[0:02] >> Good evening, council and

[0:04] staff. Go ahead and get started

[0:05] with our study session for

[0:07] Tuesday, March 24th. And our

[0:10] first topic is electric

[0:12] vehicles. And we are being

[0:14] presented. Assistant City

[0:18] Attorney Evan King is going

[0:20] to be presented. Yes. All

[0:22] righty.

[0:24] >> So, I am back to talk more

[0:25] about this. I have now given

[0:27] you all a draft ordinance.

[0:28] These are provisions that I

[0:30] don't want to say stolen,

[0:32] but they were copied basically

[0:36] from other municipalities based

[0:37] on what you guys said you

[0:39] wanted to see

[0:44] in an ordinance. So everything

[0:45] in here is proposed,

[0:47] and I wanted

[0:48] to give you guys the

[0:49] opportunity to look at them and

[0:50] tell me what you like,

[0:51] what you don't like,

[0:53] if we still want

[0:54] to regulate more or, you know,

[0:55] whatever it may be. So next

[0:57] slide. There we go. Oh, and

[1:02] also, I did want

[1:04] to mention that Michael and I

[1:05] also had a chance to talk to

[1:07] the sheriff's department or

[1:08] sheriff's office. They did look

[1:09] into stats. They said the stats

[1:10] were really not reflective

[1:12] of the problem, though, because

[1:13] most time people aren't calling

[1:15] the cops. So, they only had

[1:17] like 10 reports, but they said

[1:19] by far it was the most citizen

[1:20] complaint that they received

[1:21] and that it was absolutely a

[1:23] problem. So, I don't have the

[1:24] stats to really back it up, but

[1:26] the sheriff's office definitely

[1:27] supports this. They said that

[1:29] Douglas County is also

[1:30] continuing to look into this.

[1:31] They're looking

[1:32] to see what you guys are doing,

[1:33] what Bonetree's doing, so that

[1:34] they definitely are also

[1:36] considering something

[1:37] in the future. So, next slide.

[1:39] So, this is the parent

[1:40] responsibility. Oh, and I do

[1:47] also want

[1:48] to note the state bill on this

[1:50] failed. I'm not surprised. It

[1:54] was terribly written so that.

[1:55] So, the state law is not going

[1:57] to go into effect. They'll link

[1:59] it. If you guys want

[2:00] to have it. It will be your

[2:01] provision. So,

[2:03] under this provision, parents

[2:04] and legal guardians are

[2:06] basically responsible

[2:07] for their minors. And that's

[2:09] defined as anyone under of 18

[2:11] who operates an

[2:12] off highway vehicle

[2:13] in any public street, road,

[2:14] alley, or any public property

[2:15] within the city in violation

[2:17] of this chapter Charlie

[2:19] article, actually. So, I'll

[2:20] change that

[2:21] for your actual ordinance. And

[2:23] then I copied the fine schedule

[2:24] from Castle Rock, I believe,

[2:25] which is a 250 flat or $250

[2:27] mandatory minimum. So, I just

[2:28] want

[2:29] to hear what your thoughts are

[2:30] on that.

[2:41] >> I was at something recently

[2:43] is the partnership with

[2:44] Douglas County governments

[2:46] where the CEO of Douglas

[2:49] County School District said

[2:51] they have a problem

[2:54] with scooters really badly

[2:56] on their property. And if we

[2:59] were to consider adding other

[3:01] vehicles, other electric

[3:05] conveyances, would we? Would

[3:09] our ordinance apply

[3:11] at the elementary Schools or

[3:13] the charter schools in town.

[3:20] >> I think it would. I mean,

[3:22] it would apply. It depends on

[3:24] what the provision says. I

[3:26] don't want to caveat all of it.

[3:27] I know electric scooters,

[3:29] you can kick them off the

[3:30] sidewalk and that would be

[3:32] everywhere, including the

[3:33] public park or the public

[3:35] schools. I would. I really have

[3:36] to look at the provision. But

[3:38] if it's something that you all

[3:40] wanted me to look into,

[3:42] absolutely can do that to see

[3:43] what you guys could regulate

[3:44] there that would help you

[3:45] with that issue.

[3:47] >> Thank you.

[3:48] >> I would.

[3:49] >> I would be interested

[3:50] in that because I wouldn't want

[3:51] to ask us. I mean, I'm mindful

[3:52] of what some

[3:53] of the comments were last time,

[3:54] so I wouldn't want

[3:55] to suggest we spend time going

[3:56] down that road unless we knew

[3:57] that the enforcement was

[3:58] doable.

[4:00] But I was really struck

[4:01] by the differential

[4:03] between the beliefs here about

[4:04] whether or not it's a problem

[4:07] and what was clearly said

[4:08] at that meeting

[4:12] about that particular kind

[4:13] of conveyance. And Mr.

[4:15] Pennymate, you might have heard

[4:16] that part of the meeting here

[4:18] when, I do want to.

[4:20] Just on your

[4:22] enforcement thing. We talked

[4:24] to the sheriffs. We said

[4:26] exactly what we were planning

[4:27] on doing. And he said

[4:28] absolutely everything that you

[4:29] guys proposed,

[4:30] everything I had

[4:32] in the slide tonight, he said

[4:34] it could be enforceable and

[4:35] that they would be happy

[4:36] to enforce it for us. That's

[4:37] not my question.

[4:40] >> I know. I'm just like. It

[4:41] just reminded me. Okay. Yeah,

[4:49] it just. You just reminded me

[4:50] of it. So that's why I

[4:51] mentioned, as a side piece,

[4:52] because I know that was a

[4:53] concern.

[4:54] >> Thank you.

[4:55] >> So, any other thoughts?

[4:56] >> Is there a legal problem

[4:57] with adding 90-day impoundment

[4:58] to the vehicle?

[4:59] >> So, I do have an impoundment

[5:00] provision later on that we can

[5:01] talk about. I would probably

[5:02] leave it in there rather than

[5:03] under the parent

[5:04] responsibility.

[5:05] >> Thank you.

[5:08] >> So back to the 250. Is this

[5:09] in line

[5:10] with what our other fees are

[5:11] for things?

[5:12] >> I did not check. I was just

[5:13] spacing out.

[5:14] But what other people were

[5:15] doing with their clients,

[5:16] >> I'm a little familiar

[5:18] with the municipal code

[5:20] on that. And this is higher.

[5:21] >> And again,

[5:22] this is the mandatory minimum,

[5:24] which is. I mean, so if you

[5:27] wanted the municipal judge

[5:29] to have more of a leeway,

[5:30] you might not want to have a

[5:33] minimum or you might want

[5:34] to set a max instead.

[5:41] >> Sorry.

[5:43] >> How can both be true? How

[5:44] can this be higher than

[5:47] everyone else?

[5:49] But still the minimum is 250.

[5:50] >> I think she was saying it's

[5:51] higher than our usual code.

[5:52] Higher than.

[5:53] >> Higher than operating

[5:54] something else in a careless

[5:56] Manner.

[5:57] >> Thank you for that

[5:58] clarification.

[5:59] >> Yeah, I was confused, like,

[6:01] for even a vehicle.

[6:02] Like a vehicle up to 500

[6:04] for careless without injury.

[6:05] Starts at 100, 120-ish. What's

[6:14] the cost? What is the fee for a

[6:15] standard speeding ticket?

[6:19] >> Depends on what.

[6:22] >> Yeah, it does. Depends

[6:23] on the speed. And anywhere

[6:24] from 90 to 150.

[6:26] >> Yeah.

[6:29] >> If you're 11 to 19

[6:31] over the speed limit,

[6:32] your ticket's $145. That

[6:33] includes the victim assistance

[6:34] fee.

[6:38] >> I mean, I think if you want

[6:39] to deter it,

[6:40] higher is better. Because I

[6:41] don't think some of the parents

[6:43] that have these are going

[6:44] to really worry about $100 fee

[6:46] or $200 fee even, maybe,

[6:50] in my opinion. And the fact how

[6:54] many times they get caught out

[6:56] of a hungry. I mean, it's.

[6:58] It's like the carpool lanes.

[6:59] Right. So, I'm sure a lot of

[7:00] people use the carpool lanes

[7:02] and aren't supposed to. And so,

[7:04] I. I actually think a minimum

[7:05] of 250 seems appropriate. And

[7:08] then looking at a maximum,

[7:10] if there is. We wanted

[7:11] to have maximum or leave it at

[7:12] the judge's discretion question

[7:13] in appropriate.

[7:18] >> How would you?

[7:19] >> Hey.

[7:21] >> How would you determine what

[7:22] a maximum is? Whose discretion

[7:24] is that? If I'm caught,

[7:25] I'm caught. Maybe if there's a

[7:26] maximum, maybe it's

[7:28] for the first offense, it's

[7:30] 250.

[7:34] For the second offense is

[7:35] 500, something like that. But I

[7:36] don't really have discretion

[7:37] of saying, yeah, you're 250,

[7:38] you're 275. You did the same

[7:39] thing. You know what I mean?

[7:41] >> That's what the judge does.

[7:43] >> That's what they do every

[7:44] case.

[7:45] >> Yeah.

[7:46] >> Are we treating this

[7:47] like every case? Are we

[7:48] treating this separately?

[7:49] >> We're having.

[7:50] >> No, procedurally.

[7:52] Procedurally, that's what

[7:53] happens. Each court operates

[7:55] like I do miss Municipal stuff.

[7:56] So, each court operates a

[7:57] little bit differently.

[7:58] >> Yeah.

[8:00] >> But it's always the judge's

[8:01] discretion when there's a

[8:02] minimum or maximum. And

[8:05] sometimes the circumstances

[8:06] attendant to what was happening

[8:07] can change what's happening.

[8:08] And then also there's a plea

[8:09] process that the procedure

[8:11] changes for two from court

[8:13] to court. I can't practice in

[8:19] this court. I can only observe

[8:20] in Castle times.

[8:21] >> Correct.

[8:22] >> And then just

[8:23] to note there, this, as always,

[8:24] any ordinance we have,

[8:26] it would be subject

[8:28] to the max, which is the 2,650

[8:31] or whatever. So, that's always

[8:33] the max.

[8:34] >> So that's.

[8:37] >> There is a maximum

[8:38] potentially built in already.

[8:39] But if you guys want a lesser

[8:41] one,

[8:42] then we should probably have

[8:43] It.

[8:45] >> So, let me ask it a

[8:46] different way. Is anyone

[8:47] opposed to 250 as a minimum

[8:48] fine? Then we can move forward.

[8:51] >> Actually, you can. I'm not

[8:52] opposed to minimum 250. I'm

[8:53] just regardless of other

[8:55] infractions that the judge has

[8:56] a discretion. Would an example

[8:59] be it's 250 if I'm just caught

[9:01] on the sidewalk. Is it 500 if

[9:06] I'm caught in the sidewalk or

[9:09] there's something across?

[9:11] >> Yeah.

[9:12] >> I'm curious what those.

[9:13] >> Yeah, that's how.

[9:15] >> I mean,

[9:16] as long as it doesn't go

[9:17] below the minimum,

[9:19] I guess I'm fine. But I just.

[9:20] The discretion. I'm just

[9:21] curious.

[9:22] >> Yeah. So, like for example,

[9:24] this violation

[9:26] of this article. So, let's say

[9:27] you catch a kid on the street

[9:28] who doesn't have a helmet on.

[9:29] You could. Technically that's a

[9:30] technical violation

[9:32] of this chapter. That could be

[9:34] a fine for the parent as well.

[9:35] But then you also could get a

[9:37] fine for, you know,

[9:38] a reckless drive aid with it.

[9:40] So, I mean maybe that is where

[9:42] it goes up that if your kid's

[9:43] caught doing something more

[9:44] dangerous, the, the fee or the

[9:45] penalty would go up. But the

[9:46] way it's written now it's 250

[9:47] is 4.

[9:50] >> So, I understood.

[9:52] >> Okay, that all makes sense.

[9:53] So, thank you. Does the judge

[9:56] still have a discretion to go

[9:57] below the minimum?

[9:59] >> No.

[10:00] >> Even with a plea,

[10:02] it's a mandatory minimum.

[10:03] >> No. Okay. Yeah.

[10:04] >> So, for saying 250 is

[10:05] minimum.

[10:06] >> Thank you.

[10:07] >> So, the legal standard is

[10:09] with due attention

[10:10] to the circumstances. And so

[10:15] that's where it comes in. So,

[10:20] your thought process is

[10:22] on target. May I ask my next

[10:23] question?

[10:26] >> Sure.

[10:27] >> And I apologize. This

[10:29] repeats.

[10:30] But the technical part of this

[10:32] in the machines,

[10:33] the conveyances is a problem

[10:34] in my mind. I can't wrap my

[10:36] head around the differences.

[10:38] Sometimes when about what you

[10:39] described made sense,

[10:40] but then when I see. So

[10:41] yesterday afternoon, I'm going

[10:46] down here on the parkway,

[10:51] six little motorcycle guys,

[10:55] eight years old-ish to 12 years

[10:57] old-ish. Street, sidewalk

[11:00] lights, intersection,

[11:01] varying degrees of hair,

[11:03] I would say. Right. But it was

[11:04] this little motorcycle minibike

[11:06] looking thing

[11:07] like a moped used

[11:09] to look like, but

[11:10] without the pedals. And are we

[11:14] regulating that?

[11:19] >> So again, it's so hard

[11:20] to just

[11:21] like know what a thing is even

[11:22] by looking

[11:23] at it because it depends about

[11:24] the wattage and the capacity

[11:26] of the engine. So, you might

[11:28] have been seeing a minibike,

[11:30] which is technically a toy

[11:31] vehicle. But if it was going

[11:32] that fast and keeping up

[11:34] with the other ones,

[11:35] it probably was a

[11:36] off highway vehicle, I would

[11:37] guess because it's just. It's a

[11:38] degree of capacity

[11:39] of the engine. If they could

[11:40] keep up.

[11:42] >> I don't think so.

[11:43] >> Talking about a minibike,

[11:44] if they

[11:45] look the same to the. This

[11:47] is why it mattered to me. So,

[11:48] they look the same

[11:49] to me as an observer. And there

[11:50] was an older man who was

[11:51] in the way, I should say,

[11:52] and a pedestrian. So would it.

[11:53] How much does it matter if he's

[11:55] encountering one versus the

[11:56] other? And how broad we end up

[11:58] getting with our regulation.

[12:18] Like, why would we. Why would

[12:19] we then have to say, stop all

[12:20] the kids and examine the bike

[12:21] and determine whether that was

[12:22] in this category or that. When

[12:24] to the naked eye at me,

[12:25] it kind of looked like

[12:26] whichever one it was scared the

[12:28] bejesus out of this man.

[12:34] >> Yeah, that's there. I think

[12:39] it's just. That's the nature

[12:41] of it, is that the technology

[12:42] and our ability to determine

[12:43] what these are has not totally

[12:45] caught up because you can't

[12:46] tell. I think the idea

[12:47] behind it, though, is

[12:48] like the minibike. If you get

[12:50] in a collision,

[12:51] a minibike has less capacity to

[12:54] hurt someone because it can't

[12:55] go as fast. So, I think the

[12:57] idea with the state giving us

[12:58] the right to regulate certain

[12:59] things is that the more

[13:00] dangerous it is,

[13:01] the more leeway we have

[13:02] to regulate. So even

[13:04] on toy vehicles,

[13:05] we have a little bit less. I

[13:06] mean, it's not as clear cut

[13:07] that we have the right

[13:09] to regulate these as

[13:10] off highway vehicles, which in

[13:11] their statute it says

[13:12] specifically local governments

[13:14] can do all

[13:15] of these things.

[13:17] >> Right.

[13:23] >> We don't necessarily have

[13:24] that for toy vehicles. I think

[13:25] that this probably is a huge

[13:26] problem and a huge loophole

[13:27] everywhere that hopefully will

[13:28] catch up the state of cut up.

[13:29] But unfortunately,

[13:30] that's the best we have now.

[13:31] So, I'm guessing what you saw

[13:32] was an off by a vehicle,

[13:33] though. So probably would catch

[13:34] if they were. If he was going.

[13:36] Math and stuff.

[13:37] >> Well, some were stopped,

[13:38] some were going. I mean,

[13:39] it was a little dispersed game.

[13:41] You know, there was

[13:42] like four there and two there.

[13:43] The other question is, do we.

[13:44] Has the sheriff's office said

[13:45] anything about the practicality

[13:58] or impracticality of having

[14:02] to stop them? Because that came

[14:03] up when we talked

[14:05] about golf carts.

[14:10] >> Yes, absolutely. That's.

[14:11] That's an ongoing issue

[14:12] everywhere. Mostly because they

[14:13] hop on the trails with these

[14:14] motorcycles and the police are

[14:15] not going to go down trails in

[14:16] their police vehicles or

[14:18] anything or cause more danger.

[14:20] So, yes, that's absolutely a

[14:22] problem everywhere.

[14:23] >> Thank you.

[14:33] >> All right, so we will keep

[14:34] the 250. And then maybe you

[14:35] guys can think about as a

[14:36] maximum. I can also look in

[14:38] to see if there's any guidance

[14:39] on it. It might not be because

[14:40] I. There's actually many people

[14:41] who do the parental

[14:43] responsibility,

[14:44] but I'll check.

