an access point.

[4:46:09] They do access hatches, so there are two access hatches at each individual tank, so if we were to fence, just the access points there would then be six individual fences.

[4:46:25] And does it fence? If we fence the entire site does it still have to be the seven foot fence that we want to get?

[4:46:32] So there's no flexibility on that.

[4:46:36] And then on the land, you'll alternative site 3, the land use question.

[4:46:43] If we were to set it take, if we were to take site 3, same size, lot, the same exact size.

[4:46:51] Can we just do a land swap with the current tracking and just make that dedicated open space?

[4:46:57] I know it's still trigger the potential of a vote, but can we make that?

[4:47:02] Kind of swap?

[4:47:03] No.

[4:47:04] Well, yes, but you still have to go through the change in use process.

[4:47:08] So it could still potentially be a vote,

[4:47:10] but it's still require roughly 1,000 signatures

[4:47:14] of residents who wanted to put to the ballot.

[4:47:17] Roughly.

[4:47:17] Roughly, OK.

[4:47:20] But it still requires a petition.

[4:47:22] But for the payment, because we have to pay a payment,

[4:47:26] could that be taken care of with just the lens swap?

[4:47:28] Yeah, just compensation can include a lay and soft that's dependent on the circumstance.

[4:47:35] Okay, there's a lot of questions. Thank you, Mayor.

[4:47:37] Thank you. Councilmember Henkel.

[4:47:42] Thank you, Mayor.

[4:47:43] The fact that we're sitting up here is still asking questions is highly concerning to me.

[4:47:48] The fact that we are delayed as a city and county in planning this for future development is highly concerning to me.

[4:47:57] A lot of our residents only have 34 PSI as it is.

[4:48:01] So we're actually under what we need as it is.

[4:48:05] And I understand that and they need,

[4:48:08] I'm assuming that they need their own water pumps to do that.

[4:48:11] So that's just where my mind is going right now.

[4:48:13] And I would like to look into it's security.

[4:48:17] If it is buried, it's just to make sure that the hatch and event are secured.

[4:48:20] I'm not sure that we need more than that.

[4:48:23] I have a question about sound.

[4:48:24] Um, have we really assessed sound in the, um, in the, um, in the pump stations and what that

[4:48:33] could look like or sound like?

[4:48:47] And that is a reason Council, um, that the pump station is located as we're building it

[4:48:53] into the, um, hill is to minimize its,

[4:48:59] its look and to help with the, the sound, but it is a double wall

[4:49:04] construction so that you won't hear it. We do have a pump station at Carbon Root, which is on a 136.

[4:49:14] And at that station you don't hear it when it is running.

[4:49:19] So what is the decibel level at then? When you open the door?

[4:49:25] I know idea what it is inside. Outside you don't hear it.

[4:49:29] Outside there's zero decibel level.

[4:49:30] Yeah, I'm part of it.

[4:49:32] Yeah,

[4:49:35] you can stand outside it and not hear it while it's pumping, while it's pumping, yes, while

[4:49:40] it's operating.

[4:49:43] All right, some other questions here, how will the water pressure be impacted during the building

[4:49:48] process then?

[4:49:49] So as we're building it, what does the water pressure look like during that and then how

[4:49:55] are we protecting the water during that development?

[4:49:57] During construction, there will be no impact.

[4:50:01] The only time that we will impact the water line is when we are making the connections

[4:50:06] into the existing lines.

[4:50:09] That time we schedule it, we won't be doing it during a peak demand,

[4:50:14] so that we will isolate the area,

[4:50:19] and make sure that we have the area backfed,

[4:50:23] and then we build everything up to it.

[4:50:26] we get ready, we do the connection, we make it as quickly as possible.

[4:50:30] So it happens in, this is a large size pipe.

[4:50:33] So it's going to be a four to six-hour connection.

[4:50:36] And at this point, no one will go out of water.

[4:50:39] And this one.

[4:50:46] Another question, just, I know that we've

[4:50:48] been talking about the exhibit after documents.

[4:50:52] Where's there any dates on them?

[4:50:54] And where they were required to be sent to the city, correct?

[4:50:58] But yet they have no dates on them.

