>> Good evening, council and
staff. Go ahead and get started
with our study session for
Tuesday, March 24th. And our
first topic is electric
vehicles. And we are being
presented. Assistant City
Attorney Evan King is going
to be presented. Yes. All
righty.
>> So, I am back to talk more
about this. I have now given
you all a draft ordinance.
These are provisions that I
don't want to say stolen,
but they were copied basically
from other municipalities based
on what you guys said you
wanted to see
in an ordinance. So everything
in here is proposed,
and I wanted
to give you guys the
opportunity to look at them and
tell me what you like,
what you don't like,
if we still want
to regulate more or, you know,
whatever it may be. So next
slide. There we go. Oh, and
also, I did want
to mention that Michael and I
also had a chance to talk to
the sheriff's department or
sheriff's office. They did look
into stats. They said the stats
were really not reflective
of the problem, though, because
most time people aren't calling
the cops. So, they only had
like 10 reports, but they said
by far it was the most citizen
complaint that they received
and that it was absolutely a
problem. So, I don't have the
stats to really back it up, but
the sheriff's office definitely
supports this. They said that
Douglas County is also
continuing to look into this.
They're looking
to see what you guys are doing,
what Bonetree's doing, so that
they definitely are also
considering something
in the future. So, next slide.
So, this is the parent
responsibility. Oh, and I do
also want
to note the state bill on this
failed. I'm not surprised. It
was terribly written so that.
So, the state law is not going
to go into effect. They'll link
it. If you guys want
to have it. It will be your
provision. So,
under this provision, parents
and legal guardians are
basically responsible
for their minors. And that's
defined as anyone under of 18
who operates an
off highway vehicle
in any public street, road,
alley, or any public property
within the city in violation
of this chapter Charlie
article, actually. So, I'll
change that
for your actual ordinance. And
then I copied the fine schedule
from Castle Rock, I believe,
which is a 250 flat or $250
mandatory minimum. So, I just
want
to hear what your thoughts are
on that.
>> I was at something recently
is the partnership with
Douglas County governments
where the CEO of Douglas
County School District said
they have a problem
with scooters really badly
on their property. And if we
were to consider adding other
vehicles, other electric
conveyances, would we? Would
our ordinance apply
at the elementary Schools or
the charter schools in town.
>> I think it would. I mean,
it would apply. It depends on
what the provision says. I
don't want to caveat all of it.
I know electric scooters,
you can kick them off the
sidewalk and that would be
everywhere, including the
public park or the public
schools. I would. I really have
to look at the provision. But
if it's something that you all
wanted me to look into,
absolutely can do that to see
what you guys could regulate
there that would help you
with that issue.
>> Thank you.
>> I would.
>> I would be interested
in that because I wouldn't want
to ask us. I mean, I'm mindful
of what some
of the comments were last time,
so I wouldn't want
to suggest we spend time going
down that road unless we knew
that the enforcement was
doable.
But I was really struck
by the differential
between the beliefs here about
whether or not it's a problem
and what was clearly said
at that meeting
about that particular kind
of conveyance. And Mr.
Pennymate, you might have heard
that part of the meeting here
when, I do want to.
Just on your
enforcement thing. We talked
to the sheriffs. We said
exactly what we were planning
on doing. And he said
absolutely everything that you
guys proposed,
everything I had
in the slide tonight, he said
it could be enforceable and
that they would be happy
to enforce it for us. That's
not my question.
>> I know. I'm just like. It
just reminded me. Okay. Yeah,
it just. You just reminded me
of it. So that's why I
mentioned, as a side piece,
because I know that was a
concern.
>> Thank you.
>> So, any other thoughts?
>> Is there a legal problem
with adding 90-day impoundment
to the vehicle?
>> So, I do have an impoundment
provision later on that we can
talk about. I would probably
leave it in there rather than
under the parent
responsibility.
>> Thank you.
>> So back to the 250. Is this
in line
with what our other fees are
for things?
>> I did not check. I was just
spacing out.
But what other people were
doing with their clients,
>> I'm a little familiar
with the municipal code
on that. And this is higher.
>> And again,
this is the mandatory minimum,
which is. I mean, so if you
wanted the municipal judge
to have more of a leeway,
you might not want to have a
minimum or you might want
to set a max instead.
>> Sorry.
>> How can both be true? How
can this be higher than
everyone else?
But still the minimum is 250.
>> I think she was saying it's
higher than our usual code.
Higher than.
>> Higher than operating
something else in a careless
Manner.
>> Thank you for that
clarification.
>> Yeah, I was confused, like,
for even a vehicle.
Like a vehicle up to 500
for careless without injury.
Starts at 100, 120-ish. What's
the cost? What is the fee for a
standard speeding ticket?
>> Depends on what.
>> Yeah, it does. Depends
on the speed. And anywhere
from 90 to 150.
>> Yeah.
>> If you're 11 to 19
over the speed limit,
your ticket's $145. That
includes the victim assistance
fee.
>> I mean, I think if you want
to deter it,
higher is better. Because I
don't think some of the parents
that have these are going
to really worry about $100 fee
or $200 fee even, maybe,
in my opinion. And the fact how
many times they get caught out
of a hungry. I mean, it's.
It's like the carpool lanes.
Right. So, I'm sure a lot of
people use the carpool lanes
and aren't supposed to. And so,
I. I actually think a minimum
of 250 seems appropriate. And
then looking at a maximum,
if there is. We wanted
to have maximum or leave it at
the judge's discretion question
in appropriate.
>> How would you?
>> Hey.
>> How would you determine what
a maximum is? Whose discretion
is that? If I'm caught,
I'm caught. Maybe if there's a
maximum, maybe it's
for the first offense, it's
250.
For the second offense is
500, something like that. But I
don't really have discretion
of saying, yeah, you're 250,
you're 275. You did the same
thing. You know what I mean?
>> That's what the judge does.
>> That's what they do every
case.
>> Yeah.
>> Are we treating this
like every case? Are we
treating this separately?
>> We're having.
>> No, procedurally.
Procedurally, that's what
happens. Each court operates
like I do miss Municipal stuff.
So, each court operates a
little bit differently.
>> Yeah.
>> But it's always the judge's
discretion when there's a
minimum or maximum. And
sometimes the circumstances
attendant to what was happening
can change what's happening.
And then also there's a plea
process that the procedure
changes for two from court
to court. I can't practice in
this court. I can only observe
in Castle times.
>> Correct.
>> And then just
to note there, this, as always,
any ordinance we have,
it would be subject
to the max, which is the 2,650
or whatever. So, that's always
the max.
>> So that's.
>> There is a maximum
potentially built in already.
But if you guys want a lesser
one,
then we should probably have
It.
>> So, let me ask it a
different way. Is anyone
opposed to 250 as a minimum
fine? Then we can move forward.
>> Actually, you can. I'm not
opposed to minimum 250. I'm
just regardless of other
infractions that the judge has
a discretion. Would an example
be it's 250 if I'm just caught
on the sidewalk. Is it 500 if
I'm caught in the sidewalk or
there's something across?
>> Yeah.
>> I'm curious what those.
>> Yeah, that's how.
>> I mean,
as long as it doesn't go
below the minimum,
I guess I'm fine. But I just.
The discretion. I'm just
curious.
>> Yeah. So, like for example,
this violation
of this article. So, let's say
you catch a kid on the street
who doesn't have a helmet on.
You could. Technically that's a
technical violation
of this chapter. That could be
a fine for the parent as well.
But then you also could get a
fine for, you know,
a reckless drive aid with it.
So, I mean maybe that is where
it goes up that if your kid's
caught doing something more
dangerous, the, the fee or the
penalty would go up. But the
way it's written now it's 250
is 4.
>> So, I understood.
>> Okay, that all makes sense.
So, thank you. Does the judge
still have a discretion to go
below the minimum?
>> No.
>> Even with a plea,
it's a mandatory minimum.
>> No. Okay. Yeah.
>> So, for saying 250 is
minimum.
>> Thank you.
>> So, the legal standard is
with due attention
to the circumstances. And so
that's where it comes in. So,
your thought process is
on target. May I ask my next
question?
>> Sure.
>> And I apologize. This
repeats.
But the technical part of this
in the machines,
the conveyances is a problem
in my mind. I can't wrap my
head around the differences.
Sometimes when about what you
described made sense,
but then when I see. So
yesterday afternoon, I'm going
down here on the parkway,
six little motorcycle guys,
eight years old-ish to 12 years
old-ish. Street, sidewalk
lights, intersection,
varying degrees of hair,
I would say. Right. But it was
this little motorcycle minibike
looking thing
like a moped used
to look like, but
without the pedals. And are we
regulating that?
>> So again, it's so hard
to just
like know what a thing is even
by looking
at it because it depends about
the wattage and the capacity
of the engine. So, you might
have been seeing a minibike,
which is technically a toy
vehicle. But if it was going
that fast and keeping up
with the other ones,
it probably was a
off highway vehicle, I would
guess because it's just. It's a
degree of capacity
of the engine. If they could
keep up.
>> I don't think so.
>> Talking about a minibike,
if they
look the same to the. This
is why it mattered to me. So,
they look the same
to me as an observer. And there
was an older man who was
in the way, I should say,
and a pedestrian. So would it.
How much does it matter if he's
encountering one versus the
other? And how broad we end up
getting with our regulation.
Like, why would we. Why would
we then have to say, stop all
the kids and examine the bike
and determine whether that was
in this category or that. When
to the naked eye at me,
it kind of looked like
whichever one it was scared the
bejesus out of this man.
>> Yeah, that's there. I think
it's just. That's the nature
of it, is that the technology
and our ability to determine
what these are has not totally
caught up because you can't
tell. I think the idea
behind it, though, is
like the minibike. If you get
in a collision,
a minibike has less capacity to
hurt someone because it can't
go as fast. So, I think the
idea with the state giving us
the right to regulate certain
things is that the more
dangerous it is,
the more leeway we have
to regulate. So even
on toy vehicles,
we have a little bit less. I
mean, it's not as clear cut
that we have the right
to regulate these as
off highway vehicles, which in
their statute it says
specifically local governments
can do all
of these things.
>> Right.
>> We don't necessarily have
that for toy vehicles. I think
that this probably is a huge
problem and a huge loophole
everywhere that hopefully will
catch up the state of cut up.