[14:51] >> Okay, so next slide. So,

[14:59] this is for eluding. So, this

[15:00] kind of just goes directly into

[15:02] the conversation we were just

[15:03] having. So, this would make it

[15:05] a separate offense

[15:06] for an off-highway vehicle

[15:08] to hopefully fail

[15:10] to stop or attempt to elude or

[15:11] evade a police officer who's

[15:12] trying to pull you over. There

[15:13] are some explicit. First

[15:15] of all, it has to be. It can't

[15:16] be an undercover cop. It has

[15:19] to be a marked official. And

[15:20] then the last bullet is the

[15:22] prohibited content. So, it's

[15:23] like increasing your speed when

[15:25] you see them turning

[15:26] off your lights,

[15:28] departing the roadway

[15:34] to avoid the stops of

[15:35] like hopping

[15:36] on a trail or other. Other

[15:38] conduct that willfully shows

[15:40] intent to evade the officer.

[15:41] So, what do we think

[15:43] about this one?

[15:46] >> Reminds me

[15:47] of being a teenager.

[15:49] >> Yep. Well, it's no

[15:50] different.

[15:52] >> Excuse me.

[15:54] >> It reminds me

[15:55] of when we used to go

[15:57] to the golf course.

[15:58] >> I'm for it.

[15:59] >> Question is, how do. I mean,

[16:01] if they do this, what's the

[16:02] likelihood they're going

[16:04] to get caught? Right? Yeah.

[16:05] >> So, I think that's also a

[16:06] good point. But what's great

[16:07] about it is most

[16:09] of these are kids who are

[16:10] in school. So actually,

[16:11] I was talking

[16:13] to some other officer not in

[16:14] this jurisdiction who they

[16:15] found the kids

[16:17] by taking pictures

[16:18] of them and then sending them

[16:19] to the school.

[16:21] Like pictures were sent to the

[16:22] schools and the schools ratted

[16:23] them

[16:24] out and they found that way.

[16:25] So, it does. They can't. They

[16:26] do have their ways to do it.

[16:27] But yes, obviously if they're

[16:29] evading, it's kind of hard

[16:30] to give them a ticket

[16:31] for doing that.

[16:32] >> They wrap them out or. Or

[16:33] assist them in law enforcement

[16:34] activities.

[16:36] >> Assist them. And I'm sure

[16:38] their lawyer would prefer

[16:39] to say it that way. Okay,

[16:40] >> I'm good with this.

[16:42] >> Okay. And next slide. All

[16:43] right, so this is the insurance

[16:52] provision. So, it requires you

[16:54] either to have an insurance

[16:56] policy complying

[16:58] with the state's requirements

[17:00] for motor vehicles or a state

[17:02] of self-insurance

[17:03] in full force and effect. That

[17:05] was just an option that other

[17:07] people had. And then this last

[17:08] bullet is basically that it's

[17:09] another separable offense if

[17:11] you fail

[17:12] to give them your proof

[17:13] of insurance.

[17:14] >> So, it's like when you're

[17:15] driving your

[17:16] car and you get pulled over,

[17:17] you can have a no proof

[17:18] of insurance citation. So, what

[17:20] do we think about

[17:22] with the self-insurance,

[17:23] do you want to put

[17:24] in specific requirements

[17:26] for the insurance?

[17:35] >> What do you think? I oppose

[17:38] this one strongly because

[17:39] number one, it's superfluous.

[17:41] It's making a law for something

[17:42] that's probably already covered

[17:44] already. And all it's going to

[17:45] do is cause an insurance

[17:52] coverage fight that will

[17:54] increase our premiums and we

[17:55] don't need that. And I don't

[17:56] see it being effective because

[17:58] there aren't any policies

[17:59] written for this right now.

[18:02] Okay. You can get an

[18:04] endorsement, but it doesn't,

[18:05] it's not that specific. It's

[18:06] for everything and it costs a

[18:08] lot. So now if we require it,

[18:12] we're increasing the cost

[18:14] to get insurance here

[18:15] in town.

[18:29] >> I guess I just want

[18:31] to understand. So, any vehicle

[18:33] that you operate has

[18:39] to be insured. We're

[18:40] classifying these vehicles as

[18:42] something that needs

[18:43] to be licensed and has to be

[18:44] follow those requirements. And

[18:48] I feel like it falls

[18:49] under the category

[18:50] of insurance. And plus if one

[18:51] of these kids, heaven forbid,

[18:53] gets in an accident or car hits

[18:54] them, I think they need

[18:56] to have insurance just

[18:58] like I need to have insurance

[18:59] when I'm driving

[19:00] down the street if I were

[19:02] to get into an accident.

[19:03] That's just my thoughts. And I

[19:05] understand the premium increase

[19:06] like but really it increases

[19:07] the premium for parents that

[19:08] are allowing their kids to

[19:10] violate this.

[19:15] >> I appreciate your

[19:16] perspective too. It's a, it's,

[19:17] it's tough.

[19:18] >> I know.

[19:19] >> I understand.

[19:22] >> Yeah.

[19:23] >> If I may ask a clarifying

[19:25] question. This insurance would

[19:26] be. Liability only would be the

[19:28] requirement?

[19:29] >> I think. Yes. That's what's

[19:31] required by your vehicle.

[19:32] >> Right.

[19:35] >> Okay.

[19:36] >> So, I know you explain this,

[19:37] so please forgive me. Would

[19:38] the,

[19:41] the vehicle itself be insured

[19:42] or the, or would you, the, the

[19:44] 16-year-old be insured?

[19:48] >> I think the way this is

[19:50] written it was you have

[19:51] to have insurance

[19:52] on the vehicle. On,

[19:54] on the vehicle. But then

[19:55] obviously your insurance unit

[19:57] doesn't cover non-name drivers.

[19:58] So, I mean, I definitely

[19:59] understand your point.

[20:00] But it's also

[20:01] like if you get hit by one

[20:04] of these things.

[20:07] >> Yeah. And most policies will

[20:08] cover a permissive user. So, it

[20:10] could be your neighbor riding

[20:11] your bike. That's just the way

[20:14] they're written.

[20:15] >> Oh, I'm not disagreeing. I

[20:17] don't know enough about

[20:18] insurance. I know that there's

[20:20] liability and full coverage.

[20:29] >> Yeah.

[20:30] >> I'm just curious because

[20:32] just reading this,

[20:33] I can't tell. Would the

[20:34] insurance cover if a

[20:35] 16-year-old,

[20:37] a minor drove their vehicle

[20:39] into a car and damaged it?

[20:40] >> I think that's definitely a

[20:46] person or a person would be

[20:47] more.

[20:48] >> Okay, what's the downside

[20:49] of endeavor insurance age?

[20:50] >> The policies already would

[20:51] cover for. There's two ways

[20:52] to get insurance coverage

[20:53] for something like this. You

[20:55] can. If a kid act does

[20:58] something stupid to cause harm

[20:59] to another person, it's still

[21:01] negligent entrustment or

[21:02] negligence on supervision

[21:03] on the part of the parent. And

[21:04] as long as it's negligent, you

[21:08] might have insurance coverage

[21:09] through the homeowner. So, the

[21:10] homeowner's policy. So, there's

[21:12] other ways that it might be

[21:15] already covered. And then if we

[21:17] require it, the type of

[21:18] endorsement that would be

[21:20] required would have

[21:21] to cover both what you said,

[21:22] property damage and personal

[21:23] injury. And it would have

[21:25] to cover everything

[21:26] under the sun,

[21:27] not just a broken ankle. So, it

[21:30] would then be across the board

[21:35] and it would become a rating

[21:36] issue. So, all the policies

[21:38] would have to have it and then

[21:40] everybody's would go up

[21:42] incrementally. I don't know if

[21:44] it would be a $10 endorsement

[21:45] or a $20 endorsement. So, I

[21:46] wanted

[21:48] to highlight it because it's

[21:49] on my mind

[21:51] in another matter.

[21:53] >> Okay. So, taking me back

[21:55] to the last time we spoke

[21:56] about this,

[21:57] and forgive my lack

[21:58] of knowledge

[21:59] of what they're called, a

[22:01] vehicle that is road ready has

[22:02] the turn signals and all

[22:05] of that, that must be

[22:07] registered and it must be

[22:08] by a license driver.

[22:10] >> Correct.

[22:11] >> In my opinion,

[22:13] that should have insurance. If

[22:14] it's not a vehicle that is not

[22:15] designed to be on the road,

[22:17] it shouldn't.

[22:18] >> That's what we're talking

[22:20] about here. These are

[22:21] technically not supposed to be

[22:22] on the road. Okay. So yeah,

[22:24] these are. So these are the

[22:25] dirt bikes who don't have,

[22:26] they don't have the turn

[22:28] signals, but

[22:29] for all other aspects,

[22:30] they're a motorcycle. That's.

[22:32] That's more of the. Then I'm

[22:33] in line

[22:35] with you guys because I,

[22:36] I see the distinction.

[22:41] >> So, if it's a street legal

[22:45] vehicle that needs a licensed

[22:47] driver, that's a, that needs

[22:48] insurance no matter what.

[22:49] That's not a.

[22:50] >> Correct. That's a state law.

[22:51] >> That's a state law, yeah.

[22:54] Okay.

[22:55] >> And just to Clarify, these

[22:56] are UTV's. They're not.

[22:57] >> I mean, yes,

[22:59] but we're mostly talking

[23:00] about the eater bikes here. So

[23:01] that's, that's kind

[23:02] of what I want to. That's

[23:03] like the loophole that I, I'm

[23:04] finding that they're basically

[23:05] the exact same vehicle. Just

[23:07] one has turn signals and a

[23:08] couple of their safety features

[23:09] and the other doesn't. And

[23:10] that's the one that is not

[23:11] required to have insurance,

[23:13] and they're not required to be

[23:14] on the road. I'm not saying

[23:15] they are like. Or

[23:16] like they're not allowed to be

[23:17] on the road,

[23:19] but they are.

[23:27] >> And they're not required

[23:28] to be registered either.

[23:29] Correct.

[23:30] >> Here's a whole new paint

[23:32] job. One thing for me.

[23:35] >> So, we just can't declare

[23:36] motorcycles correct.

[23:37] >> We're not allowed

[23:38] to change the definition

[23:39] of citizen.

[23:43] >> State law and you snip.

[23:44] So, is anyone opposed to this

[23:45] insurance?

[23:46] >> I don't really have your

[23:47] opinion either way.

[23:48] >> I know I kind

[23:49] of want that. This. Does this

[23:51] make it harder

[23:52] for the officers to enforce or

[23:53] does this most likely. If a

[23:55] person is pulled over

[23:56] by an officer, they've already

[23:57] probably broken some other

[24:01] correct tool.

[24:02] >> They have to have grounds

[24:03] to pull them over. So, they

[24:05] wouldn't know they didn't have

[24:06] insurance by looking

[24:07] at them.

[24:09] >> So, the. This is discovered

[24:10] after they've already pulled

[24:11] them over.

[24:12] >> Something else. Can I.

[24:13] >> So, it's

[24:14] like a telephone call,

[24:15] right?

[24:16] >> Yeah, it's a secondary

[24:17] offense, but they can't. So,

[24:18] it's not technically a

[24:20] secondary offense because a

[24:21] secondary offense usually says

[24:22] if you're. You have to. You can

[24:23] only ticket them if there's

[24:26] another thing on the ticket.

[24:27] But if they pull them over,

[24:28] they realize they haven't

[24:29] violated it and they don't have

[24:30] insurance, they get tick.

[24:31] >> But to Chris's point about

[24:32] how this stuff is processed

[24:36] in court and the severity

[24:37] of what the charge is, you

[24:39] know, you can identify a more

[24:40] severe usage

[24:42] with more charges. And just the

[24:44] same, you can also please

[24:48] something down. So, you know,

[24:49] some of these are going

[24:54] to have points. Insurance.

[24:55] Insurance violations don't have

[24:56] points, but the moving

[24:57] violations do have points.

[24:59] So, somebody who has made a

[25:01] stupid mistake and is. Might be

[25:03] worried

[25:06] about how many points they have

[25:07] on their license as a young

[25:09] person might have an

[25:10] opportunity to plead

[25:11] to the insurance violation.

[25:13] That's not the reason

[25:21] to enact it. But you asked the

[25:22] question before.

[25:24] >> I think. I think I'm

[25:25] on the fence too, because I.

[25:27] Council Member Mulvey makes a

[25:30] good point

[25:31] with homeowners insurance.

[25:33] They also could sue,

[25:34] of course, which is probably

[25:35] what will happen anyway.

[25:37] >> But. So, I, I think my

[25:39] biggest concern is if someone

[25:40] were walking

[25:44] down the street and got struck

[25:45] by one

[25:46] of these and severely injured,

[25:47] would they. Would they be

[25:48] covered medically? Could they

[25:50] be covered for that? And that's

[25:53] my biggest concern. If somebody

[25:54] were to get hit by one

[25:55] of these, I guess that's. And

[25:58] there's been noted deaths

[25:59] before too.

[26:02] >> I mean, well,

[26:03] it's what I saw yesterday.

[26:04] >> Yeah.

[26:05] >> So, I think didn't happen

[26:06] too long ago in Denver

[26:08] with a scooter. So, I, I, I

[26:11] just that would be my question

[26:12] is that the victim is protected

[26:14] or has some protection and

[26:15] maybe that's there's other ways

[26:16] for that to happen.

[26:18] >> I don't know if it's

[26:20] necessary or not.

[26:22] >> May I ask Michael?

[26:23] >> Mayor, another thing,

[26:24] thinking about your last

[26:25] conversation and creating

[26:29] disincentives,

[26:30] it might be a disincentive

[26:31] for the parent

[26:32] to allow the E-bike

[26:33] to be purchased

[26:35] in the first place because

[26:36] of the additional cost

[26:38] to co-inciprate it.

[26:40] >> So, would this not also

[26:41] penalize those who take their E

[26:43] bike to Rampart Range?

[26:45] >> And so, E-bikes are not a

[26:48] highway vehicle.

[26:53] >> So no, not you,

[26:54] but the motorcycle. Whatever.

[26:55] >> So that. Yes. I mean they'd

[26:56] have to have insurance under

[26:57] this and if they never intend

[26:58] or do right

[26:59] on the street.

[27:00] >> Yeah.

[27:01] >> It is saying that if you're

[27:02] operating in the city,

[27:03] regardless of where it is,

[27:04] if it's

[27:05] in the city's jurisdiction,

[27:06] you need insurance.

[27:08] >> The Rampart range is not in

[27:10] our drastic question that just

[27:11] came up as well. You know,

[27:12] this is more

[27:13] of a public policy issue.

[27:14] But do we want

[27:19] to be the first ones to do

[27:20] something this extreme?

[27:24] >> Well, you definitely aren't

[27:25] at the first for insurance

[27:26] because I did this is

[27:28] like it's a driver's license.

[27:29] Insurance is

[27:30] like the two top regulations.

[27:31] So, if you're going

[27:33] to regulate it,

[27:34] that's the top ones.

[27:35] >> Okay.

[27:36] >> So, you definitely won't be

[27:37] the first. But. So, I wouldn't

[27:39] let that necessarily dissuade

[27:40] you.

[27:41] >> Who would we be in bed with?

[27:42] I didn't mind being the first

[27:49] on the vaping statute, but this

[27:52] might be a little different and

[27:53] I feel

[27:54] like

[27:56] insurance one anyway,

[27:57] I might have it. Let me look it

[27:58] up while we are on here because

[27:59] I don't have my matrix printed

[28:00] out.

[28:01] >> I'm sure we can answer that

[28:02] later. Thank you.

[28:05] >> We amend this

[28:06] down the line though, so we

[28:07] could,

[28:08] we could be more conservative

[28:09] with this. And then if we

[28:10] wanted

[28:11] to amend it and add.

[28:13] >> Yeah, so, so for me, I'm

[28:15] on the fence

[28:16] on this too. I feel

[28:19] like there we would need,

[28:20] we probably don't have an

[28:22] obligation, but we would need

[28:24] to do a lot of education to

[28:25] parents and people that rule

[28:26] these to make sure that they're

[28:30] getting the insurance.

[28:32] But not having this does not.

[28:34] We're still enforcing what we

[28:37] want to with the other rules

[28:39] that we're creating. So not

[28:40] having this there would not

[28:41] defeat what we're trying

[28:43] to accomplish. And so, I, right

[28:44] now I'm leaning towards we ERR

[28:45] on not putting this in there

[28:47] and we can potentially put it

[28:48] in there in the future.

[28:49] >> Could we also, in part

[28:51] of our communications,

[28:54] communicate that this was a

[28:55] consideration, but we didn't

[29:01] feel time was appropriate and

[29:05] we'd like to look

[29:06] into it more. That would

[29:08] generate the feedback that we

[29:10] want because for all we know,

[29:12] we have a huge amount

[29:14] of seniors in our community

[29:16] that want this. And then how

[29:19] many, you know,

[29:20] eight-year-old parents don't,

[29:23] you know? We don't know.

