[0:02] >> Good evening, council and
[0:04] staff. Go ahead and get started
[0:05] with our study session for
[0:07] Tuesday, March 24th. And our
[0:10] first topic is electric
[0:12] vehicles. And we are being
[0:14] presented. Assistant City
[0:18] Attorney Evan King is going
[0:20] to be presented. Yes. All
[0:22] righty.
[0:24] >> So, I am back to talk more
[0:25] about this. I have now given
[0:27] you all a draft ordinance.
[0:28] These are provisions that I
[0:30] don't want to say stolen,
[0:32] but they were copied basically
[0:36] from other municipalities based
[0:37] on what you guys said you
[0:39] wanted to see
[0:44] in an ordinance. So everything
[0:45] in here is proposed,
[0:47] and I wanted
[0:48] to give you guys the
[0:49] opportunity to look at them and
[0:50] tell me what you like,
[0:51] what you don't like,
[0:53] if we still want
[0:54] to regulate more or, you know,
[0:55] whatever it may be. So next
[0:57] slide. There we go. Oh, and
[1:02] also, I did want
[1:04] to mention that Michael and I
[1:05] also had a chance to talk to
[1:07] the sheriff's department or
[1:08] sheriff's office. They did look
[1:09] into stats. They said the stats
[1:10] were really not reflective
[1:12] of the problem, though, because
[1:13] most time people aren't calling
[1:15] the cops. So, they only had
[1:17] like 10 reports, but they said
[1:19] by far it was the most citizen
[1:20] complaint that they received
[1:21] and that it was absolutely a
[1:23] problem. So, I don't have the
[1:24] stats to really back it up, but
[1:26] the sheriff's office definitely
[1:27] supports this. They said that
[1:29] Douglas County is also
[1:30] continuing to look into this.
[1:31] They're looking
[1:32] to see what you guys are doing,
[1:33] what Bonetree's doing, so that
[1:34] they definitely are also
[1:36] considering something
[1:37] in the future. So, next slide.
[1:39] So, this is the parent
[1:40] responsibility. Oh, and I do
[1:47] also want
[1:48] to note the state bill on this
[1:50] failed. I'm not surprised. It
[1:54] was terribly written so that.
[1:55] So, the state law is not going
[1:57] to go into effect. They'll link
[1:59] it. If you guys want
[2:00] to have it. It will be your
[2:01] provision. So,
[2:03] under this provision, parents
[2:04] and legal guardians are
[2:06] basically responsible
[2:07] for their minors. And that's
[2:09] defined as anyone under of 18
[2:11] who operates an
[2:12] off highway vehicle
[2:13] in any public street, road,
[2:14] alley, or any public property
[2:15] within the city in violation
[2:17] of this chapter Charlie
[2:19] article, actually. So, I'll
[2:20] change that
[2:21] for your actual ordinance. And
[2:23] then I copied the fine schedule
[2:24] from Castle Rock, I believe,
[2:25] which is a 250 flat or $250
[2:27] mandatory minimum. So, I just
[2:28] want
[2:29] to hear what your thoughts are
[2:30] on that.
[2:41] >> I was at something recently
[2:43] is the partnership with
[2:44] Douglas County governments
[2:46] where the CEO of Douglas
[2:49] County School District said
[2:51] they have a problem
[2:54] with scooters really badly
[2:56] on their property. And if we
[2:59] were to consider adding other
[3:01] vehicles, other electric
[3:05] conveyances, would we? Would
[3:09] our ordinance apply
[3:11] at the elementary Schools or
[3:13] the charter schools in town.
[3:20] >> I think it would. I mean,
[3:22] it would apply. It depends on
[3:24] what the provision says. I
[3:26] don't want to caveat all of it.
[3:27] I know electric scooters,
[3:29] you can kick them off the
[3:30] sidewalk and that would be
[3:32] everywhere, including the
[3:33] public park or the public
[3:35] schools. I would. I really have
[3:36] to look at the provision. But
[3:38] if it's something that you all
[3:40] wanted me to look into,
[3:42] absolutely can do that to see
[3:43] what you guys could regulate
[3:44] there that would help you
[3:45] with that issue.
[3:47] >> Thank you.
[3:48] >> I would.
[3:49] >> I would be interested
[3:50] in that because I wouldn't want
[3:51] to ask us. I mean, I'm mindful
[3:52] of what some
[3:53] of the comments were last time,
[3:54] so I wouldn't want
[3:55] to suggest we spend time going
[3:56] down that road unless we knew
[3:57] that the enforcement was
[3:58] doable.
[4:00] But I was really struck
[4:01] by the differential
[4:03] between the beliefs here about
[4:04] whether or not it's a problem
[4:07] and what was clearly said
[4:08] at that meeting
[4:12] about that particular kind
[4:13] of conveyance. And Mr.