But unfortunately,
that's the best we have now.
So, I'm guessing what you saw
was an off by a vehicle,
though. So probably would catch
if they were. If he was going.
Math and stuff.
>> Well, some were stopped,
some were going. I mean,
it was a little dispersed game.
You know, there was
like four there and two there.
The other question is, do we.
Has the sheriff's office said
anything about the practicality
or impracticality of having
to stop them? Because that came
up when we talked
about golf carts.
>> Yes, absolutely. That's.
That's an ongoing issue
everywhere. Mostly because they
hop on the trails with these
motorcycles and the police are
not going to go down trails in
their police vehicles or
anything or cause more danger.
So, yes, that's absolutely a
problem everywhere.
>> Thank you.
>> All right, so we will keep
the 250. And then maybe you
guys can think about as a
maximum. I can also look in
to see if there's any guidance
on it. It might not be because
I. There's actually many people
who do the parental
responsibility,
but I'll check.
>> Okay, so next slide. So,
this is for eluding. So, this
kind of just goes directly into
the conversation we were just
having. So, this would make it
a separate offense
for an off-highway vehicle
to hopefully fail
to stop or attempt to elude or
evade a police officer who's
trying to pull you over. There
are some explicit. First
of all, it has to be. It can't
be an undercover cop. It has
to be a marked official. And
then the last bullet is the
prohibited content. So, it's
like increasing your speed when
you see them turning
off your lights,
departing the roadway
to avoid the stops of
like hopping
on a trail or other. Other
conduct that willfully shows
intent to evade the officer.
So, what do we think
about this one?
>> Reminds me
of being a teenager.
>> Yep. Well, it's no
different.
>> Excuse me.
>> It reminds me
of when we used to go
to the golf course.
>> I'm for it.
>> Question is, how do. I mean,
if they do this, what's the
likelihood they're going
to get caught? Right? Yeah.
>> So, I think that's also a
good point. But what's great
about it is most
of these are kids who are
in school. So actually,
I was talking
to some other officer not in
this jurisdiction who they
found the kids
by taking pictures
of them and then sending them
to the school.
Like pictures were sent to the
schools and the schools ratted
them
out and they found that way.
So, it does. They can't. They
do have their ways to do it.
But yes, obviously if they're
evading, it's kind of hard
to give them a ticket
for doing that.
>> They wrap them out or. Or
assist them in law enforcement
activities.
>> Assist them. And I'm sure
their lawyer would prefer
to say it that way. Okay,
>> I'm good with this.
>> Okay. And next slide. All
right, so this is the insurance
provision. So, it requires you
either to have an insurance
policy complying
with the state's requirements
for motor vehicles or a state
of self-insurance
in full force and effect. That
was just an option that other
people had. And then this last
bullet is basically that it's
another separable offense if
you fail
to give them your proof
of insurance.
>> So, it's like when you're
driving your
car and you get pulled over,
you can have a no proof
of insurance citation. So, what
do we think about
with the self-insurance,
do you want to put
in specific requirements
for the insurance?
>> What do you think? I oppose
this one strongly because
number one, it's superfluous.
It's making a law for something
that's probably already covered
already. And all it's going to
do is cause an insurance
coverage fight that will
increase our premiums and we
don't need that. And I don't
see it being effective because
there aren't any policies
written for this right now.
Okay. You can get an
endorsement, but it doesn't,
it's not that specific. It's
for everything and it costs a
lot. So now if we require it,
we're increasing the cost
to get insurance here
in town.
>> I guess I just want
to understand. So, any vehicle
that you operate has
to be insured. We're
classifying these vehicles as
something that needs
to be licensed and has to be
follow those requirements. And
I feel like it falls
under the category
of insurance. And plus if one
of these kids, heaven forbid,
gets in an accident or car hits
them, I think they need
to have insurance just
like I need to have insurance
when I'm driving
down the street if I were
to get into an accident.
That's just my thoughts. And I
understand the premium increase
like but really it increases
the premium for parents that
are allowing their kids to
violate this.
>> I appreciate your
perspective too. It's a, it's,
it's tough.
>> I know.
>> I understand.
>> Yeah.
>> If I may ask a clarifying
question. This insurance would
be. Liability only would be the
requirement?
>> I think. Yes. That's what's
required by your vehicle.
>> Right.
>> Okay.
>> So, I know you explain this,
so please forgive me. Would
the,
the vehicle itself be insured
or the, or would you, the, the
16-year-old be insured?
>> I think the way this is
written it was you have
to have insurance
on the vehicle. On,
on the vehicle. But then
obviously your insurance unit
doesn't cover non-name drivers.
So, I mean, I definitely
understand your point.
But it's also
like if you get hit by one
of these things.
>> Yeah. And most policies will
cover a permissive user. So, it
could be your neighbor riding
your bike. That's just the way
they're written.
>> Oh, I'm not disagreeing. I
don't know enough about
insurance. I know that there's
liability and full coverage.
>> Yeah.
>> I'm just curious because
just reading this,
I can't tell. Would the
insurance cover if a
16-year-old,
a minor drove their vehicle
into a car and damaged it?
>> I think that's definitely a
person or a person would be
more.
>> Okay, what's the downside
of endeavor insurance age?
>> The policies already would
cover for. There's two ways
to get insurance coverage
for something like this. You
can. If a kid act does
something stupid to cause harm
to another person, it's still
negligent entrustment or
negligence on supervision
on the part of the parent. And
as long as it's negligent, you
might have insurance coverage
through the homeowner. So, the
homeowner's policy. So, there's
other ways that it might be
already covered. And then if we
require it, the type of
endorsement that would be
required would have
to cover both what you said,
property damage and personal
injury. And it would have
to cover everything
under the sun,
not just a broken ankle. So, it
would then be across the board
and it would become a rating
issue. So, all the policies
would have to have it and then
everybody's would go up
incrementally. I don't know if
it would be a $10 endorsement
or a $20 endorsement. So, I
wanted
to highlight it because it's
on my mind
in another matter.
>> Okay. So, taking me back
to the last time we spoke
about this,
and forgive my lack
of knowledge
of what they're called, a
vehicle that is road ready has
the turn signals and all
of that, that must be
registered and it must be
by a license driver.
>> Correct.
>> In my opinion,
that should have insurance. If
it's not a vehicle that is not
designed to be on the road,
it shouldn't.
>> That's what we're talking
about here. These are
technically not supposed to be
on the road. Okay. So yeah,
these are. So these are the
dirt bikes who don't have,
they don't have the turn
signals, but
for all other aspects,
they're a motorcycle. That's.
That's more of the. Then I'm
in line
with you guys because I,
I see the distinction.
>> So, if it's a street legal
vehicle that needs a licensed
driver, that's a, that needs
insurance no matter what.
That's not a.
>> Correct. That's a state law.
>> That's a state law, yeah.
Okay.
>> And just to Clarify, these
are UTV's. They're not.
>> I mean, yes,
but we're mostly talking
about the eater bikes here. So
that's, that's kind
of what I want to. That's
like the loophole that I, I'm
finding that they're basically
the exact same vehicle. Just
one has turn signals and a
couple of their safety features
and the other doesn't. And
that's the one that is not
required to have insurance,
and they're not required to be
on the road. I'm not saying
they are like. Or
like they're not allowed to be
on the road,
but they are.
>> And they're not required
to be registered either.
Correct.
>> Here's a whole new paint
job. One thing for me.
>> So, we just can't declare
motorcycles correct.
>> We're not allowed
to change the definition
of citizen.
>> State law and you snip.
So, is anyone opposed to this
insurance?
>> I don't really have your
opinion either way.
>> I know I kind
of want that. This. Does this
make it harder
for the officers to enforce or
does this most likely. If a
person is pulled over
by an officer, they've already
probably broken some other
correct tool.
>> They have to have grounds
to pull them over. So, they
wouldn't know they didn't have
insurance by looking
at them.
>> So, the. This is discovered
after they've already pulled
them over.
>> Something else. Can I.
>> So, it's
like a telephone call,
right?
>> Yeah, it's a secondary
offense, but they can't. So,
it's not technically a
secondary offense because a
secondary offense usually says
if you're. You have to. You can
only ticket them if there's
another thing on the ticket.
But if they pull them over,
they realize they haven't
violated it and they don't have
insurance, they get tick.
>> But to Chris's point about
how this stuff is processed
in court and the severity
of what the charge is, you
know, you can identify a more
severe usage
with more charges. And just the
same, you can also please
something down. So, you know,
some of these are going
to have points. Insurance.
Insurance violations don't have
points, but the moving
violations do have points.
So, somebody who has made a
stupid mistake and is. Might be
worried
about how many points they have
on their license as a young
person might have an
opportunity to plead
to the insurance violation.
That's not the reason
to enact it. But you asked the
question before.
>> I think. I think I'm
on the fence too, because I.
Council Member Mulvey makes a
good point
with homeowners insurance.
They also could sue,
of course, which is probably
what will happen anyway.
>> But. So, I, I think my
biggest concern is if someone
were walking
down the street and got struck
by one
of these and severely injured,
would they. Would they be
covered medically? Could they
be covered for that? And that's
my biggest concern. If somebody
were to get hit by one
of these, I guess that's. And
there's been noted deaths
before too.
>> I mean, well,
it's what I saw yesterday.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I think didn't happen
too long ago in Denver
with a scooter. So, I, I, I
just that would be my question
is that the victim is protected
or has some protection and
maybe that's there's other ways
for that to happen.
>> I don't know if it's
necessary or not.
>> May I ask Michael?
>> Mayor, another thing,
thinking about your last
conversation and creating
disincentives,
it might be a disincentive
for the parent
to allow the E-bike
to be purchased
in the first place because
of the additional cost
to co-inciprate it.
>> So, would this not also
penalize those who take their E
bike to Rampart Range?
>> And so, E-bikes are not a
highway vehicle.
>> So no, not you,
but the motorcycle. Whatever.
>> So that. Yes. I mean they'd
have to have insurance under
this and if they never intend
or do right
on the street.
>> Yeah.
>> It is saying that if you're
operating in the city,
regardless of where it is,
if it's
in the city's jurisdiction,
you need insurance.