[29:26] >> Sure.

[29:27] >> We also have a lot

[29:28] of hills. I mean maybe not

[29:30] over here, but

[29:31] in my districts, all hills.

[29:33] And so the ability

[29:35] to fly up and

[29:36] down a hill carries both sides

[29:37] of this.

[29:39] >> Okay, so I will remove that

[29:42] for your first reading and then

[29:44] we can always add it back in.

[29:46] >> Scroll up that resolution.

[29:48] >> But you nodded

[29:49] this way instead

[29:50] of that way.

[29:51] >> Yeah. This is going

[29:53] to be an ordinance. So next

[29:55] slide. Okay, so this is the

[29:56] reckless driving. So, this

[29:58] prohibits someone from

[30:00] operating a hop highway vehicle

[30:02] within the city and a willful

[30:03] or wanton disregard

[30:15] for the safety or persons

[30:16] of persons or property. And

[30:17] this is the definition of

[30:21] willful or wanton disregard

[30:22] that.

[30:24] >> So, we track the model

[30:27] municipal code that we already

[30:29] use for careless and reckless

[30:30] in language.

[30:34] >> This is. I think that. No,

[30:35] this is a specific one for

[30:37] willful month because this will

[30:38] not be on points for your like

[30:39] driver's license because you

[30:40] don't need to be licensed

[30:41] to have this. So, it wouldn't

[30:43] go on your points. It would be

[30:44] a separate municipal code

[30:45] violation. So, it wouldn't go

[30:46] on here. So, I tracked it

[30:47] to match with other people's

[30:48] reckless.

[30:51] >> So, we have the model

[30:52] municipal code. The MUTC is our

[30:53] definition of what is reckless

[30:55] and what is careless. Match the

[30:56] same language as the 4202 for

[30:57] careless and the whatever is

[31:03] the equivalent for reckless.

[31:05] >> I will double check

[31:06] for you because I,

[31:07] I don't know that off the top

[31:09] of my head. I just know this is

[31:12] what other codes have said. So

[31:15] I wouldn't be shocked if they

[31:17] did. And that's where they took

[31:19] it from.

[31:23] >> It looks similar,

[31:24] but there's a couple of words

[31:25] that look a little different.

[31:26] So, I would just. That we could

[31:27] make them match them.

[31:28] >> Okay.

[31:29] >> So that there would be a

[31:30] fair expectation and not get

[31:31] nailed on a defense that it's

[31:32] not that.

[31:33] >> Okay, I can definitely make

[31:34] it match. If it does match. Is

[31:35] everyone okay with this?

[31:36] >> Yes.

[31:37] >> And then. So, it'll be the

[31:38] same one for next slide.

[31:39] That's careless. I will also

[31:40] make sure this matches the

[31:41] module.

[31:47] >> No, not that. Because we

[31:48] don't. And then would we.

[31:52] Would we have this. Would we

[31:54] have the same with and without

[31:57] injury distinction that the

[31:59] model traffic code has?

[32:01] >> Do you want that?

[32:04] >> So, the model traffic code,

[32:05] if you're operating a car, you

[32:06] get a careless and you don't

[32:08] injure anybody. It's one. It's

[32:12] like a X number of points. If

[32:13] you get a careless and you. If

[32:15] somebody claims injury,

[32:16] it's another kind of points and

[32:18] the fine is different.

[32:19] >> So, we wouldn't do points

[32:20] because again, it's not

[32:21] like no differential.

[32:22] >> Right.

[32:23] >> Knife.

[32:25] >> I just. Do we want to make

[32:27] that distinction? I don't know.

[32:28] I think it's. It makes a big

[32:30] difference.

[32:33] >> Right.

[32:34] >> If someone's injured or not.

[32:35] >> Okay, so instead of points

[32:36] to be fines,

[32:37] is that what you're saying?

[32:38] Like.

[32:39] >> Well, the penalty. So, the

[32:40] penalty is different. So,

[32:41] there's also a different kind

[32:47] of difference that the class

[32:48] of effects. But there's

[32:50] like section one is, you know,

[32:52] on your ticket, no injury,

[32:54] and section two is

[32:56] with injury. And the penalty is

[32:58] different for each. So.

[33:01] >> And it.

[33:03] >> And it's often harder

[33:06] to plead down an injury one.

[33:08] So, it's. It's just a deterrent

[33:11] feeling. So then would the

[33:14] judge then make a discretion

[33:15] of what the.

[33:16] >> Yeah, I mean, you could set

[33:17] one or the other a minimum fine

[33:18] for each type. Maximum fine

[33:20] for each type. So, I could have

[33:21] some language

[33:22] in there and you guys can play

[33:23] around with the fee. Whatever.

[33:24] I said, I'll look at what is

[33:26] recommended or what I can find.

[33:28] >> I'm sorry, please explain

[33:29] again,

[33:31] why would there be no points

[33:32] on driver's license?

[33:33] >> So, this. So, we can. You

[33:35] can only put driver's license

[33:36] points if you're operating a

[33:37] motor vehicle that's licensed

[33:39] and registered here. You don't

[33:40] technically even need

[33:41] to have a driver's license.

[33:43] So, you couldn't put points on

[33:44] someone else. A driver's

[33:46] license that doesn't exist

[33:47] because it's not operating a

[33:48] motor vehicle. So, I don't

[33:50] think. I don't want to get it.

[33:52] I don't think we should touch

[33:54] that. I don't think that would

[33:55] probably even be legal for us

[33:57] to do that. Yeah. So.

[33:58] >> Yeah. Thank you.

[34:00] >> Yes.

[34:03] >> So we're not talking here

[34:05] specifically on the streets.

[34:06] We're talking anywhere in

[34:07] California.

[34:08] >> Anywhere. So, I mean

[34:09] like a sidewalk or like, you

[34:10] know, an open space.

[34:12] >> Yeah.

[34:13] >> Okay.

[34:14] >> Okay.

[34:20] >> And next slide.

[34:21] >> What do we decide

[34:22] on that one?

[34:23] >> Oh, yeah. We do want will

[34:24] with and without injury. And

[34:25] I'll match it to the model

[34:26] traffic code and then I'll just

[34:27] put in a fee, or I'll talk to

[34:28] Michael and we'll talk

[34:29] about setting a fee. And then

[34:30] you guys can always amend that

[34:31] on.

[34:32] >> And Mayor, it does. It does

[34:33] appear that the model traffic

[34:35] code, the reckless driving,

[34:36] careless driving terminology is

[34:38] the same.

[34:41] >> Good.

[34:42] >> Thank you.

[34:43] >> All right, so safety

[34:45] equipment we touched

[34:47] on a little bit, but we didn't

[34:48] actually discuss specifics.

[34:50] So, I put more broad ones in

[34:51] and you guys can take them out.

[34:52] So, for safety of helmet,

[34:54] it's helmets. Operators

[34:56] under the age of 18 need to be

[34:57] wearing a helmet and then eye

[34:58] protection regardless of age.

[34:59] And then proof of compliance

[35:03] basically means that a.

[35:04] Like the sheriff can pull you

[35:05] over if you're not wearing a

[35:06] helmet and won't let you

[35:08] operate it until you put your

[35:09] helmet on.

[35:11] >> So, I think we did talk

[35:12] about helmets a little bit. We

[35:13] didn't talk

[35:14] about eye protection. So, I

[35:15] just wanted to hear.

[35:17] >> When you're. If we ask for

[35:18] eye protection and the shading

[35:19] is too much,

[35:20] that could obscure the vision,

[35:21] especially

[35:22] at dusk or nighttime driving,

[35:34] which these do. So that's the

[35:35] only thing that comes to mind

[35:39] for me that it might end up

[35:40] causing more of a problem.

[35:41] This is just a thought or just

[35:42] maybe.

[35:49] >> Have I seen other

[35:50] regulations that have more just

[35:52] a specificity about being able

[35:53] to see out

[35:54] of the eye protection? Because

[35:55] there are those helmets that

[35:56] make it dark in those when at

[35:57] night it doesn't count as eye

[35:58] protection because you can't

[35:59] see out of it.

[36:00] >> Yeah. The helmets the kids

[36:01] are using don't have a visor.

[36:02] So, we would be asking them to

[36:03] purchase something additional.

[36:04] >> Yeah, it'd be like eye

[36:05] goggles or getting a helmet

[36:06] that has advice advisor. But I

[36:09] don't know. I think that. I

[36:11] think it's unnecessary if I

[36:12] connection.

[36:13] >> I think.

[36:14] >> I think the helmet is what

[36:15] we're looking at for safety. I

[36:17] think if you were riding it

[36:18] on the highway and worrying

[36:19] about a rock kicking up or dust

[36:20] or something like that,

[36:21] I just. I think the likelihood

[36:22] of that biggest safety issue is

[36:23] not having a helmet,

[36:32] which is known

[36:36] to be a big safety issue.

[36:39] >> So, I would just say the

[36:40] helmet. That'd be my

[36:42] recommendation.

[36:44] >> How would. So, the sheriff

[36:46] would have the discretion

[36:48] to pull someone

[36:49] over because they maybe looked

[36:51] like they're on rating.

[36:52] >> Yeah. I mean, it's like the

[36:54] motorcycles have the same law

[36:56] right now that every

[36:57] motorcyclist or the HHC wear an

[36:58] helmet. So, it's basically the

[37:00] same. I think it's probably

[37:03] something they add

[37:04] on they pull you over

[37:06] for driving recklessly. You

[37:08] also don't have a helmet on.

[37:10] At that point,

[37:11] they know you're under 18 and

[37:13] they give you another ticket.

[37:17] Most likely. I mean, I guess

[37:18] sometimes it's pretty obvious

[37:19] they're not easy, but

[37:21] >> I don't think it's necessary

[37:22] either. But I still,

[37:25] I'm still curious

[37:26] about that aspect. Can a

[37:28] sheriff pull. I'm going

[37:29] to use the word air quotes,

[37:30] kid

[37:32] over because they think they're

[37:33] under 18 or it has to be only

[37:34] in conjunction

[37:35] with another infraction.

[37:36] >> So, the way that I've seen

[37:37] it, it's not a secondary

[37:38] defense because that usually

[37:39] has very specific language. But

[37:40] as an enforcement mechanism,

[37:41] I'm not sure I can ask how

[37:42] they're doing it now

[37:43] with motorcycles. And if they

[37:45] might, they might be treating

[37:46] it as a secondary offense, even

[37:47] though it's technically not.

[37:48] >> Yeah.

[37:49] >> Excuse me.

[37:50] >> You're more likely on a

[37:51] motorcycle. I think you're more

[37:52] likely to be 18 or older.

[37:53] Where these other vehicles

[37:54] maybe not so much. So, I,

[37:55] I just. Fear, not fear.

[37:58] But I, you know,

[37:59] my thought process is,

[38:01] does the sheriff have the,

[38:02] the authority to say,

[38:04] let me see your idea? Because I

[38:07] was doing nothing wrong other

[38:08] than not wearing a helmet?

[38:09] >> Yeah.

[38:10] >> You're getting a probable

[38:12] cause type stuff. Sure.

[38:13] >> Yeah. Yeah. I would say it's

[38:17] like a,

[38:18] it would be a probable cause

[38:20] to pull someone

[38:21] over if you think they're

[38:22] under 18 and the only thing

[38:24] they're doing is not helmet.

[38:25] >> I think that's a good

[38:27] question. I don't know how

[38:28] they're handling it now. I

[38:30] definitely. Please put that

[38:31] in the staff reports

[38:32] of the ordinance.

[38:35] >> Okay.

[38:45] >> And next slide. All right,

[38:52] so this is impoundment. This

[38:53] authorizes the sheriff's office

[38:54] to impound vehicle. Or these

[38:55] off highway vehicles may have

[38:59] probable cause that they're

[39:00] being operated in violation

[39:01] of this, again,

[39:03] article not chapter. And then

[39:04] it sets forth regulations

[39:05] for how long it's being held.

[39:06] There's an impoundment fee,

[39:08] which you would later establish

[39:09] by resolution your fee

[39:11] schedule, and a storage fee

[39:12] after five days. So again,

[39:13] when I was doing my research,

[39:15] only one municipality had an

[39:16] impoundment. But it might be

[39:17] something that y' all want

[39:24] to add on as eligibility

[39:25] for the sheriff's office

[39:26] to do. We ran this by the

[39:27] sheriff's office and they were

[39:30] fine.

[39:35] >> I have a question. I know

[39:36] that the, the other

[39:37] municipality that's doing this

[39:39] also has a provision where they

[39:40] can sell it after 90 days or

[39:41] something.

[39:42] >> That's something they want

[39:43] to do.

[39:45] >> So, it's not just they're

[39:46] not

[39:47] like huge garage full of.

[39:48] >> So, is it 90 days?

[39:54] >> So, this one doesn't have

[39:55] the 90-day thing,

[39:56] but I can look into that.

[39:57] >> It has

[39:59] to be something that's going

[40:01] to sting or it's not going

[40:03] to be like Nate was saying.

[40:04] You give some of These families

[40:06] a 200 fine, they're going to.

[40:08] They're going to pay it.

[40:09] But if you on top of that,

[40:17] take the vehicle,

[40:18] either they'll go buy another

[40:19] one, or there's what the other

[40:20] one doesn't. I think the

[40:21] palace.

[40:22] >> I. I think we need one of

[40:23] those pool tickets because

[40:24] everyone's just talking

[40:25] to each other.

[40:26] >> Okay, I'm sorry.

[40:28] >> I had my hand up,

[40:29] but I'll you go. Michael. Can

[40:32] we get a ticket taker? We can.

[40:33] So, my proposal for this and

[40:34] maybe the same or different

[40:36] than the municipal, whatever,

[40:39] if someone is able

[40:42] to drive the vehicle home,

[40:46] then not impound it. Someone

[40:48] of age, illegal, all that. And

[40:50] then if there's not,

[40:52] then it gets impounded. That's

[40:54] my two thoughts. Two cents.

[40:58] >> I'm glad you went

[41:00] before me because I was going

[41:06] to hearken back to what we see

[41:07] with the golf carts. And the

[41:08] golf carts, sometimes they'll

[41:09] let them drive them home and

[41:10] then they just come back. So,

[41:12] there's that. I

[41:13] like impoundment,

[41:14] but I'm thinking about. This is

[41:15] my second point about the

[41:16] sheriff really is the one

[41:18] with the authority on that.

[41:19] And so,

[41:21] if we impose a pedal a time

[41:22] period, are we asking the

[41:24] sheriff's office to do more

[41:25] than they already do? So maybe

[41:26] we could mirror what they

[41:28] already do.

[41:29] >> So, they have no regulations

[41:30] on off highway.

[41:31] But I could ask what they do

[41:32] for other goals. Yeah, I mean,

[41:33] we did.

[41:35] >> We.

[41:36] >> I think we discussed broad

[41:37] terms of impoundment

[41:39] with the sheriff's office,

[41:43] and they were all for it.

[41:45] But I also probably would want

[41:46] to talk to them about the

[41:47] 90-day thing. I don't want to,

[41:48] you know, commit

[41:50] to them holding something for

[41:52] 90 days and they don't want to.

[41:53] So, I think let's let me loop

[41:56] back with the sheriff

[41:57] on how they handle impoundment.

[41:58] And if they want

[41:59] to have a time frame to what

[42:01] Ron said as well, the time

[42:02] period has a definite deterrent

[42:03] value. And then it becomes non

[42:04] deterrent to whoever said they

[42:05] could just go buy another one.

[42:06] So that does matter. You know,

[42:07] you had your stuff taken away

[42:08] for like your phone taken away

[42:10] for a week matters. Do you know

[42:11] what I mean?

[42:12] >> That kind of thing. Yeah.

[42:13] >> Okay, so is there levels

[42:14] to this?

[42:15] Like if they had three of the

[42:16] Violations like we've had, you

[42:17] know, we have multiple

[42:18] violations here.

[42:20] Like not everyone, Not. Not one

[42:39] small infraction gets the.

[42:41] Sure, like impounded. But if

[42:43] there were maybe a severity

[42:44] of it,

[42:45] I think that's how it would be

[42:48] with like vehicle, motor

[42:49] vehicle,

[42:50] like a DUI or something

[42:51] like that.

[42:55] >> The heightened level is what

[42:56] determines if the car is

[42:57] impounded or not.

[42:59] >> And under this provision,

[43:00] it's just saying they're here

[43:02] but authorized, not directed.

[43:03] So, they would have the

[43:04] discretion. They know the

[43:06] repeat offenders. I would

[43:07] probably. I would want them

[43:09] to have the discretion of when

[43:10] to found the vehicle so that.

[43:11] That would have that. So, I

[43:13] will look up and selling the

[43:14] vehicle after certain

[43:15] amendments and also make sure

[43:16] it's. The sheriff wants to do

[43:17] this and all that stuff.

[43:18] >> And what

[43:19] about returning it, you know,

[43:20] is there. We don't want

[43:22] to add a due process concern

[43:23] with how

[43:24] to get something back.

[43:30] >> Yeah, I'll check with how

[43:31] they handle impoundments

[43:32] of other vehicles.