[4:15] Pennymate, you might have heard
[4:16] that part of the meeting here
[4:18] when, I do want to.
[4:20] Just on your
[4:22] enforcement thing. We talked
[4:24] to the sheriffs. We said
[4:26] exactly what we were planning
[4:27] on doing. And he said
[4:28] absolutely everything that you
[4:29] guys proposed,
[4:30] everything I had
[4:32] in the slide tonight, he said
[4:34] it could be enforceable and
[4:35] that they would be happy
[4:36] to enforce it for us. That's
[4:37] not my question.
[4:40] >> I know. I'm just like. It
[4:41] just reminded me. Okay. Yeah,
[4:49] it just. You just reminded me
[4:50] of it. So that's why I
[4:51] mentioned, as a side piece,
[4:52] because I know that was a
[4:53] concern.
[4:54] >> Thank you.
[4:55] >> So, any other thoughts?
[4:56] >> Is there a legal problem
[4:57] with adding 90-day impoundment
[4:58] to the vehicle?
[4:59] >> So, I do have an impoundment
[5:00] provision later on that we can
[5:01] talk about. I would probably
[5:02] leave it in there rather than
[5:03] under the parent
[5:04] responsibility.
[5:05] >> Thank you.
[5:08] >> So back to the 250. Is this
[5:09] in line
[5:10] with what our other fees are
[5:11] for things?
[5:12] >> I did not check. I was just
[5:13] spacing out.
[5:14] But what other people were
[5:15] doing with their clients,
[5:16] >> I'm a little familiar
[5:18] with the municipal code
[5:20] on that. And this is higher.
[5:21] >> And again,
[5:22] this is the mandatory minimum,
[5:24] which is. I mean, so if you
[5:27] wanted the municipal judge
[5:29] to have more of a leeway,
[5:30] you might not want to have a
[5:33] minimum or you might want
[5:34] to set a max instead.
[5:41] >> Sorry.
[5:43] >> How can both be true? How
[5:44] can this be higher than
[5:47] everyone else?
[5:49] But still the minimum is 250.
[5:50] >> I think she was saying it's
[5:51] higher than our usual code.
[5:52] Higher than.
[5:53] >> Higher than operating
[5:54] something else in a careless
[5:56] Manner.
[5:57] >> Thank you for that
[5:58] clarification.
[5:59] >> Yeah, I was confused, like,
[6:01] for even a vehicle.
[6:02] Like a vehicle up to 500
[6:04] for careless without injury.
[6:05] Starts at 100, 120-ish. What's
[6:14] the cost? What is the fee for a
[6:15] standard speeding ticket?
[6:19] >> Depends on what.
[6:22] >> Yeah, it does. Depends
[6:23] on the speed. And anywhere
[6:24] from 90 to 150.
[6:26] >> Yeah.
[6:29] >> If you're 11 to 19
[6:31] over the speed limit,
[6:32] your ticket's $145. That
[6:33] includes the victim assistance
[6:34] fee.
[6:38] >> I mean, I think if you want
[6:39] to deter it,
[6:40] higher is better. Because I
[6:41] don't think some of the parents
[6:43] that have these are going
[6:44] to really worry about $100 fee
[6:46] or $200 fee even, maybe,
[6:50] in my opinion. And the fact how
[6:54] many times they get caught out
[6:56] of a hungry. I mean, it's.
[6:58] It's like the carpool lanes.
[6:59] Right. So, I'm sure a lot of
[7:00] people use the carpool lanes
[7:02] and aren't supposed to. And so,
[7:04] I. I actually think a minimum
[7:05] of 250 seems appropriate. And
[7:08] then looking at a maximum,
[7:10] if there is. We wanted
[7:11] to have maximum or leave it at
[7:12] the judge's discretion question
[7:13] in appropriate.
[7:18] >> How would you?
[7:19] >> Hey.
[7:21] >> How would you determine what
[7:22] a maximum is? Whose discretion
[7:24] is that? If I'm caught,
[7:25] I'm caught. Maybe if there's a
[7:26] maximum, maybe it's
[7:28] for the first offense, it's
[7:30] 250.
[7:34] For the second offense is
[7:35] 500, something like that. But I
[7:36] don't really have discretion
[7:37] of saying, yeah, you're 250,
[7:38] you're 275. You did the same
[7:39] thing. You know what I mean?
[7:41] >> That's what the judge does.
[7:43] >> That's what they do every
[7:44] case.
[7:45] >> Yeah.
[7:46] >> Are we treating this
[7:47] like every case? Are we
[7:48] treating this separately?
[7:49] >> We're having.
[7:50] >> No, procedurally.
[7:52] Procedurally, that's what
[7:53] happens. Each court operates
[7:55] like I do miss Municipal stuff.
[7:56] So, each court operates a
[7:57] little bit differently.
[7:58] >> Yeah.