>> The Rampart range is not in
our drastic question that just
came up as well. You know,
this is more
of a public policy issue.
But do we want
to be the first ones to do
something this extreme?
>> Well, you definitely aren't
at the first for insurance
because I did this is
like it's a driver's license.
Insurance is
like the two top regulations.
So, if you're going
to regulate it,
that's the top ones.
>> Okay.
>> So, you definitely won't be
the first. But. So, I wouldn't
let that necessarily dissuade
you.
>> Who would we be in bed with?
I didn't mind being the first
on the vaping statute, but this
might be a little different and
I feel
like
insurance one anyway,
I might have it. Let me look it
up while we are on here because
I don't have my matrix printed
out.
>> I'm sure we can answer that
later. Thank you.
>> We amend this
down the line though, so we
could,
we could be more conservative
with this. And then if we
wanted
to amend it and add.
>> Yeah, so, so for me, I'm
on the fence
on this too. I feel
like there we would need,
we probably don't have an
obligation, but we would need
to do a lot of education to
parents and people that rule
these to make sure that they're
getting the insurance.
But not having this does not.
We're still enforcing what we
want to with the other rules
that we're creating. So not
having this there would not
defeat what we're trying
to accomplish. And so, I, right
now I'm leaning towards we ERR
on not putting this in there
and we can potentially put it
in there in the future.
>> Could we also, in part
of our communications,
communicate that this was a
consideration, but we didn't
feel time was appropriate and
we'd like to look
into it more. That would
generate the feedback that we
want because for all we know,
we have a huge amount
of seniors in our community
that want this. And then how
many, you know,
eight-year-old parents don't,
you know? We don't know.
>> Sure.
>> We also have a lot
of hills. I mean maybe not
over here, but
in my districts, all hills.
And so the ability
to fly up and
down a hill carries both sides
of this.
>> Okay, so I will remove that
for your first reading and then
we can always add it back in.
>> Scroll up that resolution.
>> But you nodded
this way instead
of that way.
>> Yeah. This is going
to be an ordinance. So next
slide. Okay, so this is the
reckless driving. So, this
prohibits someone from
operating a hop highway vehicle
within the city and a willful
or wanton disregard
for the safety or persons
of persons or property. And
this is the definition of
willful or wanton disregard
that.
>> So, we track the model
municipal code that we already
use for careless and reckless
in language.
>> This is. I think that. No,
this is a specific one for
willful month because this will
not be on points for your like
driver's license because you
don't need to be licensed
to have this. So, it wouldn't
go on your points. It would be
a separate municipal code
violation. So, it wouldn't go
on here. So, I tracked it
to match with other people's
reckless.
>> So, we have the model
municipal code. The MUTC is our
definition of what is reckless
and what is careless. Match the
same language as the 4202 for
careless and the whatever is
the equivalent for reckless.
>> I will double check
for you because I,
I don't know that off the top
of my head. I just know this is
what other codes have said. So
I wouldn't be shocked if they
did. And that's where they took
it from.
>> It looks similar,
but there's a couple of words
that look a little different.
So, I would just. That we could
make them match them.
>> Okay.
>> So that there would be a
fair expectation and not get
nailed on a defense that it's
not that.
>> Okay, I can definitely make
it match. If it does match. Is
everyone okay with this?
>> Yes.
>> And then. So, it'll be the
same one for next slide.
That's careless. I will also
make sure this matches the
module.
>> No, not that. Because we
don't. And then would we.
Would we have this. Would we
have the same with and without
injury distinction that the
model traffic code has?
>> Do you want that?
>> So, the model traffic code,
if you're operating a car, you
get a careless and you don't
injure anybody. It's one. It's
like a X number of points. If
you get a careless and you. If
somebody claims injury,
it's another kind of points and
the fine is different.
>> So, we wouldn't do points
because again, it's not
like no differential.
>> Right.
>> Knife.
>> I just. Do we want to make
that distinction? I don't know.
I think it's. It makes a big
difference.
>> Right.
>> If someone's injured or not.
>> Okay, so instead of points
to be fines,
is that what you're saying?
Like.
>> Well, the penalty. So, the
penalty is different. So,
there's also a different kind
of difference that the class
of effects. But there's
like section one is, you know,
on your ticket, no injury,
and section two is
with injury. And the penalty is
different for each. So.
>> And it.
>> And it's often harder
to plead down an injury one.
So, it's. It's just a deterrent
feeling. So then would the
judge then make a discretion
of what the.
>> Yeah, I mean, you could set
one or the other a minimum fine
for each type. Maximum fine
for each type. So, I could have
some language
in there and you guys can play
around with the fee. Whatever.
I said, I'll look at what is
recommended or what I can find.
>> I'm sorry, please explain
again,
why would there be no points
on driver's license?
>> So, this. So, we can. You
can only put driver's license
points if you're operating a
motor vehicle that's licensed
and registered here. You don't
technically even need
to have a driver's license.
So, you couldn't put points on
someone else. A driver's
license that doesn't exist
because it's not operating a
motor vehicle. So, I don't
think. I don't want to get it.
I don't think we should touch
that. I don't think that would
probably even be legal for us
to do that. Yeah. So.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
>> Yes.
>> So we're not talking here
specifically on the streets.
We're talking anywhere in
California.
>> Anywhere. So, I mean
like a sidewalk or like, you
know, an open space.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> And next slide.
>> What do we decide
on that one?
>> Oh, yeah. We do want will
with and without injury. And
I'll match it to the model
traffic code and then I'll just
put in a fee, or I'll talk to
Michael and we'll talk
about setting a fee. And then
you guys can always amend that
on.
>> And Mayor, it does. It does
appear that the model traffic
code, the reckless driving,
careless driving terminology is
the same.
>> Good.
>> Thank you.
>> All right, so safety
equipment we touched
on a little bit, but we didn't
actually discuss specifics.
So, I put more broad ones in
and you guys can take them out.
So, for safety of helmet,
it's helmets. Operators
under the age of 18 need to be
wearing a helmet and then eye
protection regardless of age.
And then proof of compliance
basically means that a.
Like the sheriff can pull you
over if you're not wearing a
helmet and won't let you
operate it until you put your
helmet on.
>> So, I think we did talk
about helmets a little bit. We
didn't talk
about eye protection. So, I
just wanted to hear.
>> When you're. If we ask for
eye protection and the shading
is too much,
that could obscure the vision,
especially
at dusk or nighttime driving,
which these do. So that's the
only thing that comes to mind
for me that it might end up
causing more of a problem.
This is just a thought or just
maybe.
>> Have I seen other
regulations that have more just
a specificity about being able
to see out
of the eye protection? Because
there are those helmets that
make it dark in those when at
night it doesn't count as eye
protection because you can't
see out of it.
>> Yeah. The helmets the kids
are using don't have a visor.
So, we would be asking them to
purchase something additional.
>> Yeah, it'd be like eye
goggles or getting a helmet
that has advice advisor. But I
don't know. I think that. I
think it's unnecessary if I
connection.
>> I think.
>> I think the helmet is what
we're looking at for safety. I
think if you were riding it
on the highway and worrying
about a rock kicking up or dust
or something like that,
I just. I think the likelihood
of that biggest safety issue is
not having a helmet,
which is known
to be a big safety issue.
>> So, I would just say the
helmet. That'd be my
recommendation.
>> How would. So, the sheriff
would have the discretion
to pull someone
over because they maybe looked
like they're on rating.
>> Yeah. I mean, it's like the
motorcycles have the same law
right now that every
motorcyclist or the HHC wear an
helmet. So, it's basically the
same. I think it's probably
something they add
on they pull you over
for driving recklessly. You
also don't have a helmet on.
At that point,
they know you're under 18 and
they give you another ticket.
Most likely. I mean, I guess
sometimes it's pretty obvious
they're not easy, but
>> I don't think it's necessary
either. But I still,
I'm still curious
about that aspect. Can a
sheriff pull. I'm going
to use the word air quotes,
kid
over because they think they're
under 18 or it has to be only
in conjunction
with another infraction.
>> So, the way that I've seen
it, it's not a secondary
defense because that usually
has very specific language. But
as an enforcement mechanism,
I'm not sure I can ask how
they're doing it now
with motorcycles. And if they
might, they might be treating
it as a secondary offense, even
though it's technically not.
>> Yeah.
>> Excuse me.
>> You're more likely on a
motorcycle. I think you're more
likely to be 18 or older.
Where these other vehicles
maybe not so much. So, I,
I just. Fear, not fear.
But I, you know,
my thought process is,
does the sheriff have the,
the authority to say,
let me see your idea? Because I
was doing nothing wrong other
than not wearing a helmet?
>> Yeah.
>> You're getting a probable
cause type stuff. Sure.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I would say it's
like a,
it would be a probable cause
to pull someone
over if you think they're
under 18 and the only thing
they're doing is not helmet.
>> I think that's a good
question. I don't know how
they're handling it now. I
definitely. Please put that
in the staff reports
of the ordinance.
>> Okay.
>> And next slide. All right,
so this is impoundment. This
authorizes the sheriff's office
to impound vehicle. Or these
off highway vehicles may have
probable cause that they're
being operated in violation
of this, again,
article not chapter. And then
it sets forth regulations
for how long it's being held.
There's an impoundment fee,
which you would later establish
by resolution your fee
schedule, and a storage fee
after five days. So again,
when I was doing my research,
only one municipality had an
impoundment. But it might be
something that y' all want
to add on as eligibility
for the sheriff's office
to do. We ran this by the
sheriff's office and they were
fine.
>> I have a question. I know
that the, the other
municipality that's doing this
also has a provision where they
can sell it after 90 days or
something.
>> That's something they want
to do.
>> So, it's not just they're
not
like huge garage full of.
>> So, is it 90 days?
>> So, this one doesn't have
the 90-day thing,
but I can look into that.
>> It has
to be something that's going
to sting or it's not going
to be like Nate was saying.
You give some of These families
a 200 fine, they're going to.
They're going to pay it.
But if you on top of that,
take the vehicle,
either they'll go buy another
one, or there's what the other
one doesn't. I think the
palace.
>> I. I think we need one of
those pool tickets because
everyone's just talking
to each other.
>> Okay, I'm sorry.