[43:33] >> Be nice if we just follow

[43:34] the same policy that they

[43:35] already have for impound.

[43:36] >> I do have one last question,

[43:37] I think, though. So, if my

[43:38] vehicle is impounded

[43:40] after five years, it goes into.

[43:41] I pay a storage fee. Do I pay

[43:42] that storage fee every day up

[43:43] until 90-days or after

[43:44] Friday? Like, if it ultimately

[43:46] gets sold, I lose my vehicle.

[43:47] Plus, I pay 85 days

[43:48] of storage.

[43:49] >> Storage, yeah.

[43:50] >> So, the way it's written

[43:52] now, it's that you should pay

[43:54] the storage fee,

[43:55] which is established or

[43:56] modified by resolution for each

[43:57] day that the vehicle remains.

[43:58] So, you guys would set a per

[43:59] day that does the sheriff's

[44:00] thing again?

[44:01] >> I think probably, yeah,

[44:02] you'd want to talk

[44:03] to the sheriff to make sure

[44:04] that number was high enough.

[44:05] And you probably would have

[44:06] to use kind

[44:07] of cautionary.

[44:08] >> A little bit out of the box

[44:10] that serves the storage fee.

[44:11] How about a cheap version

[44:12] of the California Boot?

[44:13] >> I don't. Yeah, that's not

[44:14] something I looked up. But I

[44:16] could ask them if that's

[44:17] feasible.

[44:18] >> That way the cops don't have

[44:23] to store it

[44:25] in their facility. Who they are

[44:26] responsible for.

[44:42] >> Garage, you're booted.

[44:44] >> And if you. If you break the

[44:45] boot, you get another. Get

[44:46] another file on top

[44:47] of that.

[44:48] >> So, I will talk to the

[44:49] sheriff. I don't think you can

[44:50] follow the kid home and force

[44:51] them to do it

[44:52] in their property.

[44:53] >> Well, I would just point

[44:54] out that I think so. So, the

[44:55] sheriff's office did read the

[44:57] ordinance, and they were fine

[44:58] with this language

[44:59] for the comment. And keep

[45:00] in mind, we're. I mean,

[45:01] similar

[45:02] to a vehicle they're not going

[45:04] to let the vehicle sit there

[45:05] in an unsafe manner. And so,

[45:06] if you can't push the thing

[45:07] home, they're going to.

[45:08] They're not going

[45:10] to let the kid ride at home

[45:11] in violation

[45:12] of what they just witnessed.

[45:13] And so having an impoundment

[45:14] option or come have your parent

[45:16] come down. Going back

[45:17] to the DUI example, hey,

[45:18] if you can get somebody here

[45:19] in the next 30 minutes type

[45:21] of thing. So. But they did read

[45:22] it as written,

[45:23] and they were comfortable

[45:25] with as proposed.

[45:26] >> So, thank you.

[45:27] >> We'll follow up

[45:28] to all the questions.

[45:30] >> Michael, does that have to

[45:31] be an ordinance or a resolution

[45:32] from us or can that just be

[45:33] part of the discretion

[45:35] of the sheriff?

[45:36] >> Well, right now. Right now,

[45:37] it's written as discretion

[45:39] of the sheriff

[45:40] for the impoundment. Right. Or

[45:42] if the kid says, well,

[45:43] my house is right there, well,

[45:44] put it neutral and push it up

[45:48] there and let me. And I'll sit

[45:50] here for the next two minutes

[45:51] while you push it home. Those

[45:52] kind of discretions. I think

[45:54] now the sheriff would really

[45:55] handle that.

[45:56] But they're not going

[45:57] to leave it on a sidewalk

[45:59] inside of CPY, right? Yeah, I'm

[46:00] pretty sure they're. You're not

[46:01] going to carry separate boots

[46:03] around for us.

[46:07] >> That's what they do

[46:08] with the golf carts. They make

[46:10] them take it home. Yeah, but

[46:12] they can't enter the home

[46:13] property. The police can't go

[46:14] on the home property

[46:19] without a different kind

[46:21] of private phone.

[46:23] >> All right, so that is all

[46:25] the off-highway vehicle stuff.

[46:26] So, I will get those changed.

[46:28] Now we're going to switch

[46:29] to these LSEVs as a reminder.

[46:30] Those are basically the golf

[46:32] carts that can go a little

[46:33] faster and are street legal.

[46:35] So next slide. So, this first

[46:37] provision is a driver's license

[46:42] requirement. This is already

[46:43] required by state law,

[46:44] but some people like to put it

[46:45] in there so that they can take

[46:46] it for it

[46:48] in their own municipal court.

[46:49] So again,

[46:50] this is already required.

[46:52] >> Do we want an argument?

[46:53] Yes, because otherwise we may

[46:54] copy all the ticket for yes,

[46:55] because we might not be able

[46:57] to ticket for it, but you have

[46:58] to call somebody else.

[47:00] >> They can still write

[47:01] to county court. So, they could

[47:03] still at the good sheriff.

[47:04] So, they can. They can still

[47:05] write it in the county court.

[47:06] It's just saying you guys want

[47:07] to see this in your court? If

[47:09] you just want it to go to

[47:10] Gabby.

[47:13] >> Well, yeah, go into county

[47:14] courts more severe. And then if

[47:16] you have the same offense

[47:17] with one

[47:18] in county court and one

[47:20] in our court, makes no sense.

[47:21] So, I'd say put it in Our

[47:22] court.

[47:24] >> Well, then we get the fine

[47:25] associated with it.

[47:27] >> Always looking

[47:29] at a dollar.

[47:30] >> Well, and then your

[47:33] municipal judge is overseeing

[47:34] enforcement

[47:35] of your ordinances,

[47:36] dismissing them too. Yeah,

[47:37] whatever you feel is

[47:38] appropriate

[47:39] to give them circumstances.

[47:41] >> This, I just want

[47:42] to start. You know,

[47:43] this is not the golf cart

[47:45] with the seat belts, the

[47:46] lights, the license plate.

[47:47] We're talking about

[47:48] like golf cart, golf carts

[47:50] on the pool of passenger.

[47:51] >> So, we're talking about the

[47:52] ones that do have their street

[47:53] legal. So they have to have,

[47:55] they have to be registered.

[47:56] They have

[47:57] to have a driver's license.

[47:59] They have

[48:00] to have turn signals, brake

[48:02] lights, headlights,

[48:03] all that stuff. We're not

[48:04] talking about golf carts that

[48:05] are not allowed

[48:07] on the street. So, these are

[48:08] just. The original intent

[48:09] of this part

[48:10] of the ordinance was

[48:12] to do child restraints,

[48:13] which is going

[48:14] to be the next slide.

[48:16] But I also put driver's license

[48:17] on there.

[48:18] >> But again, saying what

[48:19] for those same.

[48:21] >> You have to have a driver's

[48:23] license to operate.

[48:24] >> Thank you.

[48:26] >> Sorry, can I ask a question?

[48:27] Just, just for us to think

[48:28] about if we're, if we're

[48:31] regulating the ones that are

[48:32] already safer and not the ones

[48:34] that are ordinary golf carts.

[48:35] The Pete kids are driving

[48:36] on the street anyway. Do we run

[48:38] the risk

[48:39] of encouraging the wrong type

[48:40] of thing? Just to think about.

[48:42] I don't know how people would

[48:44] react to that. But if I'm

[48:46] buying a golf cart and I know

[48:48] the tricked out one's going to

[48:49] get me a ticket and the other

[48:52] one isn't,

[48:53] I might be more inclined

[48:56] to buy the other one.

[48:57] But you're going to go

[48:59] through those regulations too,

[49:00] right?

[49:01] >> So, you guys did not want

[49:03] to. Yeah, the child one. So,

[49:04] the golf carts are not

[49:05] in the ordinance. If you guys

[49:06] want to do something

[49:08] with golf parts,

[49:09] I think the only. And then you

[49:10] can actually just go to the

[49:12] next slide because you can.

[49:13] >> It's the child restraints.

[49:16] >> So, this is the child

[49:18] restraints and then they have

[49:19] the specific ones. The issue I

[49:21] think with the golf part is

[49:23] there's no way

[49:24] to put a child restraint in

[49:25] them because they don't have

[49:27] seat belts, they probably don't

[49:28] have the latch system,

[49:29] that kind of stuff. So, they're

[49:30] not legal

[49:31] on the roads and they're not.

[49:32] They're not ever intended to be

[49:33] used the way that they are

[49:35] actually being used. So, this

[49:36] is. So, for this one, though.

[49:37] So, it's basically saying that

[49:42] you have to have. Everyone has

[49:43] to have a safety belt

[49:44] on or a child restraint system.

[49:45] We didn't talk

[49:47] about safety belts. So, if you

[49:48] don't want safety Belts, I can

[49:49] remove that. And then this is

[49:50] just the more specific ones

[49:52] that I saw

[49:53] from another municipality.

[49:54] >> So, the first two are not

[49:55] impacted by my concern the

[49:57] driver's license and the child

[49:58] restraint.

[49:59] But the safety one is. The

[50:01] safety belt one is.

[50:02] >> Okay, so do we want. We

[50:03] didn't talk about that. So do

[50:05] we want

[50:07] to require safety belts

[50:09] for people who wouldn't need

[50:10] to be wearing and need to be

[50:12] in a child restraint system

[50:13] for kids who wouldn't need

[50:16] to be around.

[50:17] >> Are they already equipped

[50:18] with them? Safety is something.

[50:19] >> So, so yeah. So, these ones,

[50:21] they would probably would most

[50:22] likely have a safety belt. And

[50:23] then we can also specify

[50:34] in the ordinance if. If they

[50:35] are equipped for one. So, you

[50:36] don't have to like add one

[50:37] for safety belts.

[50:54] >> But if it's equipped,

[50:55] you have to have it

[50:56] on the ordinary. Golf carts

[50:57] tend not

[50:58] to have safety belts.

[50:59] >> Yeah,

[51:00] >> I'm leaning towards no.

[51:01] >> No for safety or no

[51:02] for child.

[51:04] >> No for child. Well, no,

[51:05] I'm all about safety,

[51:07] I guess.

[51:09] >> The seat belt or the child

[51:10] restraints. No, ver.

[51:11] >> I think. There we go.

[51:12] >> Street legal.

[51:15] >> These are street legal.

[51:16] >> Okay. Street legal

[51:17] to me implies same requirements

[51:18] for an automobile,

[51:20] which means you got

[51:21] to have a seat out. That's sort

[51:22] of redundant. If it's street

[51:24] legal, why would you not have

[51:26] to have.

[51:27] >> Not because of the way it's

[51:28] currently written. It's motor

[51:29] vehicles have the requirement.

[51:30] These aren't motor vehicles.

[51:31] >> Technically.

[51:35] >> I think we should.

[51:36] >> They're low speed electric

[51:38] vehicles. Yeah, I agree.

[51:40] >> These are. These would be

[51:41] driving industry with cars

[51:42] without the child restraint. I

[51:44] can hold the kid on my lap.

[51:46] And if there's an accident,

[51:47] which many people do, either

[51:50] whether some car hits them or

[51:52] they hit a car or they hit a

[51:53] curb or something. So, the

[51:55] conversation we heard from the

[51:56] last study session was there

[52:02] was a desire

[52:03] to ensure that kids were safe.

[52:05] Children are safe on these

[52:06] low-speed vehicles driving

[52:07] on city streets. So.

[52:08] >> Okay, so if it's a. If it's

[52:09] one that meets the criteria

[52:10] of illegal. Not illegal. A

[52:11] legal.

[52:13] >> Which is what these are.

[52:14] >> Yeah.

[52:26] >> Because then we require

[52:28] retrofitting for people who

[52:30] have them that have not. Or is

[52:31] this. Are they grandfathered

[52:33] in? Are we going.

[52:35] >> I will put something in here

[52:36] that says that the safety belts

[52:37] have to be. If it was

[52:39] like originally equipped

[52:40] with it or something. Some kind

[52:41] of language that. That's what

[52:43] I've seen. Yeah, that's like.

[52:44] If it was originally equipped

[52:45] with it,

[52:47] you have to.

[52:48] >> I'll do.

[52:50] >> Alrighty. And that is all I

[52:51] have. So, I will get you a

[52:53] Revised ordinance. The staff

[52:54] member will have the answers

[52:55] to some of the questions you've

[52:57] had and then we'll move

[52:59] from there.

[53:03] >> All right,

[53:04] thank you very much. Thank you

[53:05] very much for your work

[53:07] on this. And we are going

[53:08] to hold our other two topics

[53:09] from the study session

[53:11] to another study session. And

[53:12] we will begin our markers this

[53:13] meeting, regular business

[53:18] meeting at 6:30.

[53:20] Thank you. Thank you again.

[53:27] >> [ BREAK ]

[1:00:02] >> Thank you.

[1:00:05] Good evening, Council, citizen

[1:00:07] staff. I call our March 24,

[1:00:09] 2026, City Council meeting

[1:00:10] to or at 6:30pm Please call the

[1:00:13] roll.

[1:00:16] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]

[1:00:36] >> Madam Mayor, you have a

[1:00:37] quorum.

[1:00:38] >> Thank you very much. Would

[1:00:39] everyone please rise and join

[1:00:40] me for the Pledge of

[1:00:42] Allegiance.

[1:00:45] >> My pleasure.

[1:00:47] >> I pledge allegiance to the

[1:00:49] Flag of the United States of

[1:00:51] America and to the Republic

[1:00:53] for which it stands,

[1:00:55] one nation under God,

[1:00:56] indivisible,

[1:00:57] with liberty and justice

[1:00:58] for all.

[1:01:08] >> Moving on to the approval

[1:01:09] of the agenda. If there are no

[1:01:10] objections,

[1:01:12] the agenda will be approved.

[1:01:13] Hearing none. The agenda is

[1:01:17] approved as presented. Next, we

[1:01:20] have public comment which is

[1:01:21] designed for you to share your

[1:01:22] thoughts and concerns

[1:01:23] with city council. But it's not

[1:01:24] an interactive discussion. If

[1:01:26] you're attending tonight's

[1:01:27] meeting virtually and would

[1:01:28] like

[1:01:29] to give general public comment,

[1:01:30] please sign up

[1:01:32] by taking your name and address

[1:01:33] into the chat feature. If you

[1:01:34] called

[1:01:35] into tonight's meeting,

[1:01:36] the clerk will recognize you

[1:01:38] by the last four digits

[1:01:39] of your phone number. We ask

[1:01:40] that the chat feature only be

[1:01:41] used to sign up

[1:01:43] to give public comment. Clerk

[1:01:48] Duffy, do we have anyone signed

[1:01:49] up this evening?

[1:01:50] >> We do have individuals

[1:01:51] signed up

[1:01:52] for public comment.

[1:01:53] >> Okay, let me give a few more

[1:01:54] instructions then

[1:01:55] for our public comment. When

[1:01:56] the clerk recognizes you,

[1:01:57] please start

[1:02:01] with your name and address.

[1:02:02] For the record, there's a

[1:02:04] three-minute time limit for

[1:02:06] individuals and a five-minute

[1:02:07] time limit for anyone

[1:02:08] representing a group. Again,

[1:02:09] although the format for public

[1:02:11] comment does not allow

[1:02:12] for an interactive dialogue

[1:02:13] with council, we do listen and

[1:02:15] we really do value your voice

[1:02:17] and what you have

[1:02:18] to say this evening. So, Clerk

[1:02:19] nephew, please call the first

[1:02:20] person.

[1:02:24] >> Certainly. Gretchen Coyle,

[1:02:26] if you will approach the

[1:02:27] microphone and start

[1:02:28] with your name and address

[1:02:29] for the record, please.

[1:02:44] >> Gretchen Coyle, 7389

[1:02:47] Timber Stone Street, Calvin.

[1:02:50] Started. Jeff. Right.

[1:02:51] >> My name.

[1:02:53] >> Your time has started.

[1:02:54] >> Mayor Engerman and City

[1:02:56] Council. I'm a member of PAT

[1:02:58] People Against Annexing

[1:02:59] Crowsnest. I am sure you are

[1:03:02] familiar with our group as you

[1:03:03] have read our letters and heard

[1:03:04] our members speak

[1:03:06] at your meetings. Our group is

[1:03:07] over several hundred strong,

[1:03:08] keeps growing every day and

[1:03:10] includes residents

[1:03:11] from all parts of Castle

[1:03:13] Pines. One

[1:03:16] of the guiding principles

[1:03:17] of PAT is transparency. And it

[1:03:18] is in this spirit that I want

[1:03:21] council to know that since

[1:03:24] October 2025, when the

[1:03:25] Crowsnest developer brought

[1:03:28] their first annexation petition

[1:03:30] to the city, the public's

[1:03:31] perception is that the council

[1:03:33] has already made their decision

[1:03:34] and the annexation process is

[1:03:35] just a formality. This has led

[1:03:37] many citizens to lose trust

[1:03:38] in the council and to believe

[1:03:39] that you are not acting

[1:03:40] in their best interest, but

[1:03:42] rather are acting the best

[1:03:43] interest of the developer.