[8:00] >> But it's always the judge's
[8:01] discretion when there's a
[8:02] minimum or maximum. And
[8:05] sometimes the circumstances
[8:06] attendant to what was happening
[8:07] can change what's happening.
[8:08] And then also there's a plea
[8:09] process that the procedure
[8:11] changes for two from court
[8:13] to court. I can't practice in
[8:19] this court. I can only observe
[8:20] in Castle times.
[8:21] >> Correct.
[8:22] >> And then just
[8:23] to note there, this, as always,
[8:24] any ordinance we have,
[8:26] it would be subject
[8:28] to the max, which is the 2,650
[8:31] or whatever. So, that's always
[8:33] the max.
[8:34] >> So that's.
[8:37] >> There is a maximum
[8:38] potentially built in already.
[8:39] But if you guys want a lesser
[8:41] one,
[8:42] then we should probably have
[8:43] It.
[8:45] >> So, let me ask it a
[8:46] different way. Is anyone
[8:47] opposed to 250 as a minimum
[8:48] fine? Then we can move forward.
[8:51] >> Actually, you can. I'm not
[8:52] opposed to minimum 250. I'm
[8:53] just regardless of other
[8:55] infractions that the judge has
[8:56] a discretion. Would an example
[8:59] be it's 250 if I'm just caught
[9:01] on the sidewalk. Is it 500 if
[9:06] I'm caught in the sidewalk or
[9:09] there's something across?
[9:11] >> Yeah.
[9:12] >> I'm curious what those.
[9:13] >> Yeah, that's how.
[9:15] >> I mean,
[9:16] as long as it doesn't go
[9:17] below the minimum,
[9:19] I guess I'm fine. But I just.
[9:20] The discretion. I'm just
[9:21] curious.
[9:22] >> Yeah. So, like for example,
[9:24] this violation
[9:26] of this article. So, let's say
[9:27] you catch a kid on the street
[9:28] who doesn't have a helmet on.
[9:29] You could. Technically that's a
[9:30] technical violation
[9:32] of this chapter. That could be
[9:34] a fine for the parent as well.
[9:35] But then you also could get a
[9:37] fine for, you know,
[9:38] a reckless drive aid with it.
[9:40] So, I mean maybe that is where
[9:42] it goes up that if your kid's
[9:43] caught doing something more
[9:44] dangerous, the, the fee or the
[9:45] penalty would go up. But the
[9:46] way it's written now it's 250
[9:47] is 4.
[9:50] >> So, I understood.
[9:52] >> Okay, that all makes sense.
[9:53] So, thank you. Does the judge
[9:56] still have a discretion to go
[9:57] below the minimum?
[9:59] >> No.
[10:00] >> Even with a plea,
[10:02] it's a mandatory minimum.
[10:03] >> No. Okay. Yeah.
[10:04] >> So, for saying 250 is
[10:05] minimum.
[10:06] >> Thank you.
[10:07] >> So, the legal standard is
[10:09] with due attention
[10:10] to the circumstances. And so
[10:15] that's where it comes in. So,
[10:20] your thought process is
[10:22] on target. May I ask my next
[10:23] question?
[10:26] >> Sure.
[10:27] >> And I apologize. This
[10:29] repeats.
[10:30] But the technical part of this
[10:32] in the machines,
[10:33] the conveyances is a problem
[10:34] in my mind. I can't wrap my
[10:36] head around the differences.
[10:38] Sometimes when about what you
[10:39] described made sense,
[10:40] but then when I see. So
[10:41] yesterday afternoon, I'm going
[10:46] down here on the parkway,
[10:51] six little motorcycle guys,
[10:55] eight years old-ish to 12 years
[10:57] old-ish. Street, sidewalk
[11:00] lights, intersection,
[11:01] varying degrees of hair,
[11:03] I would say. Right. But it was
[11:04] this little motorcycle minibike
[11:06] looking thing
[11:07] like a moped used
[11:09] to look like, but
[11:10] without the pedals. And are we
[11:14] regulating that?
[11:19] >> So again, it's so hard
[11:20] to just
[11:21] like know what a thing is even
[11:22] by looking
[11:23] at it because it depends about
[11:24] the wattage and the capacity
[11:26] of the engine. So, you might
[11:28] have been seeing a minibike,
[11:30] which is technically a toy
[11:31] vehicle. But if it was going
[11:32] that fast and keeping up
[11:34] with the other ones,
[11:35] it probably was a
[11:36] off highway vehicle, I would
[11:37] guess because it's just. It's a
[11:38] degree of capacity
[11:39] of the engine. If they could
[11:40] keep up.
[11:42] >> I don't think so.
[11:43] >> Talking about a minibike,
[11:44] if they
[11:45] look the same to the. This
[11:47] is why it mattered to me. So,
[11:48] they look the same
[11:49] to me as an observer. And there
[11:50] was an older man who was
[11:51] in the way, I should say,
[11:52] and a pedestrian. So would it.