>> I had my hand up,
but I'll you go. Michael. Can
we get a ticket taker? We can.
So, my proposal for this and
maybe the same or different
than the municipal, whatever,
if someone is able
to drive the vehicle home,
then not impound it. Someone
of age, illegal, all that. And
then if there's not,
then it gets impounded. That's
my two thoughts. Two cents.
>> I'm glad you went
before me because I was going
to hearken back to what we see
with the golf carts. And the
golf carts, sometimes they'll
let them drive them home and
then they just come back. So,
there's that. I
like impoundment,
but I'm thinking about. This is
my second point about the
sheriff really is the one
with the authority on that.
And so,
if we impose a pedal a time
period, are we asking the
sheriff's office to do more
than they already do? So maybe
we could mirror what they
already do.
>> So, they have no regulations
on off highway.
But I could ask what they do
for other goals. Yeah, I mean,
we did.
>> We.
>> I think we discussed broad
terms of impoundment
with the sheriff's office,
and they were all for it.
But I also probably would want
to talk to them about the
90-day thing. I don't want to,
you know, commit
to them holding something for
90 days and they don't want to.
So, I think let's let me loop
back with the sheriff
on how they handle impoundment.
And if they want
to have a time frame to what
Ron said as well, the time
period has a definite deterrent
value. And then it becomes non
deterrent to whoever said they
could just go buy another one.
So that does matter. You know,
you had your stuff taken away
for like your phone taken away
for a week matters. Do you know
what I mean?
>> That kind of thing. Yeah.
>> Okay, so is there levels
to this?
Like if they had three of the
Violations like we've had, you
know, we have multiple
violations here.
Like not everyone, Not. Not one
small infraction gets the.
Sure, like impounded. But if
there were maybe a severity
of it,
I think that's how it would be
with like vehicle, motor
vehicle,
like a DUI or something
like that.
>> The heightened level is what
determines if the car is
impounded or not.
>> And under this provision,
it's just saying they're here
but authorized, not directed.
So, they would have the
discretion. They know the
repeat offenders. I would
probably. I would want them
to have the discretion of when
to found the vehicle so that.
That would have that. So, I
will look up and selling the
vehicle after certain
amendments and also make sure
it's. The sheriff wants to do
this and all that stuff.
>> And what
about returning it, you know,
is there. We don't want
to add a due process concern
with how
to get something back.
>> Yeah, I'll check with how
they handle impoundments
of other vehicles.
>> Be nice if we just follow
the same policy that they
already have for impound.
>> I do have one last question,
I think, though. So, if my
vehicle is impounded
after five years, it goes into.
I pay a storage fee. Do I pay
that storage fee every day up
until 90-days or after
Friday? Like, if it ultimately
gets sold, I lose my vehicle.
Plus, I pay 85 days
of storage.
>> Storage, yeah.
>> So, the way it's written
now, it's that you should pay
the storage fee,
which is established or
modified by resolution for each
day that the vehicle remains.
So, you guys would set a per
day that does the sheriff's
thing again?
>> I think probably, yeah,
you'd want to talk
to the sheriff to make sure
that number was high enough.
And you probably would have
to use kind
of cautionary.
>> A little bit out of the box
that serves the storage fee.
How about a cheap version
of the California Boot?
>> I don't. Yeah, that's not
something I looked up. But I
could ask them if that's
feasible.
>> That way the cops don't have
to store it
in their facility. Who they are
responsible for.
>> Garage, you're booted.
>> And if you. If you break the
boot, you get another. Get
another file on top
of that.
>> So, I will talk to the
sheriff. I don't think you can
follow the kid home and force
them to do it
in their property.
>> Well, I would just point
out that I think so. So, the
sheriff's office did read the
ordinance, and they were fine
with this language
for the comment. And keep
in mind, we're. I mean,
similar
to a vehicle they're not going
to let the vehicle sit there
in an unsafe manner. And so,
if you can't push the thing
home, they're going to.
They're not going
to let the kid ride at home
in violation
of what they just witnessed.
And so having an impoundment
option or come have your parent
come down. Going back
to the DUI example, hey,
if you can get somebody here
in the next 30 minutes type
of thing. So. But they did read
it as written,
and they were comfortable
with as proposed.
>> So, thank you.
>> We'll follow up
to all the questions.
>> Michael, does that have to
be an ordinance or a resolution
from us or can that just be
part of the discretion
of the sheriff?
>> Well, right now. Right now,
it's written as discretion
of the sheriff
for the impoundment. Right. Or
if the kid says, well,
my house is right there, well,
put it neutral and push it up
there and let me. And I'll sit
here for the next two minutes
while you push it home. Those
kind of discretions. I think
now the sheriff would really
handle that.
But they're not going
to leave it on a sidewalk
inside of CPY, right? Yeah, I'm
pretty sure they're. You're not
going to carry separate boots
around for us.
>> That's what they do
with the golf carts. They make
them take it home. Yeah, but
they can't enter the home
property. The police can't go
on the home property
without a different kind
of private phone.
>> All right, so that is all
the off-highway vehicle stuff.
So, I will get those changed.
Now we're going to switch
to these LSEVs as a reminder.
Those are basically the golf
carts that can go a little
faster and are street legal.
So next slide. So, this first
provision is a driver's license
requirement. This is already
required by state law,
but some people like to put it
in there so that they can take
it for it
in their own municipal court.
So again,
this is already required.
>> Do we want an argument?
Yes, because otherwise we may
copy all the ticket for yes,
because we might not be able
to ticket for it, but you have
to call somebody else.
>> They can still write
to county court. So, they could
still at the good sheriff.
So, they can. They can still
write it in the county court.
It's just saying you guys want
to see this in your court? If
you just want it to go to
Gabby.
>> Well, yeah, go into county
courts more severe. And then if
you have the same offense
with one
in county court and one
in our court, makes no sense.
So, I'd say put it in Our
court.
>> Well, then we get the fine
associated with it.
>> Always looking
at a dollar.
>> Well, and then your
municipal judge is overseeing
enforcement
of your ordinances,
dismissing them too. Yeah,
whatever you feel is
appropriate
to give them circumstances.
>> This, I just want
to start. You know,
this is not the golf cart
with the seat belts, the
lights, the license plate.
We're talking about
like golf cart, golf carts
on the pool of passenger.
>> So, we're talking about the
ones that do have their street
legal. So they have to have,
they have to be registered.
They have
to have a driver's license.
They have
to have turn signals, brake
lights, headlights,
all that stuff. We're not
talking about golf carts that
are not allowed
on the street. So, these are
just. The original intent
of this part
of the ordinance was
to do child restraints,
which is going
to be the next slide.
But I also put driver's license
on there.
>> But again, saying what
for those same.
>> You have to have a driver's
license to operate.
>> Thank you.
>> Sorry, can I ask a question?
Just, just for us to think
about if we're, if we're
regulating the ones that are
already safer and not the ones
that are ordinary golf carts.
The Pete kids are driving
on the street anyway. Do we run
the risk
of encouraging the wrong type
of thing? Just to think about.
I don't know how people would
react to that. But if I'm
buying a golf cart and I know
the tricked out one's going to
get me a ticket and the other
one isn't,
I might be more inclined
to buy the other one.
But you're going to go
through those regulations too,
right?
>> So, you guys did not want
to. Yeah, the child one. So,
the golf carts are not
in the ordinance. If you guys
want to do something
with golf parts,
I think the only. And then you
can actually just go to the
next slide because you can.
>> It's the child restraints.
>> So, this is the child
restraints and then they have
the specific ones. The issue I
think with the golf part is
there's no way
to put a child restraint in
them because they don't have
seat belts, they probably don't
have the latch system,
that kind of stuff. So, they're
not legal
on the roads and they're not.
They're not ever intended to be
used the way that they are
actually being used. So, this
is. So, for this one, though.
So, it's basically saying that
you have to have. Everyone has
to have a safety belt
on or a child restraint system.
We didn't talk
about safety belts. So, if you
don't want safety Belts, I can
remove that. And then this is
just the more specific ones
that I saw
from another municipality.
>> So, the first two are not
impacted by my concern the
driver's license and the child
restraint.
But the safety one is. The
safety belt one is.
>> Okay, so do we want. We
didn't talk about that. So do
we want
to require safety belts
for people who wouldn't need
to be wearing and need to be
in a child restraint system
for kids who wouldn't need
to be around.
>> Are they already equipped
with them? Safety is something.
>> So, so yeah. So, these ones,
they would probably would most
likely have a safety belt. And
then we can also specify
in the ordinance if. If they
are equipped for one. So, you
don't have to like add one
for safety belts.
>> But if it's equipped,
you have to have it
on the ordinary. Golf carts
tend not
to have safety belts.
>> Yeah,
>> I'm leaning towards no.
>> No for safety or no
for child.
>> No for child. Well, no,
I'm all about safety,
I guess.
>> The seat belt or the child
restraints. No, ver.
>> I think. There we go.
>> Street legal.
>> These are street legal.
>> Okay. Street legal
to me implies same requirements
for an automobile,
which means you got
to have a seat out. That's sort
of redundant. If it's street
legal, why would you not have
to have.
>> Not because of the way it's
currently written. It's motor
vehicles have the requirement.
These aren't motor vehicles.
>> Technically.
>> I think we should.
>> They're low speed electric
vehicles. Yeah, I agree.
>> These are. These would be
driving industry with cars
without the child restraint. I
can hold the kid on my lap.
And if there's an accident,
which many people do, either
whether some car hits them or
they hit a car or they hit a
curb or something. So, the
conversation we heard from the
last study session was there
was a desire
to ensure that kids were safe.
Children are safe on these
low-speed vehicles driving
on city streets. So.
>> Okay, so if it's a. If it's
one that meets the criteria
of illegal. Not illegal. A
legal.
>> Which is what these are.
>> Yeah.
>> Because then we require
retrofitting for people who
have them that have not. Or is
this. Are they grandfathered
in? Are we going.
>> I will put something in here
that says that the safety belts
have to be. If it was
like originally equipped
with it or something. Some kind
of language that. That's what
I've seen. Yeah, that's like.
If it was originally equipped
with it,
you have to.
>> I'll do.
>> Alrighty. And that is all I
have. So, I will get you a
Revised ordinance. The staff
member will have the answers
to some of the questions you've
had and then we'll move
from there.