[1:03:44] Resolution 2623 has not helped

[1:03:46] to diminish these feelings,

[1:03:47] but to exasperate,

[1:03:48] exacerbate them. Because the

[1:03:49] language

[1:03:51] of the resolution is favorable

[1:03:52] to the Crowsnest developer. We

[1:03:53] would like

[1:03:54] to acknowledge and thank the

[1:03:55] Council

[1:03:57] for recognizing the need

[1:03:58] for an annexation policy. We

[1:04:01] want to work in partnership

[1:04:04] with the city. However, we

[1:04:05] cannot accept Resolution 26, 23

[1:04:06] as it is currently written. We

[1:04:07] specifically ask that

[1:04:09] paragraphs 5 and 6, which are

[1:04:10] highlighted

[1:04:11] in yellow and crossed out

[1:04:12] in red, be removed

[1:04:14] from the resolution. Why?

[1:04:21] Because one,

[1:04:22] by including the language

[1:04:23] in these two paragraphs, it

[1:04:25] reinforces the public's

[1:04:26] perception that the withdrawal

[1:04:30] of the Crowsnest petition is

[1:04:35] merely temporary with an

[1:04:37] already predetermined outcome,

[1:04:38] the annexation of Crow's

[1:04:40] Nest. And two, the inclusion of

[1:04:42] the two paragraphs is very

[1:04:44] suspicious as they are

[1:04:45] Superfluous to resolution

[1:04:47] 26, 23. Why include them? As the

[1:04:49] language is not benign,

[1:04:52] but rather beneficial to the

[1:04:56] Crowsnest developer for when he

[1:04:58] submits his third annexation

[1:04:59] petition. Council,

[1:05:01] before you vote on resolution

[1:05:05] 26, 23 later this evening, we

[1:05:07] ask that you remove paragraph

[1:05:09] five and six. If you do not

[1:05:10] remove them,

[1:05:14] then I respectfully asked

[1:05:15] on behalf of everyone in this

[1:05:20] room and our online audience,

[1:05:21] that during your discussion

[1:05:22] of Resolution 26, 23, each

[1:05:24] council member publicly answer

[1:05:25] this question. Why are you

[1:05:27] unwilling to remove paragraphs

[1:05:28] five and six? Thank you.

[1:05:38] >> Thank you. Next speaker.

[1:05:40] >> May I approach the desk and

[1:05:41] give hand up, please?

[1:05:42] >> You can leave them to me and

[1:05:43] I will pass them out.

[1:05:44] >> Lisa woods, if you'd like

[1:05:45] to approach the podium.

[1:05:47] >> Yes.

[1:05:48] >> And start with your name and

[1:05:49] address for the record,

[1:05:50] please.

[1:05:52] >> Absolutely.

[1:05:54] >> Hi, Lisa Woods. I live at

[1:05:55] 6639 Barnstead Drive and I am a

[1:05:58] six-year resident of Castle

[1:05:59] Pines. So good evening, mayor

[1:06:01] and city councilmembers. I'm

[1:06:02] here today to ask that you

[1:06:03] extend the timeline

[1:06:05] for the development

[1:06:07] of a draft annexation policy

[1:06:09] from 90 days to at least 120

[1:06:11] days before it comes back

[1:06:12] to you for A vote that

[1:06:14] additional time matters

[1:06:19] for three key reasons. Number

[1:06:21] one,

[1:06:23] it stops the unnecessary rush

[1:06:24] like we just had with the

[1:06:27] Crowsnest annexation and a

[1:06:28] compressed timeline that

[1:06:29] disadvantages residents

[1:06:31] in the process. Number two,

[1:06:33] it allows for more robust data

[1:06:35] collection and more meaningful

[1:06:37] input from residents. And

[1:06:38] number three,

[1:06:40] it gives the public enough time

[1:06:41] to become educated

[1:06:43] on the issue, review the draft

[1:06:44] policy and provide thoughtful

[1:06:45] feedback before any final

[1:06:47] decision is made. Also, from my

[1:06:49] public service experience, I

[1:06:54] know effective policy

[1:06:55] development depends on

[1:06:57] consistent intentional

[1:06:58] engagement and education

[1:06:59] with those most affected,

[1:07:01] which is also essential to

[1:07:02] building trust and

[1:07:03] strengthening community.

[1:07:05] On that note, I also ask you

[1:07:11] to go beyond only a third-party

[1:07:12] survey and offer three

[1:07:13] suggestions

[1:07:14] to more fully partner

[1:07:15] with residents. Number one,

[1:07:17] hold open forums, such as town

[1:07:19] halls that are accessible and

[1:07:21] welcoming, where residents can

[1:07:23] have real two-way conversations

[1:07:24] with you. Our elected officials

[1:07:25] use this time

[1:07:29] to engage and educate with us

[1:07:31] in dialogue so we all better

[1:07:35] understand one another and this

[1:07:37] policy. Number two, of course

[1:07:42] council members will connect

[1:07:43] directly with their

[1:07:45] constituents and I and other

[1:07:47] Canyon's residents,

[1:07:48] look forward to conversations

[1:07:50] with Councilmembers Winegar and

[1:07:52] Blue. Number three,

[1:07:53] give residents

[1:07:54] at least two weeks

[1:07:55] to review and respond to the

[1:07:56] draft policy via written and

[1:07:57] public comment and well

[1:07:58] before a final vote. This

[1:07:59] annexation policy will shape

[1:08:00] the future of Castle Pines

[1:08:02] for years and decades

[1:08:03] to come,

[1:08:05] which is why it's so important

[1:08:07] to slow down enough to get it

[1:08:09] right and let all voices be

[1:08:10] heard. So, in closing,

[1:08:12] I ask again the City Council

[1:08:14] to extend the timeline to

[1:08:17] at least 120 days and

[1:08:19] to expand opportunities for

[1:08:20] public input that will ensure a

[1:08:27] process that is more

[1:08:28] thoughtful, more transparent,

[1:08:29] and truly reflective

[1:08:32] of our community.

[1:08:35] >> Thank you very much

[1:08:36] for your consideration and time

[1:08:37] to speak. Thank you. Any

[1:08:38] further speakers? Donna Cook,

[1:08:40] if you would like

[1:08:41] to complete, you can start

[1:08:42] with your name and address.

[1:08:43] For the record, please.

[1:08:47] >> George Lava Club, 7316

[1:08:48] Canyon Sky Trail. Good evening,

[1:08:49] Mayor Engerman, members of

[1:08:51] council and fellow residents.

[1:08:52] It is our understanding that

[1:08:55] you truly want to hear what

[1:08:56] Castle Pines residents want

[1:08:57] in our future annexations. And

[1:08:58] then, once resolution 26, 23

[1:09:02] passes, the city will begin

[1:09:04] gathering community input,

[1:09:05] primarily through surveys,

[1:09:06] to help shape that new policy.

[1:09:07] Council many residents felt

[1:09:09] that the city was already

[1:09:10] strongly inclined

[1:09:12] to approve the Crowsnest 5

[1:09:14] ball annexation despite

[1:09:15] widespread community

[1:09:17] opposition. For that reason,

[1:09:18] there is a deep concern that

[1:09:20] this new annexation policy

[1:09:21] could be used to fast track

[1:09:23] similar future proposals. Once

[1:09:24] adopted, developers could

[1:09:26] simply claim projects meet the

[1:09:27] criteria,

[1:09:36] effectively shutting the public

[1:09:38] out of any further meaningful

[1:09:40] input. Therefore, as a part

[1:09:42] of this process, we

[1:09:43] respectfully ask that you

[1:09:44] include a clear educational

[1:09:46] component when gathering

[1:09:47] feedback from the residents.

[1:09:48] Many residents are not as

[1:09:52] familiar with technical terms

[1:09:54] such as flagpole, annexation,

[1:09:56] 1, 6, consecutuity, density or

[1:09:57] even our three-mile plan. It's

[1:09:59] essential that the city clearly

[1:10:00] explain these terms and the

[1:10:05] long-term impacts as a part

[1:10:06] of the data collection process.

[1:10:08] In addition, we ask that the

[1:10:11] data gathering involves as many

[1:10:12] Castle Pines residents as

[1:10:14] possible through town halls and

[1:10:15] genuine dialogue,

[1:10:17] not just surveys. And that

[1:10:21] at the draft stage, the

[1:10:22] community has that opportunity

[1:10:24] to review and comment

[1:10:25] on the draft policy, their

[1:10:27] concerns heard and discussed

[1:10:28] before it's finalized. So,

[1:10:30] in sum, council members, here

[1:10:34] are four clear actions that we

[1:10:35] kindly ask you to consider.

[1:10:36] Direct the staff to include a

[1:10:38] strong educational component

[1:10:39] in their outreach to the city

[1:10:41] so that every resident

[1:10:42] understands the key terms and

[1:10:43] the long-term implications.

[1:10:45] Two, commit to multiple forms

[1:10:47] of engagement, including town

[1:10:53] halls and focus groups

[1:10:55] in addition to the surveys.

[1:10:56] Three, extend the timeline

[1:10:57] beyond 90 days

[1:10:59] for whatever time it takes to

[1:11:01] do this data gathering

[1:11:02] properly. And four,

[1:11:04] bring the draft policy back

[1:11:05] to the public

[1:11:06] for review and input

[1:11:07] before your final adoption.

[1:11:09] Thank you very much

[1:11:11] for your time this evening.

[1:11:13] >> Thank you. Any additional

[1:11:15] speakers? We do have two more.

[1:11:16] Brigitte Landstrom, if you

[1:11:18] would like to come

[1:11:19] to the podium, start

[1:11:20] with your name and address

[1:11:21] for the record, please.

[1:11:22] >> Hello Council. Thank you

[1:11:23] very much

[1:11:28] for giving me this time.

[1:11:29] >> My name is Brigette Foley

[1:11:30] Lanstrom, 7325 Castle Canyon

[1:11:31] Sky Trail. Nervous Apologies. I

[1:11:32] am here because I care

[1:11:33] about our community. I care

[1:11:35] about where we live. I'm

[1:11:36] invested

[1:11:37] in keeping it safe. I am here

[1:11:40] to ask you

[1:11:41] for this resolution and for all

[1:11:42] future resolutions that involve

[1:11:43] development to include language

[1:11:45] that protects our environment.

[1:11:46] I for one am tired of seeing

[1:11:48] the developers bury miles and

[1:11:51] miles of plastic

[1:11:56] underneath our canyons. And I

[1:11:57] know you all know about this

[1:11:58] because this is not the first

[1:11:59] nor the second time it's been

[1:12:01] brought up to the council. We

[1:12:02] need to start caring about our

[1:12:04] community or nobody else will.

[1:12:05] And you are the only ones that

[1:12:17] stand in between the developers

[1:12:18] burying miles and miles. I'm

[1:12:20] not exaggerating. Of trash and

[1:12:22] keeping our canyons and our

[1:12:24] community and our wildlife

[1:12:26] flourishing. So please consider

[1:12:27] that for this and all future

[1:12:29] proposals to actually have

[1:12:32] language that protects our

[1:12:35] environment and standards that

[1:12:36] the that the public agrees to.

[1:12:38] Thank you.

[1:12:44] >> Thank you. Our next speaker,

[1:12:47] Jane Bylenberg, if you would

[1:12:48] come to the podium and start

[1:12:49] with your name and address

[1:12:50] for the record.

[1:12:57] >> Jane Bielenberg, 1025 Dear

[1:12:58] Clover Way Mayor and Council. I

[1:13:00] want to read something

[1:13:02] to you that was shared in the

[1:13:03] Denver Post. This is not

[1:13:05] about Crowsnest. This is in

[1:13:06] El Paso County referencing

[1:13:08] similar situations and similar

[1:13:10] concerns. And it's regarding

[1:13:12] the boundaries and what is

[1:13:13] being done there.

[1:13:14] The residents of Tri Lakes

[1:13:16] area have reached a breaking

[1:13:18] point.

[1:13:20] Despite overwhelming

[1:13:21] documented opposition, the El

[1:13:22] Paso County Board of

[1:13:25] Commissioners continues to

[1:13:27] facilitate a land use process

[1:13:28] that effectively treats the

[1:13:30] community as an obstacle to be

[1:13:31] bypassed rather than a

[1:13:32] stakeholder to be heard.

[1:13:34] By allowing developers such as

[1:13:35] Vertex corporations such as BUC

[1:13:36] EE's to exploit administrative

[1:13:41] loopholes such as the recent

[1:13:44] boundary line adjustment, the

[1:13:52] county is signaling that deep

[1:13:56] pocketed developers dictate the

[1:13:57] future of Monument Hill, not

[1:13:59] the people that actually live

[1:14:02] there. Residents are rightly

[1:14:07] furious that their voices are

[1:14:09] systematically marginalized by

[1:14:11] a process that grants the

[1:14:12] applicant extensive time and

[1:14:14] resources while limiting

[1:14:16] community input

[1:14:17] to mere three-minute snippets.

[1:14:18] The consequences

[1:14:20] of this project, ranging

[1:14:21] from water depletion,

[1:14:22] traffic congestion to permanent

[1:14:24] environmental degradation,

[1:14:25] will be borne by those

[1:14:26] in the immediate vicinity. Yet

[1:14:27] the current system ignores this

[1:14:30] reality. Members

[1:14:31] of the community are tired

[1:14:33] of the charade. They're

[1:14:34] demanding structural reforms

[1:14:35] including equal presentation

[1:14:36] time for citizen groups and the

[1:14:38] integration of prior records

[1:14:39] to stop this reset to zero the

[1:14:40] cycle that protects the

[1:14:42] corporate interests

[1:14:43] at the expense

[1:14:44] of local sovereignty. The

[1:14:46] message

[1:14:47] to the board is clear.

[1:14:49] Citizens versus developers.

[1:14:50] Theodore Roosevelt once said,

[1:14:51] the government is us. We are

[1:14:53] the government, you and I. A

[1:14:56] government that prioritizes the

[1:14:59] convenience of a corporation

[1:15:00] over the voice of its citizens

[1:15:02] has forgotten its primary duty

[1:15:03] as elected officials. We do not

[1:15:05] exist to accommodate a

[1:15:06] developer site plan. The

[1:15:07] developer exists to operate

[1:15:49] within the community we have

[1:15:50] built. I couldn't have said it

[1:15:52] better,

[1:15:54] so I copied it. I thank you

[1:15:55] for your time. I thank you

[1:15:57] for your consideration. It

[1:15:58] really. We're not. We're your

[1:15:59] community. I mean we. We voted

[1:16:03] you in to protect us and

[1:16:05] to look out for us. And there's

[1:16:09] a lot of issues, you know,

[1:16:10] water, sewer, electrical

[1:16:13] traffic, environment, animals.

[1:16:16] I've only been here four years,

[1:16:18] but I've been a licensed

[1:16:20] realtor since 1990. I moved

[1:16:23] people here when it was

[1:16:25] nothing. They moved here

[1:16:27] for the outdoors, the beauty,

[1:16:30] all of it. And it's development

[1:16:31] has just engulfed us. I know

[1:16:33] that some has to happen, but I

[1:16:35] just respectfully ask your

[1:16:37] consideration

[1:16:41] in going forward. Thank you.

[1:16:46] >> Thank you. Do we have any

[1:16:47] additional speakers? We have no

[1:16:48] further person signed up this

[1:16:49] evening. Thank you very much.

[1:16:50] All right, we are going

[1:16:51] to move on to our next item

[1:16:54] on our agenda,

[1:16:57] which is the presentation

[1:16:58] of our minutes. Are there any

[1:16:59] corrections to the minutes

[1:17:00] from the March 10, 2026, City

[1:17:02] Council meeting hearing none.

[1:17:07] >> The minutes are approved as

[1:17:08] presented. Next is our consent

[1:17:09] agenda. Tonight's consent

[1:17:10] agenda is Resolution 26 to

[1:17:15] 20, which approves an

[1:17:17] intergovernmental agreement

[1:17:18] between the Urban Drainage and

[1:17:19] Flood Control District doing

[1:17:20] business as Mile High Flood

[1:17:22] District in the city of

[1:17:23] Castle Pines regarding City

[1:17:24] of Castle Pines stream

[1:17:25] condition assessment and

[1:17:26] project prioritization.

[1:17:28] Resolution 26 21, which awards a

[1:17:29] bid in approving a construction

[1:17:30] contract with EDWC Levy Co

[1:17:31] doing business as Schmidt

[1:17:33] Construction Company for the

[1:17:34] 2026 pavement maintenance

[1:17:36] program. 2026-PW-003. And our

[1:17:41] last resolution is 26 22, which

[1:17:42] approves agreement

[1:17:43] with services and equipment

[1:17:44] between the City of Castle

[1:17:46] Pines and Barricade holdings

[1:17:47] LLC, doing business as

[1:17:52] Colorado Barricade Co for on

[1:17:54] call striping and pavement

[1:18:05] marking services. May I have a

[1:18:07] motion

[1:18:10] for the items I can send,

[1:18:12] please? I move

[1:18:13] to approve items

[1:18:15] on consent agenda.

[1:18:16] >> Second.

[1:18:18] >> A motion and a second.

[1:18:19] Please call the vote.