[4:51:01] So, the requirements from the subdivision improvement agreement was that they were to be recorded.

[4:51:07] So that is different than being, for example, submitted with a building permit or verified by a certain date that they were intended to be recorded.

[4:51:18] Recorded by the title company, or by who, yes, by the private entities involved in the sale.

[4:51:26] Is there any laws on how long you keep that, or do we know anything about those exhibits on,

[4:51:32] The intent would be that it would occur with the recording and be on file then with the city clerk's office.

[4:51:39] Okay. So is it incumbent upon the homeowner then to submit that to the city and county?

[4:51:45] No, it would occur with the home closing documents that are recorded.

[4:51:49] Okay. I mean, that would be the way that that would typically occur.

[4:51:53] Is there any trigger for, let's say, you're going to close, is there any trigger to notify anyone that that document has not been filled out?

[4:52:03] No. Similar to the conversation that we had, when we did the notification requirements for

[4:52:08] oil and gas, from field staff is not aware when these private transactions occur, and

[4:52:15] so there really isn't an opportunity there to verify that it was included, that it was included

[4:52:20] in the recording and that it took place, and we don't verify recorded documents to ensure

[4:52:27] that all of these were done.

[4:52:30] The agreement was made.

[4:52:31] It was intended to occur as an extra level of protection

[4:52:34] to help notify homeowners, but as they've verified,

[4:52:38] it was not happening in the majority of cases.

[4:52:42] OK, that's unfortunate.

[4:52:44] They really should have been required to have it

[4:52:46] sent to the city because that's our relationship with them.

[4:52:49] We have that point of contact with them.

[4:52:52] If we still have that relationship with them,

[4:52:53] it needs to be sent to the city.

[4:52:55] All right, two questions here.

[4:52:57] I'm not motioning to do anything, but I'm just asking what are the results of what would

[4:53:01] it look like, a motion to deny this application and could the application come through the

[4:53:10] work process again, what would that look like if this is denied?

[4:53:18] If Council were to make a recommendation or I'm sorry to make a motion of denial, the project

[4:53:24] would need to start over the process.

[4:53:27] So we would start with a neighborhood meeting with whatever new site is selected.

[4:53:32] In fact, we'd probably need to do a study session for the new site as was done for this site.

[4:53:39] So we'd probably start with a study session, review the new site, then a neighborhood meeting,

[4:53:45] a neighborhood meeting could occur before or after.

[4:53:49] And then it would go back through the site development plan amendment review process with staff,

[4:53:54] followed by a recommendation from land use review commission and final review by city council.

[4:53:59] You have the second part of your question was a remand back to land use review commission.

[4:54:04] If there was a significant amendment to the application and there was a remand back to the land use review commission.

[4:54:10] They would review the application that's not a denial.

[4:54:13] It would be a revision of this particular plan.

[4:54:17] And it would be need to be a significant amendment that could potentially have changed their recommendation.

[4:54:22] and then it would come back to City Council.

[4:54:26] Probably based on the findings that they had and going back to remain this.

[4:54:31] Yes.

[4:54:32] And then what would it look like if we continue the conversation and we said, hey, let's vary it like we've promised?

[4:54:38] A revision to the plan.

[4:54:41] Probably would need to be a table discussion rather than it continued to a date certain unless someone has more knowledge than I do about how long that would take.

[4:54:50] But depending on the request, if it was bearing the tank, we would need to, I believe,

[4:54:57] have at least a couple of months to review, revise the plan, and then bring it back forward

[4:55:03] for city council's consideration.

[4:55:06] So I think we had estimated, probably, sorry, three to five, six months, and with an extended

[4:55:15] time like that. I think it's labeling the motion to allow staff to make a recommendation

[4:55:21] maybe preferable rather than a continuance to a date certain because then we would

[4:55:27] re-notice for that new hearing date because it would be brought forward again such in the future.

[4:55:41] Thank you very much, I'm done. Thank you. Mayor Brutem.