>> All right,
thank you very much. Thank you
very much for your work
on this. And we are going
to hold our other two topics
from the study session
to another study session. And
we will begin our markers this
meeting, regular business
meeting at 6:30.
Thank you. Thank you again.
>> [ BREAK ]
>> Thank you.
Good evening, Council, citizen
staff. I call our March 24,
2026, City Council meeting
to or at 6:30pm Please call the
roll.
>> [ CALLING ROLL ]
>> Madam Mayor, you have a
quorum.
>> Thank you very much. Would
everyone please rise and join
me for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
>> My pleasure.
>> I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic
for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice
for all.
>> Moving on to the approval
of the agenda. If there are no
objections,
the agenda will be approved.
Hearing none. The agenda is
approved as presented. Next, we
have public comment which is
designed for you to share your
thoughts and concerns
with city council. But it's not
an interactive discussion. If
you're attending tonight's
meeting virtually and would
like
to give general public comment,
please sign up
by taking your name and address
into the chat feature. If you
called
into tonight's meeting,
the clerk will recognize you
by the last four digits
of your phone number. We ask
that the chat feature only be
used to sign up
to give public comment. Clerk
Duffy, do we have anyone signed
up this evening?
>> We do have individuals
signed up
for public comment.
>> Okay, let me give a few more
instructions then
for our public comment. When
the clerk recognizes you,
please start
with your name and address.
For the record, there's a
three-minute time limit for
individuals and a five-minute
time limit for anyone
representing a group. Again,
although the format for public
comment does not allow
for an interactive dialogue
with council, we do listen and
we really do value your voice
and what you have
to say this evening. So, Clerk
nephew, please call the first
person.
>> Certainly. Gretchen Coyle,
if you will approach the
microphone and start
with your name and address
for the record, please.
>> Gretchen Coyle, 7389
Timber Stone Street, Calvin.
Started. Jeff. Right.
>> My name.
>> Your time has started.
>> Mayor Engerman and City
Council. I'm a member of PAT
People Against Annexing
Crowsnest. I am sure you are
familiar with our group as you
have read our letters and heard
our members speak
at your meetings. Our group is
over several hundred strong,
keeps growing every day and
includes residents
from all parts of Castle
Pines. One
of the guiding principles
of PAT is transparency. And it
is in this spirit that I want
council to know that since
October 2025, when the
Crowsnest developer brought
their first annexation petition
to the city, the public's
perception is that the council
has already made their decision
and the annexation process is
just a formality. This has led
many citizens to lose trust
in the council and to believe
that you are not acting
in their best interest, but
rather are acting the best
interest of the developer.
Resolution 2623 has not helped
to diminish these feelings,
but to exasperate,
exacerbate them. Because the
language
of the resolution is favorable
to the Crowsnest developer. We
would like
to acknowledge and thank the
Council
for recognizing the need
for an annexation policy. We
want to work in partnership
with the city. However, we
cannot accept Resolution 26, 23
as it is currently written. We
specifically ask that
paragraphs 5 and 6, which are
highlighted
in yellow and crossed out
in red, be removed
from the resolution. Why?
Because one,
by including the language
in these two paragraphs, it
reinforces the public's
perception that the withdrawal
of the Crowsnest petition is
merely temporary with an
already predetermined outcome,
the annexation of Crow's
Nest. And two, the inclusion of
the two paragraphs is very
suspicious as they are
Superfluous to resolution
26, 23. Why include them? As the
language is not benign,
but rather beneficial to the
Crowsnest developer for when he
submits his third annexation
petition. Council,
before you vote on resolution
26, 23 later this evening, we
ask that you remove paragraph
five and six. If you do not
remove them,
then I respectfully asked
on behalf of everyone in this
room and our online audience,
that during your discussion
of Resolution 26, 23, each
council member publicly answer
this question. Why are you
unwilling to remove paragraphs
five and six? Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next speaker.
>> May I approach the desk and
give hand up, please?
>> You can leave them to me and
I will pass them out.
>> Lisa woods, if you'd like
to approach the podium.
>> Yes.
>> And start with your name and
address for the record,
please.
>> Absolutely.
>> Hi, Lisa Woods. I live at
6639 Barnstead Drive and I am a
six-year resident of Castle
Pines. So good evening, mayor
and city councilmembers. I'm
here today to ask that you
extend the timeline
for the development
of a draft annexation policy
from 90 days to at least 120
days before it comes back
to you for A vote that
additional time matters
for three key reasons. Number
one,
it stops the unnecessary rush
like we just had with the
Crowsnest annexation and a
compressed timeline that
disadvantages residents
in the process. Number two,
it allows for more robust data
collection and more meaningful
input from residents. And
number three,
it gives the public enough time
to become educated
on the issue, review the draft
policy and provide thoughtful
feedback before any final
decision is made. Also, from my
public service experience, I
know effective policy
development depends on
consistent intentional
engagement and education
with those most affected,
which is also essential to
building trust and
strengthening community.
On that note, I also ask you
to go beyond only a third-party
survey and offer three
suggestions
to more fully partner
with residents. Number one,
hold open forums, such as town
halls that are accessible and
welcoming, where residents can
have real two-way conversations
with you. Our elected officials
use this time
to engage and educate with us
in dialogue so we all better
understand one another and this
policy. Number two, of course
council members will connect
directly with their
constituents and I and other
Canyon's residents,
look forward to conversations
with Councilmembers Winegar and
Blue. Number three,
give residents
at least two weeks
to review and respond to the
draft policy via written and
public comment and well
before a final vote. This
annexation policy will shape
the future of Castle Pines
for years and decades
to come,
which is why it's so important
to slow down enough to get it
right and let all voices be
heard. So, in closing,
I ask again the City Council
to extend the timeline to
at least 120 days and
to expand opportunities for
public input that will ensure a
process that is more
thoughtful, more transparent,
and truly reflective
of our community.
>> Thank you very much
for your consideration and time
to speak. Thank you. Any
further speakers? Donna Cook,
if you would like
to complete, you can start
with your name and address.
For the record, please.
>> George Lava Club, 7316
Canyon Sky Trail. Good evening,
Mayor Engerman, members of
council and fellow residents.
It is our understanding that
you truly want to hear what
Castle Pines residents want
in our future annexations. And
then, once resolution 26, 23
passes, the city will begin
gathering community input,
primarily through surveys,
to help shape that new policy.
Council many residents felt
that the city was already
strongly inclined
to approve the Crowsnest 5
ball annexation despite
widespread community
opposition. For that reason,
there is a deep concern that
this new annexation policy
could be used to fast track
similar future proposals. Once
adopted, developers could
simply claim projects meet the
criteria,
effectively shutting the public
out of any further meaningful
input. Therefore, as a part
of this process, we
respectfully ask that you
include a clear educational
component when gathering
feedback from the residents.
Many residents are not as
familiar with technical terms
such as flagpole, annexation,
1, 6, consecutuity, density or
even our three-mile plan. It's
essential that the city clearly
explain these terms and the
long-term impacts as a part
of the data collection process.
In addition, we ask that the
data gathering involves as many
Castle Pines residents as
possible through town halls and
genuine dialogue,
not just surveys. And that
at the draft stage, the
community has that opportunity
to review and comment
on the draft policy, their
concerns heard and discussed
before it's finalized. So,
in sum, council members, here
are four clear actions that we
kindly ask you to consider.
Direct the staff to include a
strong educational component
in their outreach to the city
so that every resident
understands the key terms and
the long-term implications.
Two, commit to multiple forms
of engagement, including town
halls and focus groups
in addition to the surveys.
Three, extend the timeline
beyond 90 days
for whatever time it takes to
do this data gathering
properly. And four,
bring the draft policy back
to the public
for review and input
before your final adoption.
Thank you very much
for your time this evening.
>> Thank you. Any additional
speakers? We do have two more.
Brigitte Landstrom, if you
would like to come
to the podium, start
with your name and address
for the record, please.
>> Hello Council. Thank you
very much
for giving me this time.
>> My name is Brigette Foley
Lanstrom, 7325 Castle Canyon
Sky Trail. Nervous Apologies. I
am here because I care
about our community. I care
about where we live. I'm
invested
in keeping it safe. I am here
to ask you
for this resolution and for all
future resolutions that involve
development to include language
that protects our environment.
I for one am tired of seeing
the developers bury miles and
miles of plastic
underneath our canyons. And I
know you all know about this
because this is not the first
nor the second time it's been
brought up to the council. We
need to start caring about our
community or nobody else will.
And you are the only ones that
stand in between the developers
burying miles and miles. I'm
not exaggerating. Of trash and
keeping our canyons and our
community and our wildlife
flourishing. So please consider
that for this and all future
proposals to actually have
language that protects our
environment and standards that
the that the public agrees to.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Our next speaker,
Jane Bylenberg, if you would
come to the podium and start
with your name and address
for the record.
>> Jane Bielenberg, 1025 Dear
Clover Way Mayor and Council. I
want to read something
to you that was shared in the
Denver Post. This is not
about Crowsnest. This is in
El Paso County referencing
similar situations and similar
concerns. And it's regarding
the boundaries and what is
being done there.
The residents of Tri Lakes
area have reached a breaking
point.
Despite overwhelming
documented opposition, the El
Paso County Board of
Commissioners continues to
facilitate a land use process
that effectively treats the
community as an obstacle to be
bypassed rather than a
stakeholder to be heard.
By allowing developers such as
Vertex corporations such as BUC
EE's to exploit administrative
loopholes such as the recent
boundary line adjustment, the
county is signaling that deep
pocketed developers dictate the
future of Monument Hill, not
the people that actually live
there. Residents are rightly
furious that their voices are
systematically marginalized by
a process that grants the
applicant extensive time and
resources while limiting
community input
to mere three-minute snippets.
The consequences
of this project, ranging
from water depletion,
traffic congestion to permanent
environmental degradation,
will be borne by those
in the immediate vicinity. Yet
the current system ignores this
reality. Members
of the community are tired
of the charade. They're
demanding structural reforms
including equal presentation
time for citizen groups and the
integration of prior records
to stop this reset to zero the
cycle that protects the
corporate interests
at the expense
of local sovereignty. The
message
to the board is clear.