[1:18:20] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]

[1:18:35] >> The motion passes.

[1:18:38] >> Thank you. All right,

[1:18:39] moving on

[1:18:41] to our general business. The

[1:18:42] first item

[1:18:43] on general business this

[1:18:45] Evening is Resolution 26, a

[1:18:46] resolution of the City Council

[1:18:47] of the City of Castle Pines,

[1:18:48] Colorado concerning the

[1:18:49] development of an annexation

[1:18:50] and policy imposing a stay on

[1:18:53] future annexation applications

[1:18:54] and accepting the withdrawal

[1:18:55] of the annexation petition

[1:18:57] for properties known as

[1:18:58] Crow's Nest annexation.

[1:18:59] At the 2026 City Council

[1:19:01] retreat, Council discussed the

[1:19:06] need for an updated annexation

[1:19:07] policy that lays the framework

[1:19:09] for council's vision

[1:19:11] of the city's future. This

[1:19:12] resolution directs staff

[1:19:14] to create for policy which will

[1:19:15] be approved by council

[1:19:16] at a later date.

[1:19:17] Additionally, this resolution

[1:19:19] accepts the letter received

[1:19:20] on March 19, which withdraw the

[1:19:21] application for the Crowsnest

[1:19:25] annexation petition. May I have

[1:19:31] a motion to begin discussion

[1:19:32] on this, Mayor?

[1:19:34] >> I don't know if you want to.

[1:19:35] May I add in either

[1:19:37] before or after. When would you

[1:19:38] like me to. I had a couple

[1:19:39] comments.

[1:19:41] >> Okay.

[1:19:42] >> Yes, please.

[1:19:43] >> Okay.

[1:19:44] >> Now would be their

[1:19:45] appropriate time.

[1:19:46] >> Okay. So, I wanted

[1:19:47] to address some

[1:19:48] of the comments

[1:19:49] since they're related

[1:19:51] to staff action in there. So,

[1:19:52] as the mayor said,

[1:19:54] this occurred

[1:19:55] during the council meeting.

[1:19:58] And just

[1:19:59] from a process standpoint, the

[1:20:00] withdrawal letter is contingent

[1:20:01] on council approving this

[1:20:06] resolution this evening

[1:20:08] for the Crowsnest annexation.

[1:20:09] We can,

[1:20:11] and these are not necessarily

[1:20:12] in the order of the comments,

[1:20:14] but there's certainly no issue

[1:20:15] from a staff perspective

[1:20:17] to extend the line to 120 days.

[1:20:19] The intent

[1:20:20] in the draft resolution was

[1:20:21] to convey what I took away

[1:20:23] from the council retreat,

[1:20:24] which was this is a priority.

[1:20:25] And not to bring it back in

[1:20:26] 2028 or 2027, but

[1:20:28] to get this done as a component

[1:20:29] of all the other updates that

[1:20:30] we're doing this year,

[1:20:35] but shifting to 120 or 180

[1:20:37] days,

[1:20:38] we'll get it done sooner.

[1:20:39] Obviously. No issue there.

[1:20:41] Just want to be clear that

[1:20:43] under no circumstances does an

[1:20:45] annexation policy override the

[1:20:46] state statute, and the state

[1:20:48] statute still requires all of

[1:20:50] the conditions that the council

[1:20:54] went through before. So should

[1:20:56] there be another annexation

[1:20:57] application anywhere

[1:20:59] around the city, all

[1:21:01] of those conditions still have

[1:21:02] to be met. The purpose of.

[1:21:04] Sorry, paragraphs 5 and 6 were

[1:21:05] I used the Crowsnest annexation

[1:21:12] property language in there. I

[1:21:14] don't know that it's ultimately

[1:21:16] necessary, but the intent was

[1:21:17] to acknowledge, as you look at

[1:21:19] the development that's moving

[1:21:20] up from the north through the

[1:21:21] Canta and the development

[1:21:23] that's moving south. And there

[1:21:24] is not any open space property

[1:21:25] within in any of this area.

[1:21:26] This is all owned

[1:21:49] by private property owners.

[1:21:50] So, whether they're LLCs or

[1:21:51] individuals or whatever that

[1:21:52] might be. So those two

[1:21:54] paragraphs, which are could

[1:21:55] argue are a little bit

[1:21:56] redundant, are really

[1:21:57] to imply, with the actions that

[1:21:58] the council had taken

[1:22:00] to date, acknowledging whether

[1:22:01] annexations happen or not,

[1:22:02] or it gets developed in the

[1:22:04] county or it gets developed

[1:22:05] in as part of Castle Rock or

[1:22:06] Barker, that this area

[1:22:07] between south or west Parker

[1:22:08] and north Castle Rock, if you

[1:22:09] will, over time will ultimately

[1:22:11] get developed. So that's the

[1:22:13] intent

[1:22:14] of those two paragraphs. So,

[1:22:15] whether you want to keep those

[1:22:16] in ultimately or not,

[1:22:17] that was the intent. It really

[1:22:18] wasn't intended to. It

[1:22:21] certainly wasn't intended

[1:22:22] to be an open door for Crows

[1:22:23] nest. But because that's the

[1:22:24] language we would use, I use

[1:22:26] Crowsnest annexation

[1:22:27] properties

[1:22:29] in surrounding areas. So just

[1:22:31] so council understands the

[1:22:32] intent in there and then we

[1:22:33] certainly can do and we have

[1:22:37] not discussed the outreach

[1:22:40] because council hasn't approved

[1:22:42] the resolution.

[1:22:43] But if you do, one of the first

[1:22:44] things we will do is sit down

[1:22:45] and staff and develop what that

[1:22:46] outreach looks like.

[1:22:47] But I don't see anything

[1:22:48] in any of the comments tonight

[1:22:49] or requests, if you will, that

[1:22:52] are things we wouldn't have

[1:22:54] normally included

[1:22:57] in our public outreach process.

[1:22:58] So, I think council can rest

[1:22:59] assured we can meet those,

[1:23:00] especially around the education

[1:23:01] piece because it's hard

[1:23:02] to ask people about things that

[1:23:03] they don't understand. And so

[1:23:06] that education has to come

[1:23:08] before any kind of outreach

[1:23:09] that's there. I think those

[1:23:11] were the things I wanted

[1:23:12] to add in there. So, thank you.

[1:23:14] >> Appreciate that.

[1:23:16] Before we have a motion,

[1:23:17] council members, do any

[1:23:19] of you have any questions

[1:23:20] for staff about the Council

[1:23:21] Member Mulvey?

[1:23:24] >> I do appreciate that you

[1:23:25] shared that you drafted this.

[1:23:26] I'm going to put this. Will you

[1:23:27] agree

[1:23:29] to set up regular town halls

[1:23:39] for the districts? We've asked

[1:23:41] for it before. I know you've

[1:23:47] done it

[1:23:48] for district one a couple

[1:23:50] of times. Would you. Do we have

[1:23:51] the resources

[1:23:52] to really do that on a regular

[1:23:53] basis where we have that one

[1:23:54] on one?

[1:23:58] >> I don't want to commit to

[1:23:59] that right now because I can't

[1:24:00] answer that question.

[1:24:02] >> Okay.

[1:24:03] >> Because it depends

[1:24:04] on how much. And I would say

[1:24:05] that that can be a separate

[1:24:06] conversation outside

[1:24:07] of this resolution. Because

[1:24:10] you're talking. I assume what

[1:24:11] you're asking is

[1:24:13] on an ongoing regular basis.

[1:24:14] Certainly,

[1:24:15] on the occasional one we can.

[1:24:17] But as you know,

[1:24:18] we have limited staff,

[1:24:19] so it's just a matter

[1:24:20] of putting them together.

[1:24:21] But if there was interest

[1:24:22] by other districts

[1:24:24] to have those meetings,

[1:24:25] we can facilitate those

[1:24:26] on a kind of as needed basis.

[1:24:27] But I'd be cautious

[1:24:28] on a regular and ongoing. Just

[1:24:29] because our communication staff

[1:24:32] who put those together aren't

[1:24:34] here for. And I have to talk

[1:24:35] to them about them.

[1:24:39] >> I'll reserve my comment

[1:24:40] on that for later, but the

[1:24:41] reluctance is concerning.

[1:24:43] Thank you. I have a question

[1:24:46] just about outreach,

[1:24:48] because I'm just kind

[1:24:49] of getting an idea of. We did

[1:24:50] the town halls recent. Not town

[1:24:52] halls, I'm sorry,

[1:24:53] the open houses recently. And

[1:24:55] that was driven by the economic

[1:24:56] development that's happening

[1:24:58] and just some other updates

[1:24:59] that we're ready to do. Yeah.

[1:25:00] Like we're going to have an

[1:25:01] open house coming up that

[1:25:03] canyon interchange. Focus

[1:25:04] solely on that. So, there are

[1:25:06] kind of topics specific.

[1:25:07] >> And then when we did the

[1:25:09] parks outreach,

[1:25:10] I'm just trying to get an idea

[1:25:11] of like sequencing. Like how

[1:25:12] often do we do them?

[1:25:13] >> How. I mean,

[1:25:15] are they twice targeted

[1:25:16] on specific topics? Right.

[1:25:17] So, we need them to not.

[1:25:18] >> No, it's more as an admin as

[1:25:19] needed. So, the Happy Canyon,

[1:25:20] if you allow me of that,

[1:25:21] as that example is we wanted

[1:25:23] to get Barna through the CDOT

[1:25:24] and FHWA process,

[1:25:25] the one we had in open house.

[1:25:27] We had confidence that the

[1:25:28] approvals were there and it was

[1:25:29] timely. But

[1:25:31] before construction started

[1:25:32] type of thing. So, it's

[1:25:33] intended to be. That one's

[1:25:34] intended

[1:25:36] to be an educational one,

[1:25:37] not a feedback loop. Something

[1:25:38] like this. We would put

[1:25:40] together an overall feedback

[1:25:46] loop. And as was suggested,

[1:25:47] obviously once there's a draft,

[1:25:50] you want to put that out

[1:25:55] for a period

[1:25:57] of time so people can respond

[1:25:59] to it. But we don't have any

[1:26:00] similarity. Council Member

[1:26:05] Mulvey's question. We don't have

[1:26:06] any standard ongoing schedules

[1:26:07] and that goes for our

[1:26:09] communication other than the

[1:26:10] council post council meetings,

[1:26:12] pre council meeting things that

[1:26:14] we do a lot of. That's again

[1:26:15] just a staffing level issue.

[1:26:17] >> I'm not talking about

[1:26:18] ongoing.

[1:26:19] >> I know we've done them

[1:26:20] targeted towards like we need

[1:26:21] the parking outreach. We did

[1:26:22] the economic development

[1:26:24] outreach idea of

[1:26:25] like do they tend to happen

[1:26:26] within three months? I don't

[1:26:27] know if there's any sort

[1:26:29] of timeline.

[1:26:32] >> No, there's not. This one

[1:26:33] would be really time to. If

[1:26:34] council moves it to,

[1:26:37] for example, 120 days. We would

[1:26:38] sit down with the communication

[1:26:41] staff and the community

[1:26:42] development staff and look

[1:26:43] at overall workload, whether

[1:26:45] what other things are already

[1:26:46] on the plate and what are we

[1:26:48] building the timelines

[1:26:51] for those Are there,

[1:26:52] are there. There's an

[1:26:53] educational piece and there's,

[1:26:55] you know, survey outreach piece

[1:26:56] and there's a feedback loop

[1:26:59] piece and lay

[1:27:00] out the entire timeline

[1:27:01] for that, which is typically

[1:27:02] what communications does

[1:27:03] on any of these problems. Does

[1:27:04] that help?

[1:27:07] >> Yes.

[1:27:08] >> Thank you,

[1:27:09] council member.

[1:27:10] >> Thank you, Mayor.

[1:27:11] >> Actually, this is directly

[1:27:12] to Clerk Duffy. If I want

[1:27:13] to move on this resolution

[1:27:15] with a couple

[1:27:18] of friendly amendments. Do we

[1:27:20] have to have a. We have to have

[1:27:21] a. A motion first or can I make

[1:27:23] the friendly amendments as part

[1:27:24] of it?

[1:27:26] >> You could make the motion

[1:27:27] with the amendments to the

[1:27:28] suggest if I just gave you guys

[1:27:30] a cheat sheet because there's,

[1:27:31] you know, no slides tonight

[1:27:32] on this item. But yeah,

[1:27:33] and we could definitely,

[1:27:34] if you needed me

[1:27:35] to help you decide,

[1:27:37] you have to. The mayor could

[1:27:38] call.

[1:27:41] >> Let's give it a try first.

[1:27:42] >> Okay.

[1:27:43] >> Mayor, am I okay

[1:27:44] to make a motion?

[1:27:45] >> Let me make sure there's no

[1:27:46] other further questions.

[1:27:47] They'll come back together.

[1:27:48] Are there any other questions

[1:27:49] for staff?

[1:27:50] >> Not a question.

[1:27:52] >> But just with the town hall

[1:27:53] versus just meeting

[1:27:57] with constituents like myself

[1:27:58] in District 3

[1:27:59] with Council Member Blue.

[1:28:00] There's no limit to that. So,

[1:28:02] we can continue to meet

[1:28:04] with community, gather

[1:28:05] information, bring that back

[1:28:06] and that's something I would

[1:28:07] commit

[1:28:09] to multiple times outside

[1:28:10] of the structure,

[1:28:11] the funnel structure.

[1:28:14] >> Absolutely agree. Yeah.

[1:28:15] Thanks.

[1:28:16] >> Curiosity question. Should

[1:28:18] we go for a true city form,

[1:28:19] meaning we don't have a

[1:28:20] facility

[1:28:24] to handle something?

[1:28:26] >> No, we would break it up

[1:28:27] into similar to what we do.

[1:28:28] We'd have probably something in

[1:28:30] here if we could get the room.

[1:28:31] If it continues beyond. I can't

[1:28:33] say I've done the math. But

[1:28:34] beyond July, we've got the

[1:28:36] community center. We can

[1:28:42] certainly use that the Canyon

[1:28:44] house and the exchange. So, I

[1:28:45] mean that that is part of the

[1:28:47] overall planning is where is

[1:28:49] there space available for us

[1:28:50] to hold different meetings.

[1:28:55] >> So, thank you. So, is it

[1:28:59] reasonable to assume that we

[1:29:00] could probably do the same type

[1:29:01] of outreach and education and

[1:29:02] focus groups that we did

[1:29:03] for the parks of Rec update?

[1:29:04] Maybe not for the length of

[1:29:06] time because this is one topic,

[1:29:07] not as broad of a topic but.

[1:29:09] But those opportunities.

[1:29:12] >> I think council can be

[1:29:15] comfortable that this would be

[1:29:16] a robust public engagement.

[1:29:17] >> All right. Any further

[1:29:18] questions? All right.

[1:29:19] >> Councilor Eubanks, you would

[1:29:23] like to make your motion and if

[1:29:24] we need to, we can always take

[1:29:25] a break too.

[1:29:33] >> Thank you. A resolution. I'm

[1:29:35] sorry, Mayor. I move to

[1:29:37] Approve resolution number

[1:29:38] 26-23, a resolution

[1:29:40] of the city council

[1:29:42] of the City of Castle Pines,

[1:29:43] Colorado concerning the

[1:29:45] development of an annexation

[1:29:46] policy imposing a stay on

[1:29:47] future annexation applications

[1:29:48] and accepting the withdrawal

[1:29:49] of the annexation petition for

[1:29:51] properties known as cronies

[1:29:53] annexation

[1:29:54] with the following amendments.

[1:29:56] Remove the following two

[1:29:57] paragraphs. Whereas the city

[1:29:58] council recognizes that the

[1:30:00] proposed Crowsnest annexation

[1:30:01] properties and surrounding

[1:30:03] areas will be urbanized and

[1:30:05] deposited developed

[1:30:08] in the future as illustrated by

[1:30:09] the surrounding development

[1:30:10] adjacent to Crowfoot Valley

[1:30:11] Road within the town of Parker

[1:30:15] and town of Castle Rock.

[1:30:17] Second paragraph I would like

[1:30:18] to amend to be removed is

[1:30:19] whereas the city council finds

[1:30:20] that designation of the

[1:30:22] Crowsnest annexation property

[1:30:23] for urban development is an

[1:30:24] appropriate and logistical.

[1:30:25] Sorry. Logical expansion of the

[1:30:27] area growth patterns can be

[1:30:29] developed

[1:30:30] in a compatible manner with

[1:30:31] surrounding land uses reflects

[1:30:33] the changing conditions

[1:30:34] in the area north of Douglas

[1:30:36] County and can be appropriately

[1:30:37] developed through future

[1:30:39] detailed review and phasing.

[1:30:40] And the last amendment I would

[1:30:41] propose would be

[1:30:42] to change the day

[1:30:44] from the draft

[1:30:45] for the city council

[1:30:47] from 90-days to 120-days.

[1:30:52] >> Is there a second? Thank

[1:30:54] you. We have a motion and a

[1:30:55] second and an additional second

[1:30:56] just to reemphasize the.