[4:55:46] Thank you quickly. I'm just trying to figure out the unclear earlier on the pace for this

[4:55:51] again. So if we decided to go back to the, you know, let's say bury the tank and I was going

[4:55:56] to cost $8 million. I heard that you're spending to Council Member MerchHolishin that's

[4:56:04] this would come out of the CIP budget and for the water and it would be paid through the

[4:56:10] tap fees again. But when I was asking the questions, it was my understanding that would come from

[4:56:14] more than just the tap fees. So just trying to figure out where that, which is the right answer.

[4:56:19] So, between the CIPs and the, so we, here's the, the tough part of, we know what's coming

[4:56:29] online that requires tap fees, and we know what we estimate is coming online, that includes

[4:56:36] the tap fees.

[4:56:37] So we would go back and have to rework what we brought to Council last week.

[4:56:47] So right now in the 2024 budget that we're bringing forward includes the $80 million dollars.

[4:56:53] If there was additional, if there was additional CIP, we would have to rework.

[4:57:01] Again, we're not going to be able to pay $8 million based on additional tap fees that we don't know about yet.

[4:57:10] So we would have to rework existing CIPs.

[4:57:13] got to come from somewhere.

[4:57:17] And so if we said, let's bury the tanks, we would rework, we'd

[4:57:24] have to rework the CIP to find the additional funds to bury the tank. It would also,

[4:57:33] I mean, from a timing perspective, it's not as quick to turn around and say, okay, now

[4:57:39] less variant, right? It would require a whole new redesign.

[4:57:47] Well, I get to end us trying to, again, so it's got to come out of the CAP that's being paid for by the TAP fees.

[4:57:53] How many TAP fees are we expecting in the future?

[4:57:56] 20,000, 10,000 by how many?

[4:58:01] I don't know.

[4:58:02] Okay.

[4:58:04] It's trying to figure out what that would mean is it's extra $400 per TAP fee, extra $500 extra $2,000.

[4:58:11] I'm

[4:58:14] just I don't want to do I don't want to say anything off the cuff.

[4:58:19] That doesn't help me

[4:58:24] from the brain thing. I'll thank you

[4:58:30] May I protect?

[4:58:32] All right, any other council member questions for second round?

[4:58:40] They know. Okay, council member Anderson. Two minutes

[4:58:44] Thanks, it's not a completely formed thought here, but okay, so when we approve this as

[4:58:49] Is then there is no moving on the height of the is there any opportunity?

[4:58:55] This design isn't complete yet, but in that, can there be direction that if there's any possibility to further lower the tanks in any way, as we're looking within the cost, is this the height? Are we approving that exact height tonight? Is it at all flexible, give direction to try to go a little lower, try to bear, this is why I just want to understand what we're approving.

[4:59:17] Right, so the site development plan amendment this evening does show the final design of the

[4:59:23] tank including the partial buried in the final elevations for the trail as we believe

[4:59:29] it is, you know, the best that we can for now until we stake it in the field.

[4:59:35] I'm not sure it has to ask you, but I still appreciate that the trail is higher than the hilltop, so thank you.

[4:59:42] Thank you.

[4:59:43] Anyone else?

[4:59:51] The next is Council's consideration, a proposed resolution 2023-999.

[4:59:57] Will the clerk please read proposed resolution 2020?

[5:00:00] 223-99 by title. Resolution number 23-99, approving the anthem filing number 24, broomfield,

[5:00:09] lotter tanks and pump station, site development plan amendment and use of less than one acre of city owned space.

[5:00:16] Thank you, is there motion council member shaft?

[5:00:19] Thank you, Mayor. I move that resolution number 2399 be adopted.

[5:00:23] Thank you, is there a second? Council member Ward?

[5:00:27] I accept the resolution.

[5:00:30] Thank you.

[5:00:30] Is there any discussion?

[5:00:33] I have to remember Marshall's in.

[5:00:36] Thank you, Mayor.

[5:00:38] I honestly have no idea how I'm going to vote tonight.

[5:00:41] I started this process.

[5:00:42] I've supported this project at study session.

[5:00:45] I might even propose that we put them completely above ground to save the extra $7 million.

[5:00:51] But the more I hear about it and the more I hear from residents and

[5:00:57] I just don't know, you know, I went up, I drove up with my son yesterday to kind of walk around the site because I've never been up there before and it is a spectacular view.