Citizens versus developers.
Theodore Roosevelt once said,
the government is us. We are
the government, you and I. A
government that prioritizes the
convenience of a corporation
over the voice of its citizens
has forgotten its primary duty
as elected officials. We do not
exist to accommodate a
developer site plan. The
developer exists to operate
within the community we have
built. I couldn't have said it
better,
so I copied it. I thank you
for your time. I thank you
for your consideration. It
really. We're not. We're your
community. I mean we. We voted
you in to protect us and
to look out for us. And there's
a lot of issues, you know,
water, sewer, electrical
traffic, environment, animals.
I've only been here four years,
but I've been a licensed
realtor since 1990. I moved
people here when it was
nothing. They moved here
for the outdoors, the beauty,
all of it. And it's development
has just engulfed us. I know
that some has to happen, but I
just respectfully ask your
consideration
in going forward. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Do we have any
additional speakers? We have no
further person signed up this
evening. Thank you very much.
All right, we are going
to move on to our next item
on our agenda,
which is the presentation
of our minutes. Are there any
corrections to the minutes
from the March 10, 2026, City
Council meeting hearing none.
>> The minutes are approved as
presented. Next is our consent
agenda. Tonight's consent
agenda is Resolution 26 to
20, which approves an
intergovernmental agreement
between the Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District doing
business as Mile High Flood
District in the city of
Castle Pines regarding City
of Castle Pines stream
condition assessment and
project prioritization.
Resolution 26 21, which awards a
bid in approving a construction
contract with EDWC Levy Co
doing business as Schmidt
Construction Company for the
2026 pavement maintenance
program. 2026-PW-003. And our
last resolution is 26 22, which
approves agreement
with services and equipment
between the City of Castle
Pines and Barricade holdings
LLC, doing business as
Colorado Barricade Co for on
call striping and pavement
marking services. May I have a
motion
for the items I can send,
please? I move
to approve items
on consent agenda.
>> Second.
>> A motion and a second.
Please call the vote.
>> [ CALLING ROLL ]
>> The motion passes.
>> Thank you. All right,
moving on
to our general business. The
first item
on general business this
Evening is Resolution 26, a
resolution of the City Council
of the City of Castle Pines,
Colorado concerning the
development of an annexation
and policy imposing a stay on
future annexation applications
and accepting the withdrawal
of the annexation petition
for properties known as
Crow's Nest annexation.
At the 2026 City Council
retreat, Council discussed the
need for an updated annexation
policy that lays the framework
for council's vision
of the city's future. This
resolution directs staff
to create for policy which will
be approved by council
at a later date.
Additionally, this resolution
accepts the letter received
on March 19, which withdraw the
application for the Crowsnest
annexation petition. May I have
a motion to begin discussion
on this, Mayor?
>> I don't know if you want to.
May I add in either
before or after. When would you
like me to. I had a couple
comments.
>> Okay.
>> Yes, please.
>> Okay.
>> Now would be their
appropriate time.
>> Okay. So, I wanted
to address some
of the comments
since they're related
to staff action in there. So,
as the mayor said,
this occurred
during the council meeting.
And just
from a process standpoint, the
withdrawal letter is contingent
on council approving this
resolution this evening
for the Crowsnest annexation.
We can,
and these are not necessarily
in the order of the comments,
but there's certainly no issue
from a staff perspective
to extend the line to 120 days.
The intent
in the draft resolution was
to convey what I took away
from the council retreat,
which was this is a priority.
And not to bring it back in
2028 or 2027, but
to get this done as a component
of all the other updates that
we're doing this year,
but shifting to 120 or 180
days,
we'll get it done sooner.
Obviously. No issue there.
Just want to be clear that
under no circumstances does an
annexation policy override the
state statute, and the state
statute still requires all of
the conditions that the council
went through before. So should
there be another annexation
application anywhere
around the city, all
of those conditions still have
to be met. The purpose of.
Sorry, paragraphs 5 and 6 were
I used the Crowsnest annexation
property language in there. I
don't know that it's ultimately
necessary, but the intent was
to acknowledge, as you look at
the development that's moving
up from the north through the
Canta and the development
that's moving south. And there
is not any open space property
within in any of this area.
This is all owned
by private property owners.
So, whether they're LLCs or
individuals or whatever that
might be. So those two
paragraphs, which are could
argue are a little bit
redundant, are really
to imply, with the actions that
the council had taken
to date, acknowledging whether
annexations happen or not,
or it gets developed in the
county or it gets developed
in as part of Castle Rock or
Barker, that this area
between south or west Parker
and north Castle Rock, if you
will, over time will ultimately
get developed. So that's the
intent
of those two paragraphs. So,
whether you want to keep those
in ultimately or not,
that was the intent. It really
wasn't intended to. It
certainly wasn't intended
to be an open door for Crows
nest. But because that's the
language we would use, I use
Crowsnest annexation
properties
in surrounding areas. So just
so council understands the
intent in there and then we
certainly can do and we have
not discussed the outreach
because council hasn't approved
the resolution.
But if you do, one of the first
things we will do is sit down
and staff and develop what that
outreach looks like.
But I don't see anything
in any of the comments tonight
or requests, if you will, that
are things we wouldn't have
normally included
in our public outreach process.
So, I think council can rest
assured we can meet those,
especially around the education
piece because it's hard
to ask people about things that
they don't understand. And so
that education has to come
before any kind of outreach
that's there. I think those
were the things I wanted
to add in there. So, thank you.
>> Appreciate that.
Before we have a motion,
council members, do any
of you have any questions
for staff about the Council
Member Mulvey?
>> I do appreciate that you
shared that you drafted this.
I'm going to put this. Will you
agree
to set up regular town halls
for the districts? We've asked
for it before. I know you've
done it
for district one a couple
of times. Would you. Do we have
the resources
to really do that on a regular
basis where we have that one
on one?
>> I don't want to commit to
that right now because I can't
answer that question.
>> Okay.
>> Because it depends
on how much. And I would say
that that can be a separate
conversation outside
of this resolution. Because
you're talking. I assume what
you're asking is
on an ongoing regular basis.
Certainly,
on the occasional one we can.
But as you know,
we have limited staff,
so it's just a matter
of putting them together.
But if there was interest
by other districts
to have those meetings,
we can facilitate those
on a kind of as needed basis.
But I'd be cautious
on a regular and ongoing. Just
because our communication staff
who put those together aren't
here for. And I have to talk
to them about them.
>> I'll reserve my comment
on that for later, but the
reluctance is concerning.
Thank you. I have a question
just about outreach,
because I'm just kind
of getting an idea of. We did
the town halls recent. Not town
halls, I'm sorry,
the open houses recently. And
that was driven by the economic
development that's happening
and just some other updates
that we're ready to do. Yeah.
Like we're going to have an
open house coming up that
canyon interchange. Focus
solely on that. So, there are
kind of topics specific.
>> And then when we did the
parks outreach,
I'm just trying to get an idea
of like sequencing. Like how
often do we do them?
>> How. I mean,
are they twice targeted
on specific topics? Right.
So, we need them to not.
>> No, it's more as an admin as
needed. So, the Happy Canyon,
if you allow me of that,
as that example is we wanted
to get Barna through the CDOT
and FHWA process,
the one we had in open house.
We had confidence that the
approvals were there and it was
timely. But
before construction started
type of thing. So, it's
intended to be. That one's
intended
to be an educational one,
not a feedback loop. Something
like this. We would put
together an overall feedback
loop. And as was suggested,
obviously once there's a draft,
you want to put that out
for a period
of time so people can respond
to it. But we don't have any
similarity. Council Member
Mulvey's question. We don't have
any standard ongoing schedules
and that goes for our
communication other than the
council post council meetings,
pre council meeting things that
we do a lot of. That's again
just a staffing level issue.
>> I'm not talking about
ongoing.
>> I know we've done them
targeted towards like we need
the parking outreach. We did
the economic development
outreach idea of
like do they tend to happen
within three months? I don't
know if there's any sort
of timeline.
>> No, there's not. This one
would be really time to. If
council moves it to,
for example, 120 days. We would
sit down with the communication
staff and the community
development staff and look
at overall workload, whether
what other things are already
on the plate and what are we
building the timelines
for those Are there,
are there. There's an
educational piece and there's,
you know, survey outreach piece
and there's a feedback loop
piece and lay
out the entire timeline
for that, which is typically
what communications does
on any of these problems. Does
that help?
>> Yes.
>> Thank you,
council member.
>> Thank you, Mayor.
>> Actually, this is directly
to Clerk Duffy. If I want
to move on this resolution
with a couple
of friendly amendments. Do we
have to have a. We have to have
a. A motion first or can I make
the friendly amendments as part
of it?
>> You could make the motion
with the amendments to the
suggest if I just gave you guys
a cheat sheet because there's,
you know, no slides tonight
on this item. But yeah,
and we could definitely,
if you needed me
to help you decide,
you have to. The mayor could
call.
>> Let's give it a try first.
>> Okay.
>> Mayor, am I okay
to make a motion?
>> Let me make sure there's no
other further questions.
They'll come back together.
Are there any other questions
for staff?
>> Not a question.
>> But just with the town hall
versus just meeting
with constituents like myself
in District 3
with Council Member Blue.
There's no limit to that. So,
we can continue to meet
with community, gather
information, bring that back
and that's something I would
commit
to multiple times outside
of the structure,
the funnel structure.
>> Absolutely agree. Yeah.
Thanks.
>> Curiosity question. Should
we go for a true city form,
meaning we don't have a
facility
to handle something?
>> No, we would break it up
into similar to what we do.
We'd have probably something in
here if we could get the room.
If it continues beyond. I can't
say I've done the math. But
beyond July, we've got the
community center. We can
certainly use that the Canyon
house and the exchange. So, I
mean that that is part of the
overall planning is where is
there space available for us
to hold different meetings.
>> So, thank you. So, is it
reasonable to assume that we
could probably do the same type
of outreach and education and
focus groups that we did
for the parks of Rec update?
Maybe not for the length of
time because this is one topic,
not as broad of a topic but.
But those opportunities.
>> I think council can be
comfortable that this would be
a robust public engagement.
>> All right. Any further
questions? All right.