[1:30:57] >> So, Council Member

[1:30:58] Eubanks, we'll go ahead and

[1:31:00] begin discussion

[1:31:01] with you.

[1:31:03] >> Thank you, Mayor. I thought

[1:31:04] for. I'll address the 90-days

[1:31:05] first. When we were

[1:31:06] in our retreat,

[1:31:07] I thought we went through a

[1:31:12] very thoughtful process

[1:31:13] to talk about it and I feared

[1:31:14] that if we limit to 90 days

[1:31:15] things we talked about,

[1:31:17] I think that I feel

[1:31:18] like that's rushing. So, I

[1:31:19] would like to see that 120

[1:31:21] days. As far as the other two

[1:31:23] paragraphs, I won't get into a

[1:31:25] long-detailed explanation, but

[1:31:26] I just don't find them relevant

[1:31:27] for the purpose

[1:31:28] of this resolution.

[1:31:33] >> Council Member Cole,

[1:31:34] Council Member Winegar.

[1:31:36] >> I agree with Council

[1:31:38] Member Eubanks that I do not

[1:31:39] find those necessary for this.

[1:31:40] I would actually say 180-days.

[1:31:42] I know we're at that 120. I

[1:31:44] think we need to take time

[1:31:45] with this. We need to make sure

[1:31:46] that we get this right

[1:31:52] for future endeavors

[1:31:53] with this and to make sure that

[1:31:55] all voices are heard in the

[1:31:56] community. I also know that we

[1:31:57] have time like time frames and

[1:32:00] we have a lot of things

[1:32:02] to do too. So, I would say a

[1:32:03] minimum 120,

[1:32:04] but I'm highly would recommend

[1:32:06] 180 days for this.

[1:32:10] >> And I would just echo that.

[1:32:11] I would agree

[1:32:12] with you. I don't want it

[1:32:14] to be a rush, but we can always

[1:32:15] come back and amend this

[1:32:16] resolution if we feel

[1:32:17] like we don't. We need more

[1:32:18] time. We haven't got everything

[1:32:19] that we're looking for and

[1:32:20] haven't gotten the first the

[1:32:21] participation that we would

[1:32:23] like to see from the community

[1:32:24] that we can also back

[1:32:25] to make a resolution

[1:32:26] to change this

[1:32:28] to extend it past 100.

[1:32:33] >> Additional comments.

[1:32:34] >> Yes please, Councilor

[1:32:35] Mulvey.

[1:32:37] >> So, I actually had this

[1:32:38] conversation beforehand with

[1:32:40] the manager and said we don't

[1:32:41] need a lot of whereas clauses

[1:32:42] in this. And he said I know you

[1:32:44] don't like a lot

[1:32:45] of whereas clauses. And my

[1:32:46] primary reason for that is that

[1:32:48] it gives impression that we're

[1:32:50] making a decision when a

[1:32:52] whereas clause is not binding.

[1:32:53] And all aware as clause does is

[1:32:55] supposed to give you the basis

[1:32:56] for why you're making the

[1:33:04] resolution. And I see duplicity

[1:33:06] in addition

[1:33:08] to what maybe duplicate,

[1:33:10] duplicativeness, circle

[1:33:12] opposite whatever you want

[1:33:13] to call it. But there's

[1:33:15] definitely repetitiveness

[1:33:16] in additional provisions here.

[1:33:17] And it says

[1:33:19] in the seventh one, whereas

[1:33:31] city council establishes a stay

[1:33:33] that's nearly identical to

[1:33:34] Section 2

[1:33:36] in the operative part

[1:33:38] of the resolution. So, my

[1:33:41] suggestion is that we take that

[1:33:43] out because it's duplicative.

[1:33:45] Number eight, the second

[1:33:47] to the last one, says whereas

[1:33:49] city council directs. That's

[1:33:52] nearly identical to Section 1

[1:33:55] in the operative resolution

[1:33:57] language. So, my concern is

[1:34:03] it's technical. We don't need

[1:34:05] to say it twice. It's totally

[1:34:09] ineffective. It's not binding

[1:34:12] at all to say something we're

[1:34:14] taking action

[1:34:15] in a whereas clause. So, I

[1:34:19] would suggest that we take out

[1:34:23] those two as well simply

[1:34:25] because they're complicative

[1:34:26] on a technical basis. The other

[1:34:27] thing I want

[1:34:29] to mention is that, you know,

[1:34:31] we say that it's not a give and

[1:34:34] take for public comment,

[1:34:40] but we had one because Manager

[1:34:42] gave and take answered it.

[1:34:51] So, I'm going to answer it

[1:34:53] because I think it deserves an

[1:34:55] answer. I think that it's not

[1:34:57] so much how much time it takes

[1:35:00] for somebody to draft something

[1:35:03] and give us this thing we want

[1:35:04] to amend, it's how much time we

[1:35:05] spend considering it. And

[1:35:07] that's what I think is most

[1:35:09] important. I also think that if

[1:35:16] we're supposedly growing up as

[1:35:20] a city and making these

[1:35:21] comments

[1:35:23] about how things are going

[1:35:24] to be developed anyway, then we

[1:35:28] should grow up and have town

[1:35:30] halls like other towns do. And

[1:35:31] it doesn't take a lot

[1:35:34] of money or time to schedule

[1:35:35] something where you don't need

[1:35:37] food, you don't need drinks,

[1:35:38] you don't need staff. It's help

[1:35:40] setting up and getting the word

[1:35:41] out for a town hall with a

[1:35:43] particular council member. And

[1:35:45] I would,

[1:35:46] I think I've already given

[1:35:48] in the past years screenshots

[1:35:49] of what other towns do,

[1:35:51] particularly Centennial,

[1:35:52] Aurora. You see them on

[1:35:53] Facebook. The city process

[1:35:54] would not necessarily be needed

[1:35:56] for the logistics of it because

[1:35:57] it's the council that needs

[1:35:58] to engage. It's our commitment

[1:35:59] and it's a different kind

[1:36:01] of thing than our open houses.

[1:36:02] And so we've asked

[1:36:03] for it before. It's been done

[1:36:04] before. I too do them. I did it

[1:36:06] all throughout budget season.

[1:36:07] So I,

[1:36:09] I don't think we're asking

[1:36:10] for a lot to do that. And I'm

[1:36:11] going to withhold any further

[1:36:13] comments and listen

[1:36:14] to my colleagues. Council

[1:36:16] member of Salsa you I actually

[1:36:17] don't have a problem

[1:36:18] with the language of talking

[1:36:20] about Crowsnest and this is

[1:36:21] why, because this is private

[1:36:22] property. They have the. They

[1:36:24] can do whatever they want

[1:36:25] with it. They can go to us,

[1:36:27] they can go to the county,

[1:36:28] they can go to Castle Rock.

[1:36:51] >> But I don't want

[1:36:52] to put a stain on them just

[1:36:53] because we don't want them

[1:36:54] at this point, we're not ready

[1:36:55] for them or we're just not

[1:36:56] right for us or we need time

[1:36:57] to figure out if it's right

[1:36:58] for us. I don't want that

[1:36:59] to look bad

[1:37:01] for the developer. If they want

[1:37:02] to go somewhere else,

[1:37:03] I want them

[1:37:04] to re acknowledge it's going

[1:37:05] to get developed. We hope it

[1:37:06] gets developed properly

[1:37:08] with all the studies and

[1:37:09] in consideration of the

[1:37:12] surrounding areas and the

[1:37:13] community. But again,

[1:37:15] I don't have a problem with the

[1:37:16] language because simply it's

[1:37:21] going to get developed and I

[1:37:23] don't want it to be.

[1:37:45] >> We're the ones, you know,

[1:37:51] making a stain on their

[1:37:54] application because maybe it is

[1:37:55] a good fit in the future

[1:37:57] for someone else. So, I don't

[1:37:58] have a problem. That's all I'm

[1:37:59] saying. I do want the time. I

[1:38:01] do want four or five months

[1:38:02] to go through the process, do

[1:38:05] education,

[1:38:10] make sure community that wants

[1:38:11] to get heard is heard. People

[1:38:12] that have questions can have

[1:38:13] their questions answered. And

[1:38:14] the process is well done.

[1:38:16] >> Thank you, Mary. So, I still

[1:38:17] disagree. If this is

[1:38:18] about a policy

[1:38:19] for annexation, we do not need

[1:38:20] to call out Crowsnest because

[1:38:21] this isn't just a policy for

[1:38:22] Crowsnest. This is a policy

[1:38:24] for the city going forward.

[1:38:25] So, I believe any mention of

[1:38:26] crow's nest is not relevant. I

[1:38:28] have a motion on the table.

[1:38:29] We've had a couple seconds. I'm

[1:38:30] not interested

[1:38:31] in amending my amendment. So,

[1:38:32] if there's someone else who

[1:38:34] would like to make a different

[1:38:35] motion or amend my amendment,

[1:38:36] feel free. If not, I'm ready to

[1:38:37] vote.

[1:38:39] >> I would. I don't know if

[1:38:40] you've just made a motion, but

[1:38:41] I do have another comment.

[1:38:42] >> No, I didn't make a motion.

[1:38:43] >> There's already a motion

[1:38:44] on the table. I go ahead

[1:38:45] with your trouble. Oh, pardon

[1:38:47] y'. All, but there is a motion

[1:38:48] that calls the question. So, I

[1:38:49] just wanted

[1:38:50] to give him the courtesy

[1:38:51] to ask if he was doing that.

[1:38:52] You know, I am astounded

[1:38:53] by the frequency

[1:38:54] with which we have people

[1:38:55] on this dais saying one thing

[1:38:56] in one session and another

[1:38:57] thing in another. One thing

[1:39:03] in executive, one thing

[1:39:05] in the public, one thing

[1:39:06] in one meeting,

[1:39:09] one thing here. It astounds me

[1:39:11] and it infuriates me.

[1:39:19] >> Mayor Point Board, this is

[1:39:20] not.

[1:39:21] >> State your point. Go ahead,

[1:39:22] please state your point.

[1:39:23] >> Council Member Eubanks.

[1:39:25] >> Thanks.

[1:39:27] >> My point is this is a

[1:39:29] conversation

[1:39:30] about this resolution, not

[1:39:31] about disparaging other council

[1:39:32] members.

[1:39:33] >> Your point is well taken.

[1:39:34] >> Council member.

[1:39:36] >> Please keep your comments

[1:39:38] to you and not speaking

[1:39:41] about your colleagues. That is

[1:39:42] what you agree to with our

[1:39:43] decorum and our policies.

[1:39:44] >> Yes, ma'am. Holda and I will

[1:39:45] continue my comment. I for one

[1:39:46] will give a consistent

[1:39:47] statement. Everywhere I am,

[1:39:48] I see in Sterling Ranch

[1:39:50] residents who want one thing

[1:39:51] and people in Solterra,

[1:39:52] unincorporated nearby and

[1:40:04] Roxboro Park wanting another

[1:40:05] thing. And when I go somewhere,

[1:40:07] I hear the same things that

[1:40:08] some of we hear. And I know you

[1:40:10] all hear it too,

[1:40:13] in the public. And you're

[1:40:15] hearing that we have a push and

[1:40:17] a poll about what the community

[1:40:19] should look

[1:40:21] like and what's best

[1:40:22] for everybody. And there should

[1:40:23] be absolutely no limit

[1:40:26] on public comment

[1:40:27] for that.

[1:40:29] >> Again, Mayor Point maybe

[1:40:32] please take a five-minute

[1:40:33] break.

[1:40:34] >> Yes, we can take a tone and

[1:40:36] 10-minute break right now. We

[1:40:37] will come back

[1:40:39] at 7:15. Thank you. I'm sorry if

[1:40:42] you're upset.

[1:41:08] >> [ BREAK ]

[1:45:08] >> All right. Thank

[1:45:10] you everyone

[1:45:11] for your patience. We are going

[1:45:16] to have our meeting. All right,

[1:45:17] Council members,

[1:45:18] we are still have a motion

[1:45:19] on the table. Continue

[1:45:20] discussion. Council Member

[1:45:21] Salazar, call the question.

[1:45:22] >> Excuse me,

[1:45:25] am I cut off? I'm moving on

[1:45:26] because you've been called

[1:45:27] twice out.

[1:45:28] >> So, Council Member Mulvey,

[1:45:29] we have the call the question.

[1:45:31] Is there a second

[1:45:32] to call the question

[1:45:33] about motion and a second

[1:45:34] to call the question. Clerk,

[1:45:35] Deputy, please call the vote.

[1:45:41] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]

[1:45:57] >> The motion passes.

[1:45:59] >> Thank you. All right. We are

[1:46:00] moving on to our final item on

[1:46:02] our general business which is

[1:46:03] the Mayor.

[1:46:05] >> We called the question,

[1:46:06] now we have to call the vote

[1:46:07] on the motion.

[1:46:08] >> Oh, thank you very much.

[1:46:09] >> Yes.

[1:46:10] >> All right. Yes, please.

[1:46:11] >> Look, Duffy. Do I need

[1:46:12] to reread it? Yeah.

[1:46:13] >> Does anyone need it re-read?

[1:46:15] >> No.

[1:46:16] >> With all your. The first

[1:46:17] qualification was that we would

[1:46:19] vote immediately.

[1:46:21] >> And since there was a 2/3

[1:46:23] vote voting on your motion.

[1:46:25] >> Thank you.

[1:46:31] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]

[1:46:41] >> The motion passes.

[1:46:44] >> Thank you very much. All

[1:46:46] right. Now we will move on

[1:46:47] to our final item on general

[1:46:48] business which is a public

[1:46:49] hearing. Initial zoning. The

[1:46:51] crow, the Crowsnest plan

[1:46:52] development. PD case number

[1:46:54] RPD-2025-001. I think I'm okay.

[1:47:04] >> Yeah.

[1:47:06] >> Okay.

[1:47:07] >> Thank you.

[1:47:08] >> Go ahead.

[1:47:10] >> I was letting the community

[1:47:11] development staff off this

[1:47:13] evening given that it'd be

[1:47:14] easier so, as the memo.

[1:47:15] >> So, I'm sorry. So, this is a

[1:47:17] resolution or a motion?

[1:47:19] Resolution to ultimately vacate

[1:47:24] the annexation application

[1:47:25] based on the applicant's

[1:47:26] withdrawal which was as I said

[1:47:28] earlier, continued

[1:47:29] on the council adoption code

[1:47:30] of the. I'm sorry,

[1:47:31] at the pd.

[1:47:32] >> Manager Penny, I need to

[1:47:34] interrupt you because I didn't

[1:47:36] actually open the public

[1:47:38] hearing. I need

[1:47:39] to open the public hearing

[1:47:40] before we continue

[1:47:41] at 7:17 soon.

[1:47:46] >> Okay, go ahead.

[1:47:48] >> So. So this is.

[1:47:50] >> This policy question is

[1:47:55] relevant now given the language

[1:47:57] and the applicants withdrawal

[1:47:58] of the annexation petition and

[1:48:01] council's adoption

[1:48:03] of the previous resolution.

[1:48:05] And we were required because

[1:48:06] this goes back a ways in terms

[1:48:08] of when we were originally

[1:48:10] posting dates. So, this was a

[1:48:12] posting issue from. I believe

[1:48:13] it was initially a March 5th

[1:48:15] planning commission meeting.

[1:48:16] But because the application is

[1:48:18] withdrawn. Their. Their PD

[1:48:20] application. We just need

[1:48:25] counsel to open the public

[1:48:27] hearing and vacate the county

[1:48:28] section petitions, and we have

[1:48:30] as the city attorneys was

[1:48:43] during my year. We have no

[1:48:44] jurisdiction to hear it now.

[1:48:46] So.

[1:48:50] >> Okay, so what you're looking

[1:48:51] for is the a motion to vacate

[1:48:53] the public proposed motion

[1:48:55] on page two

[1:48:56] of the staff memo.

[1:49:03] >> Council members,

[1:49:06] does anyone have any questions

[1:49:07] for staff right now

[1:49:08] before I entertain our session?

[1:49:10] Okay, go ahead. I will

[1:49:11] entertain the motion. And

[1:49:12] someone tells them

[1:49:13] on the piece of paper given

[1:49:15] to us.

[1:49:17] >> I move to the safe the

[1:49:19] public hearing

[1:49:20] for initial zoning for the

[1:49:21] Crowsnest plan development. PD

[1:49:24] case number RPD-2025-001.

[1:49:25] Sorry, have a motion and a

[1:49:27] second. Is there any discussion

[1:49:29] seeing that? None.

[1:49:30] >> Clerk Duffy. Please call the

[1:49:32] vote.

[1:49:36] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]

[1:49:52] >> The motion passes and the

[1:49:53] public hearing is vacated.

[1:50:00] >> Right. Clerk Duffy, I need

[1:50:01] to close the public hearing.

[1:50:02] Do I not? Or.

[1:50:03] >> Okay, yes.

[1:50:04] >> Perfect. All right then. We

[1:50:05] are moving on

[1:50:06] to comments and report. City

[1:50:09] Manager Penny, do you have

[1:50:13] anything

[1:50:14] to report this evening?