[5:01:08] On one hand, I don't think this project will completely ruin the view. I understand the perspective, but you're still going to re-do the overlook and you'll still be able to see the flat irons, you won't have the 360 view that you have now and I understand that.

[5:01:25] But we have water issues, we have water issues that we have to solve, so on one hand, I want to approve this.

[5:01:32] On the other hand, and it's, I'm not in any way blaming our current staff, but I feel like I'm being asked to make a decision with a gun to my head,

[5:01:39] because half to do it now, or we run out of water.

[5:01:43] I don't think that's a good way of making a decision, and I'm torn.

[5:01:48] So, I don't know where I'm at right now, I want to hear from other colleagues if they have any thoughts.

[5:01:53] Thank you.

[5:01:54] Council Member Shaft.

[5:01:57] Thank you, Mayor.

[5:01:58] So I went to visit the site today.

[5:02:00] I did not have any conversations with anyone while there.

[5:02:03] We need these tanks and we need them up north.

[5:02:06] Full of bearing the tanks, the current site does not preserve the site and the

[5:02:09] hilltop viewpoint.

[5:02:10] So the decision before us has to put this project on the hill as was designed in the original plans and

[5:02:15] disclosed the most of the anthem reserve home buyers or on a shorter hill.

[5:02:21] next to the residents of Spruce Meadows or Silver Leaf and those residents that have had

[5:02:26] no notice of its site in those locations. This site was set aside years ago with the development

[5:02:32] for a water tank project. Even with one very tank, like many of the Anthony Reserve homeowners

[5:02:37] have mentioned, this hilltop was going to be disturbed and unavailable to access. I appreciate the

[5:02:43] due diligence of staff to answer the many questions of residents and even complete alternative

[5:02:50] site analysis. This project has not only ensured the engineering standards for proper water

[5:02:55] needs, but also has accommodated some of the requests of residents and some in full support

[5:03:00] of this project tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Hanko.

[5:03:08] Okay. I say it like it is sometimes.

[5:03:12] I don't think we should punish the residents in the area for what I feel is the lack of due diligence.

[5:03:23] Here's more of my thought is, I really feel like we, I will not be approving it as is.

[5:03:29] I realize we need water.

[5:03:32] This is always been the case.

[5:03:33] Everyone just came up to that podium and said that that's the case.

[5:03:37] No one's denying that.

[5:03:39] The issue is, as we shouldn't, for instance, you know, I shouldn't punish my kid

[5:03:45] at, you know, when they go to school and I'm making them late, that's my fault.

[5:03:51] We need to really be humble in this and make sure that we are very honest about what was

[5:03:58] promised, what has always been promised to them.

[5:04:01] I realized that we said that you know, fencing is going to be around it.

[5:04:05] There's different ways to protect water now, other than a large fence.

[5:04:11] What I will say is I would love to support at least tabling this because I understand we need

[5:04:17] water.

[5:04:19] I would support tabling this to see if we can bury the tank.

[5:04:26] Because I feel like that's the best next best option for everyone.

[5:04:31] And I feel like, you know, that just needs to be done.

[5:04:36] All that other council members weigh in, but I cannot approve this right now as it is.

[5:04:47] Sorry.

[5:04:48] It's been spending the night in search of the least worst decision that we can make.

[5:04:55] And like Councilmember Henkel, if we seek another alternative, it looks like we're looking

[5:05:02] at a two year delay and it puts our water system in a difficult position, an untenable position

[5:05:10] in terms of water pressure and protection from fire.

[5:05:13] to Councilmember Henkel's point, if we table and ask staff to fully bury the tanks that's

[5:05:20] less delay maybe six months and makes it possible for us to fill our obligations on water supply.

[5:05:28] And perhaps at least somewhat halfway meet the promise that was made to the homeowners up there that we would

[5:05:35] bury it.

[5:05:36] I think we have over 10 years of engineering that says this is the most efficient, most

[5:05:44] best engineering site for this water system, or for these tanks.

[5:05:50] So there is no good solution at all, please anybody, but I at this point would support

[5:05:53] tabling for the motion to fully bury the tanks.