>> Councilor Eubanks, you would
like to make your motion and if
we need to, we can always take
a break too.
>> Thank you. A resolution. I'm
sorry, Mayor. I move to
Approve resolution number
26-23, a resolution
of the city council
of the City of Castle Pines,
Colorado concerning the
development of an annexation
policy imposing a stay on
future annexation applications
and accepting the withdrawal
of the annexation petition for
properties known as cronies
annexation
with the following amendments.
Remove the following two
paragraphs. Whereas the city
council recognizes that the
proposed Crowsnest annexation
properties and surrounding
areas will be urbanized and
deposited developed
in the future as illustrated by
the surrounding development
adjacent to Crowfoot Valley
Road within the town of Parker
and town of Castle Rock.
Second paragraph I would like
to amend to be removed is
whereas the city council finds
that designation of the
Crowsnest annexation property
for urban development is an
appropriate and logistical.
Sorry. Logical expansion of the
area growth patterns can be
developed
in a compatible manner with
surrounding land uses reflects
the changing conditions
in the area north of Douglas
County and can be appropriately
developed through future
detailed review and phasing.
And the last amendment I would
propose would be
to change the day
from the draft
for the city council
from 90-days to 120-days.
>> Is there a second? Thank
you. We have a motion and a
second and an additional second
just to reemphasize the.
>> So, Council Member
Eubanks, we'll go ahead and
begin discussion
with you.
>> Thank you, Mayor. I thought
for. I'll address the 90-days
first. When we were
in our retreat,
I thought we went through a
very thoughtful process
to talk about it and I feared
that if we limit to 90 days
things we talked about,
I think that I feel
like that's rushing. So, I
would like to see that 120
days. As far as the other two
paragraphs, I won't get into a
long-detailed explanation, but
I just don't find them relevant
for the purpose
of this resolution.
>> Council Member Cole,
Council Member Winegar.
>> I agree with Council
Member Eubanks that I do not
find those necessary for this.
I would actually say 180-days.
I know we're at that 120. I
think we need to take time
with this. We need to make sure
that we get this right
for future endeavors
with this and to make sure that
all voices are heard in the
community. I also know that we
have time like time frames and
we have a lot of things
to do too. So, I would say a
minimum 120,
but I'm highly would recommend
180 days for this.
>> And I would just echo that.
I would agree
with you. I don't want it
to be a rush, but we can always
come back and amend this
resolution if we feel
like we don't. We need more
time. We haven't got everything
that we're looking for and
haven't gotten the first the
participation that we would
like to see from the community
that we can also back
to make a resolution
to change this
to extend it past 100.
>> Additional comments.
>> Yes please, Councilor
Mulvey.
>> So, I actually had this
conversation beforehand with
the manager and said we don't
need a lot of whereas clauses
in this. And he said I know you
don't like a lot
of whereas clauses. And my
primary reason for that is that
it gives impression that we're
making a decision when a
whereas clause is not binding.
And all aware as clause does is
supposed to give you the basis
for why you're making the
resolution. And I see duplicity
in addition
to what maybe duplicate,
duplicativeness, circle
opposite whatever you want
to call it. But there's
definitely repetitiveness
in additional provisions here.
And it says
in the seventh one, whereas
city council establishes a stay
that's nearly identical to
Section 2
in the operative part
of the resolution. So, my
suggestion is that we take that
out because it's duplicative.
Number eight, the second
to the last one, says whereas
city council directs. That's
nearly identical to Section 1
in the operative resolution
language. So, my concern is
it's technical. We don't need
to say it twice. It's totally
ineffective. It's not binding
at all to say something we're
taking action
in a whereas clause. So, I
would suggest that we take out
those two as well simply
because they're complicative
on a technical basis. The other
thing I want
to mention is that, you know,
we say that it's not a give and
take for public comment,
but we had one because Manager
gave and take answered it.
So, I'm going to answer it
because I think it deserves an
answer. I think that it's not
so much how much time it takes
for somebody to draft something
and give us this thing we want
to amend, it's how much time we
spend considering it. And
that's what I think is most
important. I also think that if
we're supposedly growing up as
a city and making these
comments
about how things are going
to be developed anyway, then we
should grow up and have town
halls like other towns do. And
it doesn't take a lot
of money or time to schedule
something where you don't need
food, you don't need drinks,
you don't need staff. It's help
setting up and getting the word
out for a town hall with a
particular council member. And
I would,
I think I've already given
in the past years screenshots
of what other towns do,
particularly Centennial,
Aurora. You see them on
Facebook. The city process
would not necessarily be needed
for the logistics of it because
it's the council that needs
to engage. It's our commitment
and it's a different kind
of thing than our open houses.
And so we've asked
for it before. It's been done
before. I too do them. I did it
all throughout budget season.
So I,
I don't think we're asking
for a lot to do that. And I'm
going to withhold any further
comments and listen
to my colleagues. Council
member of Salsa you I actually
don't have a problem
with the language of talking
about Crowsnest and this is
why, because this is private
property. They have the. They
can do whatever they want
with it. They can go to us,
they can go to the county,
they can go to Castle Rock.
>> But I don't want
to put a stain on them just
because we don't want them
at this point, we're not ready
for them or we're just not
right for us or we need time
to figure out if it's right
for us. I don't want that
to look bad
for the developer. If they want
to go somewhere else,
I want them
to re acknowledge it's going
to get developed. We hope it
gets developed properly
with all the studies and
in consideration of the
surrounding areas and the
community. But again,
I don't have a problem with the
language because simply it's
going to get developed and I
don't want it to be.
>> We're the ones, you know,
making a stain on their
application because maybe it is
a good fit in the future
for someone else. So, I don't
have a problem. That's all I'm
saying. I do want the time. I
do want four or five months
to go through the process, do
education,
make sure community that wants
to get heard is heard. People
that have questions can have
their questions answered. And
the process is well done.
>> Thank you, Mary. So, I still
disagree. If this is
about a policy
for annexation, we do not need
to call out Crowsnest because
this isn't just a policy for
Crowsnest. This is a policy
for the city going forward.
So, I believe any mention of
crow's nest is not relevant. I
have a motion on the table.
We've had a couple seconds. I'm
not interested
in amending my amendment. So,
if there's someone else who
would like to make a different
motion or amend my amendment,
feel free. If not, I'm ready to
vote.
>> I would. I don't know if
you've just made a motion, but
I do have another comment.
>> No, I didn't make a motion.
>> There's already a motion
on the table. I go ahead
with your trouble. Oh, pardon
y'. All, but there is a motion
that calls the question. So, I
just wanted
to give him the courtesy
to ask if he was doing that.
You know, I am astounded
by the frequency
with which we have people
on this dais saying one thing
in one session and another
thing in another. One thing
in executive, one thing
in the public, one thing
in one meeting,
one thing here. It astounds me
and it infuriates me.
>> Mayor Point Board, this is
not.
>> State your point. Go ahead,
please state your point.
>> Council Member Eubanks.
>> Thanks.
>> My point is this is a
conversation
about this resolution, not
about disparaging other council
members.
>> Your point is well taken.
>> Council member.
>> Please keep your comments
to you and not speaking
about your colleagues. That is
what you agree to with our
decorum and our policies.
>> Yes, ma'am. Holda and I will
continue my comment. I for one
will give a consistent
statement. Everywhere I am,
I see in Sterling Ranch
residents who want one thing
and people in Solterra,
unincorporated nearby and
Roxboro Park wanting another
thing. And when I go somewhere,
I hear the same things that
some of we hear. And I know you
all hear it too,
in the public. And you're
hearing that we have a push and
a poll about what the community
should look
like and what's best
for everybody. And there should
be absolutely no limit
on public comment
for that.
>> Again, Mayor Point maybe
please take a five-minute
break.
>> Yes, we can take a tone and
10-minute break right now. We
will come back
at 7:15. Thank you. I'm sorry if
you're upset.
>> [ BREAK ]
>> All right. Thank
you everyone
for your patience. We are going
to have our meeting. All right,
Council members,
we are still have a motion
on the table. Continue
discussion. Council Member
Salazar, call the question.
>> Excuse me,
am I cut off? I'm moving on
because you've been called
twice out.
>> So, Council Member Mulvey,
we have the call the question.
Is there a second
to call the question
about motion and a second
to call the question. Clerk,
Deputy, please call the vote.
>> [ CALLING ROLL ]
>> The motion passes.
>> Thank you. All right. We are
moving on to our final item on
our general business which is
the Mayor.
>> We called the question,
now we have to call the vote
on the motion.
>> Oh, thank you very much.
>> Yes.
>> All right. Yes, please.
>> Look, Duffy. Do I need
to reread it? Yeah.
>> Does anyone need it re-read?
>> No.
>> With all your. The first
qualification was that we would
vote immediately.
>> And since there was a 2/3
vote voting on your motion.
>> Thank you.
>> [ CALLING ROLL ]
>> The motion passes.
>> Thank you very much. All
right. Now we will move on
to our final item on general
business which is a public
hearing. Initial zoning. The
crow, the Crowsnest plan
development. PD case number
RPD-2025-001. I think I'm okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Go ahead.
>> I was letting the community
development staff off this
evening given that it'd be
easier so, as the memo.
>> So, I'm sorry. So, this is a
resolution or a motion?
Resolution to ultimately vacate
the annexation application
based on the applicant's
withdrawal which was as I said
earlier, continued
on the council adoption code
of the. I'm sorry,
at the pd.
>> Manager Penny, I need to
interrupt you because I didn't
actually open the public
hearing. I need
to open the public hearing
before we continue
at 7:17 soon.
>> Okay, go ahead.
>> So. So this is.
>> This policy question is
relevant now given the language
and the applicants withdrawal
of the annexation petition and
council's adoption
of the previous resolution.
And we were required because
this goes back a ways in terms
of when we were originally
posting dates. So, this was a
posting issue from. I believe
it was initially a March 5th
planning commission meeting.
But because the application is
withdrawn. Their. Their PD
application. We just need
counsel to open the public
hearing and vacate the county
section petitions, and we have
as the city attorneys was
during my year. We have no
jurisdiction to hear it now.
So.
>> Okay, so what you're looking
for is the a motion to vacate
the public proposed motion
on page two
of the staff memo.