[1:50:15] >> As I mentioned

[1:50:17] during the previous resolution,

[1:50:18] we will now start working

[1:50:20] on that timeline. And I'll

[1:50:21] update council on what our

[1:50:22] proposed process is as we put

[1:50:24] that together. And the only

[1:50:26] other thing I want to let you

[1:50:27] know is the community center

[1:50:28] remodel is going

[1:50:29] along as well. There's still

[1:50:30] demo work, but we're still

[1:50:32] on track

[1:50:33] for the clerk's council meeting

[1:50:34] in July to be in that room.

[1:50:36] And I think you guys will be

[1:50:37] very pleased with the outcome

[1:50:39] of both the physical, physical,

[1:50:40] built, physical layout of it.

[1:50:41] And then the audio visual will

[1:50:42] be much nicer than what we've

[1:50:43] experienced in the library.

[1:50:44] While we appreciate the

[1:50:46] library, I think it's going to

[1:50:47] be certainly the next level up.

[1:50:48] So, I'm excited. It has

[1:50:49] pictures. It's still just demo

[1:50:50] right now,

[1:50:52] but as we start it starts

[1:50:53] to come together. We'll bring

[1:50:57] some pictures. We'll share

[1:50:58] those with you or else you're

[1:50:59] obviously welcome

[1:51:00] to go up there and take a look

[1:51:02] around us together. So that's

[1:51:03] all I have to see.

[1:51:09] >> Thank you. All right,

[1:51:10] we'll move on

[1:51:11] to council member reports.

[1:51:12] Council Member Mulvey, we'll

[1:51:13] start with you. Thank you. I

[1:51:15] appreciate that. The mayor did

[1:51:17] a roundtable for Douglas

[1:51:18] County citizenry. I was a

[1:51:20] little dismayed that I was the

[1:51:21] only council member there

[1:51:22] to support her,

[1:51:23] but she did a great job,

[1:51:25] and it was really good

[1:51:26] to see that. I wanted

[1:51:28] to ask staff

[1:51:30] to add the raise grant to our

[1:51:31] grant list because I know it

[1:51:32] just happened so it's just want

[1:51:36] to make sure that the public is

[1:51:37] seeing that we're applying for

[1:51:38] those funds as well as the

[1:51:39] congressionally directive

[1:51:41] spending for Happy Canyon

[1:51:43] Interchange to try to get

[1:51:45] everything we're entitled to. I

[1:51:46] want to thank council and

[1:51:48] staff. I had a few tangential

[1:51:53] questions in advance,

[1:51:55] so I want to thank you

[1:51:56] for that. Just taking the time

[1:51:59] so it didn't take time away

[1:52:00] from our meeting. And then I

[1:52:03] also want to express to council

[1:52:08] that I had some terrific

[1:52:09] conversations with some

[1:52:12] of our peers

[1:52:14] in other jurisdictions, local

[1:52:15] jurisdictions, and I think that

[1:52:16] the comments that have been

[1:52:18] made about us collaborating and

[1:52:19] learning from other

[1:52:20] jurisdictions is meaningful.

[1:52:22] And while it's unfortunate that

[1:52:23] I could not properly express or

[1:52:25] clearly enough

[1:52:29] for you and concisely enough

[1:52:32] for you express what I meant,

[1:52:33] I'll say it here where I'm

[1:52:34] allowed the I've learned from

[1:52:39] Castle Rock how they deal with

[1:52:41] these conflicting push and pull

[1:52:44] issues,

[1:52:46] and it's different than the way

[1:52:48] Parker handles it. And I've

[1:52:50] learned from Lone Tree how they

[1:52:52] handle them. They have a

[1:52:53] different kind of system. So,

[1:52:56] I've also taken the time

[1:52:58] to learn a little bit more

[1:52:59] about some

[1:53:01] of the developments that Mr.

[1:53:05] Penny referred to. And I shared

[1:53:07] that. I shared all of these

[1:53:08] things that I've learned with

[1:53:10] him so that they can be

[1:53:11] incorporated. And I hope

[1:53:14] to share them

[1:53:16] with you all as well. But I for

[1:53:18] one am learning a tremendous

[1:53:20] amount, particularly

[1:53:23] from what is happening with

[1:53:26] public comment and the push and

[1:53:28] pull in the other jurisdictions

[1:53:29] and including at Sterling

[1:53:32] Ranch. And I think that

[1:53:35] sometimes the issues aren't

[1:53:37] exactly the same, but sometimes

[1:53:38] they are exactly the same. And

[1:53:39] I think the way that we go

[1:53:41] about our process here is a

[1:53:42] combination

[1:53:47] of what we're learning

[1:53:49] from there, from all

[1:53:51] of these places. And so

[1:53:54] to me, it's what we do with our

[1:53:56] information and our time,

[1:54:00] no matter where it comes from,

[1:54:02] that matters. And so,

[1:54:05] I do intend to continue

[1:54:06] to do that. And I would

[1:54:07] encourage you all

[1:54:09] to have an open mind

[1:54:10] to it as well. Thank you.

[1:54:15] >> Thank you, Mayor. First, a

[1:54:17] question for the city manager.

[1:54:19] With your fancy new audio

[1:54:21] visual, can we get some kind

[1:54:22] of button where I can press and

[1:54:23] on the screen, it puts us

[1:54:25] in a queue? You think I'm

[1:54:26] kidding?

[1:54:27] >> Actually, I don't think

[1:54:29] you're kidding.

[1:54:30] >> I don't.

[1:54:31] >> Do not know the answer

[1:54:32] to that. But we will ask.

[1:54:33] >> That would be outstanding. I

[1:54:34] may be the only one.

[1:54:35] >> So, Stephanie has it. Oh,

[1:54:37] really?

[1:54:38] >> Yeah.

[1:54:39] >> Yeah. I'll tell you what it

[1:54:40] is.

[1:54:42] >> I just felt like tonight

[1:54:43] there was a lot of talking

[1:54:44] over each other

[1:54:45] in the study session. So, maybe

[1:54:47] not a digital solution, but we.

[1:54:48] I think we need something and.

[1:54:49] And I probably was the worst

[1:54:50] offender.

[1:54:52] >> So, I don't know myself.

[1:54:53] >> I like the deli

[1:54:54] ticket idea.

[1:54:55] >> That's because we're from

[1:54:58] Jersey, right?

[1:55:00] >> We're going

[1:55:02] to give the city clerk the

[1:55:03] power to turn on and

[1:55:04] off the bikes.

[1:55:07] >> There you go. On March 12, I

[1:55:09] had the pleasure

[1:55:10] of attending a reception

[1:55:11] for youth in Douglas County.

[1:55:12] Reception. And it was the youth

[1:55:14] councils from Parker, Lone

[1:55:16] Tree, Castle Rock and Douglas

[1:55:20] County. We do not have one,

[1:55:22] but it was a wonderful event.

[1:55:23] It was a roundtable that we

[1:55:24] each had a topic. And my topic

[1:55:27] that I had with my group as

[1:55:28] they rotated was leadership.

[1:55:29] And a lot

[1:55:31] of these folks are interested

[1:55:33] in civic duty, interested

[1:55:35] in local government. So, I had

[1:55:36] a real good conversation with

[1:55:39] those folks. I was delighted

[1:55:41] to be part of that. You know,

[1:55:43] I had something else, but must

[1:55:45] not have been very important

[1:55:49] because I don't remember it.

[1:55:51] That's it, man.

[1:55:53] >> Council Member Cole.

[1:55:54] >> Thank you, ma'am.

[1:55:56] >> Just this past Friday, I had

[1:55:57] a pleasure graduating from

[1:55:58] Invisible Leadership Academy,

[1:55:59] which is a yearlong program.

[1:56:01] It is well worth the time and

[1:56:02] the effort you put into it.

[1:56:06] There were 18 others

[1:56:08] from communities under

[1:56:10] 25,000, so we got to meet some

[1:56:12] and there are some problems

[1:56:13] out there I probably didn't

[1:56:14] want to know about. But it was

[1:56:16] a great education program and

[1:56:17] recommended to any

[1:56:18] of the council members. It runs

[1:56:20] a year, but it's well worth

[1:56:21] your time and I thank you

[1:56:23] for sponsoring.

[1:56:27] >> Council Member Salazar.

[1:56:28] >> Thank you, Mayor. I just

[1:56:30] want an update. The parks and

[1:56:31] recreation board met

[1:56:32] on the 19th, so last Thursday

[1:56:33] we honored our outgoing

[1:56:34] members, and we welcomed our

[1:56:36] new members. Our first meeting

[1:56:37] with our new members and we

[1:56:39] discussed what's coming up

[1:56:40] for this year. Many things

[1:56:41] coming up, but the priority

[1:56:42] right now is working

[1:56:43] on trail signage. So, we will

[1:56:44] have signs on our trails and

[1:56:45] those will also be added. The

[1:56:46] trails are already on GIS, but

[1:56:48] having some trail signs up and

[1:56:52] some trail heads so you can see

[1:56:54] the map of all the trails. So

[1:56:55] that's something that the park

[1:56:56] score will be working on.

[1:57:06] >> Council Member Winegar.

[1:57:08] >> Thank you, Mayor. I had the

[1:57:09] fortunate honor. I have the

[1:57:10] fortunate honor

[1:57:12] of attending the Commonsense

[1:57:13] Institute here recently. It was

[1:57:15] my first time experiencing

[1:57:16] something like this. They're a

[1:57:18] bipartisan organization. They

[1:57:19] brought data related to

[1:57:22] Colorado's economy and I think

[1:57:23] there's someone worthwhile

[1:57:24] checking out and continuing. I

[1:57:25] look forward to going to more

[1:57:27] of those and learning more. I

[1:57:30] think that, you know,

[1:57:31] regulations,

[1:57:32] taxation and tabor were big

[1:57:33] Topics, and it was nice

[1:57:34] to hear both sides

[1:57:36] of the fence on that.

[1:57:37] >> And I thought it was a nice,

[1:57:38] robust conversation. And there

[1:57:48] was a lot

[1:57:49] of representation there,

[1:57:51] public and about them. So, it

[1:57:52] was enjoyable. Comment I have

[1:57:53] is just again, thank you

[1:57:54] for the community showing up,

[1:57:55] voicing their voice

[1:57:57] for whatever it is. It's

[1:57:58] important

[1:58:01] to have a community that,

[1:58:02] that stands up

[1:58:03] for their beliefs, and I

[1:58:05] appreciate all their efforts

[1:58:06] to come in front of us and

[1:58:07] to speak up their boss.

[1:58:11] >> Mayor, before you go, may I

[1:58:12] ask council member Salazar a

[1:58:13] question? Council member,

[1:58:15] would you mind sharing the kind

[1:58:16] of the cool news we had

[1:58:17] about the naming

[1:58:18] of the parks, the name

[1:58:19] of the parks, the name

[1:58:20] of the trails.

[1:58:21] >> Naming of the trails.

[1:58:22] >> See, what's the cool news?

[1:58:23] >> The name. Didn't we approve

[1:58:24] voting on it? Yes, I was hoping

[1:58:25] it'd be a little bit more

[1:58:26] enthusiastic.

[1:58:31] >> Yeah, so we did approve

[1:58:33] at our last meeting.

[1:58:34] >> So, on the west side,

[1:58:35] all the

[1:58:38] trails have been named,

[1:58:40] and they have been named based

[1:58:42] on geographical or geological

[1:58:43] or geographical features. So,

[1:58:44] ridges and tall grasses, trees,

[1:58:46] those kinds of creeks, also

[1:58:47] by neighborhood. So if you're

[1:58:49] out on the trail

[1:58:50] on the west side,

[1:58:52] if you see something wrong

[1:58:56] with the trail now,

[1:58:57] you know how to report it

[1:58:58] because you know the trail has

[1:59:01] a needle or if you get lost,

[1:59:07] they're going

[1:59:08] to need help.

[1:59:17] >> You know how

[1:59:22] to help someone to come find

[1:59:23] you because you know the trail

[1:59:24] has a need. And then we'll

[1:59:25] start working on the trails

[1:59:26] on the east side to get them

[1:59:27] all names and get trail

[1:59:28] signage. So, it's all one

[1:59:29] connected city. So, we're super

[1:59:30] excited that we've. There were

[1:59:31] 35 trails we've already named.

[1:59:33] So, it's a big. It's a big

[1:59:34] project for the parks Board.

[1:59:35] >> Thanks for coming up.

[1:59:36] >> And Mayor, thank you

[1:59:37] for allowing that question.

[1:59:38] >> All right, thank you.

[1:59:39] >> Thank you, audience,

[1:59:40] so much

[1:59:41] for being here this evening.

[1:59:42] We really do appreciate hearing

[1:59:44] from you, and we hope to hear

[1:59:45] from you as we explore this

[1:59:46] policy and hear what we're

[1:59:47] going to do. The retreat was

[1:59:48] fantastic

[1:59:49] to have this conversation

[1:59:50] with council about. We don't

[1:59:51] really have framework right now

[1:59:52] to help guide us on how

[1:59:53] to make these types

[1:59:54] of decisions, and we need you

[1:59:55] to participate in that

[1:59:56] to help us determine what's

[1:59:57] in the best interest of

[1:59:58] Castle Pines. And so,

[1:59:59] we really look forward to that

[2:00:00] discussion and further dialogue

[2:00:01] to find out more about what the

[2:00:02] community is looking

[2:00:03] for the future of Castle

[2:00:04] Pines. So, then we can create

[2:00:05] our policies that state those

[2:00:06] things and make it very clear

[2:00:07] to people that want to come

[2:00:08] to Castle Pines. What it is,

[2:00:09] our expectation is

[2:00:10] of them that they want

[2:00:11] to be part of Castle Pines.

[2:00:13] So, thank you

[2:00:14] for that and I look forward to

[2:00:15] our future conversations. I had

[2:00:16] a very great attendance with

[2:00:17] South Metro Denver Chamber. We

[2:00:19] had a mayor's panel two weeks

[2:00:24] ago, very well attended. At the

[2:00:25] end they had a networking

[2:00:26] opportunity, and I had a lot

[2:00:27] of, not necessarily residents

[2:00:29] of Castle Pines, but residents

[2:00:30] of the area that were really

[2:00:31] surprised about the things that

[2:00:33] are happening in Castle

[2:00:34] Pines. So, I think it was

[2:00:36] successful in the fact that

[2:00:38] they hear what's happening here

[2:00:39] and that there are things

[2:00:40] happening. And we are looking

[2:00:42] forward to seeing more

[2:00:43] commercial and retail

[2:00:47] opportunities in the future

[2:00:56] for us. And we're getting more

[2:00:57] attention and I think that's

[2:00:59] good. I think it's going

[2:01:00] to bring the type

[2:01:02] of users that we're looking

[2:01:03] for to this community just by

[2:01:04] them having knowledge that

[2:01:06] we're open

[2:01:07] for business and we'd

[2:01:08] like them to come here. And

[2:01:10] then I spent some time in D.C.

[2:01:11] this past week working on our

[2:01:13] zip code advocacy and we maybe

[2:01:14] didn't make as much progress as

[2:01:15] the last visit. And I think

[2:01:17] that's part to do

[2:01:20] with there's a lot going on

[2:01:21] in D.C. right now.

[2:01:24] >> So, we got a lot

[2:01:25] of more visits

[2:01:26] with staff as opposed

[2:01:28] to elected officials.

[2:01:29] But we had a couple roadblocks

[2:01:30] with a few senators that I

[2:01:31] think that we made progress,

[2:01:33] that they're going

[2:01:36] to not be the hurdle. They're

[2:01:37] not going

[2:01:39] to necessarily put a hold

[2:01:40] on the bill.

[2:01:42] >> Not 100% sure, but we

[2:01:43] definitely made some inroads.

[2:01:45] And so I think that we've made

[2:01:46] some more progress. I think

[2:01:48] it's probably going

[2:01:49] to require us

[2:01:51] to go there again sometime

[2:01:53] in the future. But Senator

[2:01:54] Rand Paul made it clear that he

[2:01:55] is willing

[2:01:57] to see our bill and markup

[2:01:58] in either May or June or

[2:02:04] sometime in the future. But

[2:02:06] Homeland Security Committee

[2:02:07] doesn't have very many markups.

[2:02:08] They're not necessarily a super

[2:02:09] functioning committee. So,

[2:02:10] we'll see if that happens.

[2:02:12] But two of the other senators

[2:02:13] are also working

[2:02:14] on merging the two Senate bills

[2:02:16] together. So, we're still

[2:02:19] making progress. I mean,

[2:02:20] this is a lot farther

[2:02:21] from where we are right now,

[2:02:23] from where we started even

[2:02:24] three years ago. So. So

[2:02:26] hopefully we will see this bill

[2:02:28] get in front of the entire

[2:02:30] Senate and get passed and then

[2:02:31] back to the House and pass

[2:02:33] there too. But I think that it

[2:02:35] is absolutely doable

[2:02:36] for this year. So, we're going

[2:02:38] to keep our fingers crossed

[2:02:40] with that. We adjourn the

[2:02:41] meeting at 7:32. Thank you

[2:02:43] everyone.

City Council Study Session and Regular Meeting

Transcript