[5:05:58] I realize that still, please a tank in the neighborhood, I realize it's still two years of construction

[5:06:02] hell, but I think it does preserve the site as best we can and potentially enhance it

[5:06:10] with more trails and higher viewpoints so that hopefully in a couple years we'll have a

[5:06:16] better ridge there as best we can come up with.

[5:06:20] Councillor member Cohen, are you making a motion to table?

[5:06:24] I will make a motion that we table with the direction to come back with a plan to fully bury

[5:06:30] the tanks.

[5:06:32] So I need a second for that. Is there a second? Second. Councilmember Henkel. Second.

[5:06:39] So there's a motion in a second. Before we vote on the motion. Is there any discussion

[5:06:46] on the motion to table?

[5:06:50] Councilmember Lim.

[5:06:53] Could this staff please clarify as Councilmember

[5:06:58] Cohen characterized it. The motion to table and bury it and bury the tanks would just

[5:07:05] present a six-month delay. Is that accurate from staff's perspective?

[5:07:14] It's really hard for us to estimate, but I think that's

[5:07:17] we're saying six months at least of design work,

[5:07:24] and then to bring it back as a fully finalized site development plan more time.

[5:07:33] So the issue becomes, so there's the design work that I, this thick six months and what

[5:07:40] the remedied me of is, once that is completed, it does have to come back into staff.

[5:07:46] And we need to have an opportunity to review that those revised drawings we could go back

[5:07:53] and forth a couple of times.

[5:07:55] So there is, it's probably more than six months, unfortunately.

[5:08:01] And that would be to, we would be amending this plan just to make sure it's clear, it's not, we wouldn't bring forward both, you're bringing forward a revised plan.

[5:08:11] And is it accurate that it would not have to go back to lurk?

[5:08:16] Unless that was the motion to remand it to lurk it would not need to.

[5:08:20] a lot of

[5:08:26] their discussion, may I pretend?

[5:08:29] Yeah, so this is definitely torn, torn me as well.

[5:08:31] We certainly need the water.

[5:08:34] And I get it as a resident if I were, you guys,

[5:08:37] I'd be upset by this as well.

[5:08:40] I can't say went into this skeptical as a 20 year resident

[5:08:45] in a most abrupt field.

[5:08:47] I did agree with one of the comments earlier.

[5:08:48] I think the biggest scar on this area

[5:08:52] is the houses that are up there.

[5:08:53] It was a beautiful, I remember when it was just an open space.

[5:08:58] So little skeptical of anyone is complaining that this is going to ruin the area.

[5:09:02] But haven't said that you've convinced me tonight that there's still something there to save.

[5:09:09] So I would support the current motion to, I think that's as close to, as council member.

[5:09:15] Leslie mentions close to, as a win-win, as we can possibly get, I think in this situation.

[5:09:21] There's going to be a delay is going to be some increase cost to the new homes that are going to be able to guess in the future.

[5:09:28] Sounds like.

[5:09:30] But I guess that sort of preserves as much as possible.

[5:09:35] But also, let me see if it be ongoing expenses and it gets its minimal delay, but not an extensive delay.

[5:09:45] So I will support that motion tonight.

[5:09:48] Thank you.

[5:09:49] Thank you.

[5:09:50] Thank

[5:09:53] you.

[5:09:57] Thank you, Mayor.

[5:09:58] So I just want to clarify.

[5:09:59] So we are table in this to have staff revise the site plans to fully bury the tanks

[5:10:09] at the current site.

[5:10:11] Is that correct?

[5:10:14] So we are not looking at a different site.

[5:10:17] I would ask that it sounds like that we will be working with the engineering firm through

[5:10:22] those construction drawings will we have a better accurate, will we have a better idea of

[5:10:27] the costs associated with fully bearing in those tanks at that point then?

[5:10:32] You sense the process would include more full design of a new site or of the site with

[5:10:38] the fully buried tank. Yes, we'd be able to provide an estimate when that was brought back

[5:10:43] forward.

[5:10:43] Okay, thanks.

[5:10:45] Thank you.

[5:10:46] Councillor member Hankle.

[5:10:48] Thank you, Mayor.

[5:10:48] I want to reiterate, because I probably won't have any other time to speak tonight, but

[5:10:51] staff, you did your job. You found the best spot you could.