>> Council members,
does anyone have any questions
for staff right now
before I entertain our session?
Okay, go ahead. I will
entertain the motion. And
someone tells them
on the piece of paper given
to us.
>> I move to the safe the
public hearing
for initial zoning for the
Crowsnest plan development. PD
case number RPD-2025-001.
Sorry, have a motion and a
second. Is there any discussion
seeing that? None.
>> Clerk Duffy. Please call the
vote.
>> [ CALLING ROLL ]
>> The motion passes and the
public hearing is vacated.
>> Right. Clerk Duffy, I need
to close the public hearing.
Do I not? Or.
>> Okay, yes.
>> Perfect. All right then. We
are moving on
to comments and report. City
Manager Penny, do you have
anything
to report this evening?
>> As I mentioned
during the previous resolution,
we will now start working
on that timeline. And I'll
update council on what our
proposed process is as we put
that together. And the only
other thing I want to let you
know is the community center
remodel is going
along as well. There's still
demo work, but we're still
on track
for the clerk's council meeting
in July to be in that room.
And I think you guys will be
very pleased with the outcome
of both the physical, physical,
built, physical layout of it.
And then the audio visual will
be much nicer than what we've
experienced in the library.
While we appreciate the
library, I think it's going to
be certainly the next level up.
So, I'm excited. It has
pictures. It's still just demo
right now,
but as we start it starts
to come together. We'll bring
some pictures. We'll share
those with you or else you're
obviously welcome
to go up there and take a look
around us together. So that's
all I have to see.
>> Thank you. All right,
we'll move on
to council member reports.
Council Member Mulvey, we'll
start with you. Thank you. I
appreciate that. The mayor did
a roundtable for Douglas
County citizenry. I was a
little dismayed that I was the
only council member there
to support her,
but she did a great job,
and it was really good
to see that. I wanted
to ask staff
to add the raise grant to our
grant list because I know it
just happened so it's just want
to make sure that the public is
seeing that we're applying for
those funds as well as the
congressionally directive
spending for Happy Canyon
Interchange to try to get
everything we're entitled to. I
want to thank council and
staff. I had a few tangential
questions in advance,
so I want to thank you
for that. Just taking the time
so it didn't take time away
from our meeting. And then I
also want to express to council
that I had some terrific
conversations with some
of our peers
in other jurisdictions, local
jurisdictions, and I think that
the comments that have been
made about us collaborating and
learning from other
jurisdictions is meaningful.
And while it's unfortunate that
I could not properly express or
clearly enough
for you and concisely enough
for you express what I meant,
I'll say it here where I'm
allowed the I've learned from
Castle Rock how they deal with
these conflicting push and pull
issues,
and it's different than the way
Parker handles it. And I've
learned from Lone Tree how they
handle them. They have a
different kind of system. So,
I've also taken the time
to learn a little bit more
about some
of the developments that Mr.
Penny referred to. And I shared
that. I shared all of these
things that I've learned with
him so that they can be
incorporated. And I hope
to share them
with you all as well. But I for
one am learning a tremendous
amount, particularly
from what is happening with
public comment and the push and
pull in the other jurisdictions
and including at Sterling
Ranch. And I think that
sometimes the issues aren't
exactly the same, but sometimes
they are exactly the same. And
I think the way that we go
about our process here is a
combination
of what we're learning
from there, from all
of these places. And so
to me, it's what we do with our
information and our time,
no matter where it comes from,
that matters. And so,
I do intend to continue
to do that. And I would
encourage you all
to have an open mind
to it as well. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mayor. First, a
question for the city manager.
With your fancy new audio
visual, can we get some kind
of button where I can press and
on the screen, it puts us
in a queue? You think I'm
kidding?
>> Actually, I don't think
you're kidding.
>> I don't.
>> Do not know the answer
to that. But we will ask.
>> That would be outstanding. I
may be the only one.
>> So, Stephanie has it. Oh,
really?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I'll tell you what it
is.
>> I just felt like tonight
there was a lot of talking
over each other
in the study session. So, maybe
not a digital solution, but we.
I think we need something and.
And I probably was the worst
offender.
>> So, I don't know myself.
>> I like the deli
ticket idea.
>> That's because we're from
Jersey, right?
>> We're going
to give the city clerk the
power to turn on and
off the bikes.
>> There you go. On March 12, I
had the pleasure
of attending a reception
for youth in Douglas County.
Reception. And it was the youth
councils from Parker, Lone
Tree, Castle Rock and Douglas
County. We do not have one,
but it was a wonderful event.
It was a roundtable that we
each had a topic. And my topic
that I had with my group as
they rotated was leadership.
And a lot
of these folks are interested
in civic duty, interested
in local government. So, I had
a real good conversation with
those folks. I was delighted
to be part of that. You know,
I had something else, but must
not have been very important
because I don't remember it.
That's it, man.
>> Council Member Cole.
>> Thank you, ma'am.
>> Just this past Friday, I had
a pleasure graduating from
Invisible Leadership Academy,
which is a yearlong program.
It is well worth the time and
the effort you put into it.
There were 18 others
from communities under
25,000, so we got to meet some
and there are some problems
out there I probably didn't
want to know about. But it was
a great education program and
recommended to any
of the council members. It runs
a year, but it's well worth
your time and I thank you
for sponsoring.
>> Council Member Salazar.
>> Thank you, Mayor. I just
want an update. The parks and
recreation board met
on the 19th, so last Thursday
we honored our outgoing
members, and we welcomed our
new members. Our first meeting
with our new members and we
discussed what's coming up
for this year. Many things
coming up, but the priority
right now is working
on trail signage. So, we will
have signs on our trails and
those will also be added. The
trails are already on GIS, but
having some trail signs up and
some trail heads so you can see
the map of all the trails. So
that's something that the park
score will be working on.
>> Council Member Winegar.
>> Thank you, Mayor. I had the
fortunate honor. I have the
fortunate honor
of attending the Commonsense
Institute here recently. It was
my first time experiencing
something like this. They're a
bipartisan organization. They
brought data related to
Colorado's economy and I think
there's someone worthwhile
checking out and continuing. I
look forward to going to more
of those and learning more. I
think that, you know,
regulations,
taxation and tabor were big
Topics, and it was nice
to hear both sides
of the fence on that.
>> And I thought it was a nice,
robust conversation. And there
was a lot
of representation there,
public and about them. So, it
was enjoyable. Comment I have
is just again, thank you
for the community showing up,
voicing their voice
for whatever it is. It's
important
to have a community that,
that stands up
for their beliefs, and I
appreciate all their efforts
to come in front of us and
to speak up their boss.
>> Mayor, before you go, may I
ask council member Salazar a
question? Council member,
would you mind sharing the kind
of the cool news we had
about the naming
of the parks, the name
of the trails.
>> Naming of the trails.
>> See, what's the cool news?
>> The name. Didn't we approve
voting on it? Yes, I was hoping
it'd be a little bit more
enthusiastic.
>> Yeah, so we did approve
at our last meeting.
>> So, on the west side,
all the
trails have been named,
and they have been named based
on geographical or geological
or geographical features. So,
ridges and tall grasses, trees,
those kinds of creeks, also
by neighborhood. So if you're
out on the trail
on the west side,
if you see something wrong
with the trail now,
you know how to report it
because you know the trail has
a needle or if you get lost,
they're going
to need help.
>> You know how
to help someone to come find
you because you know the trail
has a need. And then we'll
start working on the trails
on the east side to get them
all names and get trail
signage. So, it's all one
connected city. So, we're super
excited that we've. There were
35 trails we've already named.
So, it's a big. It's a big
project for the parks Board.
>> Thanks for coming up.
>> And Mayor, thank you
for allowing that question.
>> All right, thank you.
>> Thank you, audience,
so much
for being here this evening.
We really do appreciate hearing
from you, and we hope to hear
from you as we explore this
policy and hear what we're
going to do. The retreat was
fantastic
to have this conversation
with council about. We don't
really have framework right now
to help guide us on how
to make these types
of decisions, and we need you
to participate in that
to help us determine what's
in the best interest of
Castle Pines. And so,
we really look forward to that
discussion and further dialogue
to find out more about what the
community is looking
for the future of Castle
Pines. So, then we can create
our policies that state those
things and make it very clear
to people that want to come
to Castle Pines. What it is,
our expectation is
of them that they want
to be part of Castle Pines.
So, thank you
for that and I look forward to
our future conversations. I had
a very great attendance with
South Metro Denver Chamber. We
had a mayor's panel two weeks
ago, very well attended. At the
end they had a networking
opportunity, and I had a lot
of, not necessarily residents
of Castle Pines, but residents
of the area that were really
surprised about the things that
are happening in Castle
Pines. So, I think it was
successful in the fact that
they hear what's happening here
and that there are things
happening. And we are looking
forward to seeing more
commercial and retail
opportunities in the future
for us. And we're getting more
attention and I think that's
good. I think it's going
to bring the type
of users that we're looking
for to this community just by
them having knowledge that
we're open
for business and we'd
like them to come here. And
then I spent some time in D.C.
this past week working on our
zip code advocacy and we maybe
didn't make as much progress as
the last visit. And I think
that's part to do
with there's a lot going on
in D.C. right now.
>> So, we got a lot
of more visits
with staff as opposed
to elected officials.
But we had a couple roadblocks
with a few senators that I
think that we made progress,
that they're going
to not be the hurdle. They're
not going
to necessarily put a hold
on the bill.
>> Not 100% sure, but we
definitely made some inroads.
And so I think that we've made
some more progress. I think
it's probably going
to require us
to go there again sometime
in the future. But Senator
Rand Paul made it clear that he
is willing
to see our bill and markup
in either May or June or
sometime in the future. But
Homeland Security Committee
doesn't have very many markups.
They're not necessarily a super
functioning committee. So,
we'll see if that happens.
But two of the other senators
are also working
on merging the two Senate bills
together. So, we're still
making progress. I mean,
this is a lot farther
from where we are right now,
from where we started even
three years ago. So. So
hopefully we will see this bill
get in front of the entire
Senate and get passed and then
back to the House and pass
there too. But I think that it
is absolutely doable
for this year. So, we're going
to keep our fingers crossed
with that. We adjourn the
meeting at 7:32. Thank you
everyone.