[5:10:56] Residents, you did your job. You really spoke up and I really appreciate that.

[5:11:01] So everyone's doing their job. I don't think this is an easy answer and I don't think anyone's

[5:11:05] landing easy on it. It's almost like you just are walking and you spraying your ankle.

[5:11:11] This is a very difficult decision. I even had a hard time listening to the work, hearing,

[5:11:16] just listening to the access as well. So I also want to look at how we're accessing this site

[5:11:22] as it's being built. I know for if you do two years of construction anywhere,

[5:11:30] they're already going through all this construction right now. You can hear sounds throughout the

[5:11:33] neighborhood right now. So that's why I mentioned sound as well. I think that's going to be very

[5:11:37] important. So if we do go through this process, I also want to see something spoken about

[5:11:43] you know, the accessibility and what that means to, you know, that front road, I think it's King's Court, I believe.

[5:11:51] We need to make sure that we're listening to our residents.

[5:11:53] So as we move forward, I would really advise us to reassess not only bearing the tanks,

[5:11:59] but really making it less impactful for these families.

[5:12:03] And I hope it does increase the pressure in everywhere in the neighborhood.

[5:12:07] I know it will.

[5:12:08] And I'm hoping that we don't have to revisit this again, as far as that northern area.

[5:12:13] And I appreciate your answer.

[5:12:14] I know that Mr. Red, that you said that we will not have to revisit this, because this

[5:12:19] will service as we are at full build out at 1.25.

[5:12:24] So I'm holding you to it.

[5:12:26] All right.

[5:12:26] Thank you.

[5:12:27] That's all.

[5:12:28] Thank you.

[5:12:29] Council Member Anderson.

[5:12:34] Here's the question I have on this.

[5:12:36] actually. I supported this before to looking at alternatives. I still support it but I have

[5:12:43] a little bit of a caution I thought here because if this was a location and we've been talking

[5:12:50] about wanting to bury these tanks what kept staff from pursuing the fully buried option here

[5:12:56] because I'm like we can direct you to go and and look into this design plan but do we actually

[5:13:02] This is feasible, but it was it was just cost prohibitive and what if it's just cost prohibitive okay, and then so what if we get down this process

[5:13:09] And we get the design documents and we get the bid it is even more than seven million dollars just simply cost prohibitive

[5:13:17] Can we then just revert back to this plan and pick up where we left off right?

[5:13:21] I just I would love to hear a little bit more about what

[5:13:24] What happens or six months delayed and we

[5:13:28] There's a piece here missing which is where that money is going to come from

[5:13:32] That is the piece and it will

[5:13:41] have to fully baked plant with dollar signs attached to both.

[5:13:51] So we have two plans, this plan, the next plan, both have a dollar sign attached to

[5:13:55] over six months on the road from where we are today.

[5:13:58] And so it's always going to be that it's always going to be that ketchup,

[5:14:02] Council member Anderson because a year from now when when we have this completed our nine months and we come back to council and we have an updated financial plan for the berry tanks then we'll have a 14 month

[5:14:21] But still plan for the partially buried tanks.

[5:14:28] So again, we're never going to have a, yeah, there's always going to be some.

[5:14:39] So we'll be back here in this place in six months, talking about how we're going to find

[5:14:44] the, we're going to have to re-look at the water study or what is the thought, I would love

[5:14:48] you to thought process on this, we come back here, we have the new design, we have the

[5:14:52] and then we start to discuss water rates. Is that, I mean, is that the step? Yes.

[5:15:00] And we don't really, this is what I'm struggling because we're not eliminating any of the construction. We're not eliminating any of it. We're just, we're finally getting it buried and that kind of, I'm assuming, the pandemic view, but we're potentially going to be here saying we can't afford to do this or making that decision of raising the water rates.

[5:15:20] It's essentially the same conversation that we're having right now, which is there's a finite amount of money.

[5:15:29] There's the other caveats that we need to take in consideration with the slowing growth.

[5:15:38] All of those complexities make this a difficult decision whether you make it tonight or whether you make it in six months or nine months or two years.

[5:15:55] Councillor member Leslie. Thank you, Mayor. I support this motion. I think it shows our willingness to

[5:16:07] listen, to explore some other alternatives.

[5:16:14] Did you manage your Hawkins right? Certainly,

[5:16:17] there are consequences to any decision that we make. Time is a variable here. We can't wait too long

[5:16:24] because we do have the imperative of ensuring

[5:16:27] the water pressure for everybody in broomfield

[5:16:30] is where it needs to be.

[5:16:33] But I do think this shows good faith on our part

[5:16:37] to think a little bit further about this

[5:16:40] to consider what had originally been stated.

[5:16:46] I won't say Thomas, but stated about this project.

[5:16:51] My only concern is, is the one that Council Member Anderson just sent a raise, which is okay, so it's cost prohibitive. We've wasted six months for back here again.

[5:17:04] I still think that the third site has potential.

[5:17:11] And maybe, and I appreciated the question about swapping whether we could perhaps swap a land and, you know, I know there are complications to everything we do.

[5:17:24] But I do think it shows a good faith in our part that we know that there may be some other elements to a solution which will be in the best interest of the entire community.

[5:17:41] So I'm going to support this proposal back here.

[5:17:47] Thank you.

[5:17:48] Any other discussion on the motion?

[5:17:52] So we're going to vote on the motion.

[5:17:55] Will the clerk please call the roll.

[5:17:59] Jisersky?

[5:18:00] Yes.

[5:18:02] Leslie.

[5:18:03] Yes.

[5:18:03] Lim.

[5:18:04] Yes.

[5:18:05] Marshall.

[5:18:06] Yes.

[5:18:07] Shaff.

[5:18:07] No.

[5:18:08] Ward.

[5:18:10] Anderson.

[5:18:14] Cohen.

[5:18:15] Yes.

[5:18:17] Delgadillo, no, hankle, yes,

[5:18:22] passes, 73.

[5:18:25] So Mayor, you have to go back, yeah, hold on, y'all.

[5:18:28] A couple, a couple items for Council to consider.

[5:18:31] That was a motion to table at a date that staff will set

[5:18:34] when the revised application is ready for Council's review.

[5:18:38] This is a table of a quasi-judicial matter.

[5:18:41] I know you're not going to be thrilled to see this,

[5:18:44] but we're still quasi-judicial, which means I still need you to be careful

[5:18:47] about ex-part-take conversations.

[5:18:49] This is also for the public as well.

[5:18:52] As land use decision makers,

[5:18:53] you need to make the decision based on what's in the records.

[5:18:56] So continue to focus residents, our direction.

[5:19:01] We can respond to the requests.

[5:19:02] We can add it to the record and make sure that all council members

[5:19:06] are seeing what individual councilors might get asked.

[5:19:09] Are there any questions about the continuing quasi-judicial nature?

[5:19:14] Yes, question real quick.

[5:19:16] Could we reference what we've already said from the dias?

[5:19:19] Yes.

[5:19:20] Okay.

[5:19:21] Yes.

[5:19:21] Thank you.

[5:19:22] Anything that's been public.

[5:19:23] Anything that's been public, anything that's on the voice correspondence,

[5:19:27] et cetera, et cetera.

[5:19:28] The lurk hearing.

[5:19:31] All right.

[5:19:32] Well, all right.

[5:19:33] Well, I think everyone who played a part in this evening,

[5:19:37] and I appreciate you hanging in with us for a very long night.

[5:19:42] So we'll see you back soon, thank you.

[5:19:47] Thank you all.

[5:19:50] The City and County Attorney's report is next.

[5:19:53] Ms. Rogers, do you have a report?

[5:19:55] No, thank you, Mayor.

[5:19:57] All right.

[5:19:57] City and County Manager's report.

[5:19:59] No, no thanks.

[5:20:01] There is no legislative update or business

[5:20:03] before the room filled urban renewal authority

[5:20:05] or the Aristol Local Improvement District

[5:20:07] Board of Directors this evening.

[5:20:09] Additionally, there are no special reports

[5:20:11] or requests for few draftions this evening,

[5:20:13] concluding the items on this evening's agenda. Is there any other business

[5:20:17] to come before the council? Seeing none, the council meeting is adjourned.

Regular Meeting of the City Council

Agenda

Transcript