[11:53] How much does it matter if he's
[11:55] encountering one versus the
[11:56] other? And how broad we end up
[11:58] getting with our regulation.
[12:18] Like, why would we. Why would
[12:19] we then have to say, stop all
[12:20] the kids and examine the bike
[12:21] and determine whether that was
[12:22] in this category or that. When
[12:24] to the naked eye at me,
[12:25] it kind of looked like
[12:26] whichever one it was scared the
[12:28] bejesus out of this man.
[12:34] >> Yeah, that's there. I think
[12:39] it's just. That's the nature
[12:41] of it, is that the technology
[12:42] and our ability to determine
[12:43] what these are has not totally
[12:45] caught up because you can't
[12:46] tell. I think the idea
[12:47] behind it, though, is
[12:48] like the minibike. If you get
[12:50] in a collision,
[12:51] a minibike has less capacity to
[12:54] hurt someone because it can't
[12:55] go as fast. So, I think the
[12:57] idea with the state giving us
[12:58] the right to regulate certain
[12:59] things is that the more
[13:00] dangerous it is,
[13:01] the more leeway we have
[13:02] to regulate. So even
[13:04] on toy vehicles,
[13:05] we have a little bit less. I
[13:06] mean, it's not as clear cut
[13:07] that we have the right
[13:09] to regulate these as
[13:10] off highway vehicles, which in
[13:11] their statute it says
[13:12] specifically local governments
[13:14] can do all
[13:15] of these things.
[13:17] >> Right.
[13:23] >> We don't necessarily have
[13:24] that for toy vehicles. I think
[13:25] that this probably is a huge
[13:26] problem and a huge loophole
[13:27] everywhere that hopefully will
[13:28] catch up the state of cut up.
[13:29] But unfortunately,
[13:30] that's the best we have now.
[13:31] So, I'm guessing what you saw
[13:32] was an off by a vehicle,
[13:33] though. So probably would catch
[13:34] if they were. If he was going.
[13:36] Math and stuff.
[13:37] >> Well, some were stopped,
[13:38] some were going. I mean,
[13:39] it was a little dispersed game.
[13:41] You know, there was
[13:42] like four there and two there.
[13:43] The other question is, do we.
[13:44] Has the sheriff's office said
[13:45] anything about the practicality
[13:58] or impracticality of having
[14:02] to stop them? Because that came
[14:03] up when we talked
[14:05] about golf carts.
[14:10] >> Yes, absolutely. That's.
[14:11] That's an ongoing issue
[14:12] everywhere. Mostly because they
[14:13] hop on the trails with these
[14:14] motorcycles and the police are
[14:15] not going to go down trails in
[14:16] their police vehicles or
[14:18] anything or cause more danger.
[14:20] So, yes, that's absolutely a
[14:22] problem everywhere.
[14:23] >> Thank you.
[14:33] >> All right, so we will keep
[14:34] the 250. And then maybe you
[14:35] guys can think about as a
[14:36] maximum. I can also look in
[14:38] to see if there's any guidance
[14:39] on it. It might not be because
[14:40] I. There's actually many people
[14:41] who do the parental
[14:43] responsibility,
[14:44] but I'll check.
[14:51] >> Okay, so next slide. So,
[14:59] this is for eluding. So, this
[15:00] kind of just goes directly into
[15:02] the conversation we were just
[15:03] having. So, this would make it
[15:05] a separate offense
[15:06] for an off-highway vehicle
[15:08] to hopefully fail
[15:10] to stop or attempt to elude or
[15:11] evade a police officer who's
[15:12] trying to pull you over. There
[15:13] are some explicit. First
[15:15] of all, it has to be. It can't
[15:16] be an undercover cop. It has
[15:19] to be a marked official. And
[15:20] then the last bullet is the
[15:22] prohibited content. So, it's
[15:23] like increasing your speed when
[15:25] you see them turning
[15:26] off your lights,
[15:28] departing the roadway
[15:34] to avoid the stops of
[15:35] like hopping
[15:36] on a trail or other. Other
[15:38] conduct that willfully shows
[15:40] intent to evade the officer.
[15:41] So, what do we think
[15:43] about this one?
[15:46] >> Reminds me
[15:47] of being a teenager.
[15:49] >> Yep. Well, it's no
[15:50] different.
[15:52] >> Excuse me.
[15:54] >> It reminds me
[15:55] of when we used to go
[15:57] to the golf course.
[15:58] >> I'm for it.
[15:59] >> Question is, how do. I mean,
[16:01] if they do this, what's the
[16:02] likelihood they're going
[16:04] to get caught? Right? Yeah.
[16:05] >> So, I think that's also a
[16:06] good point. But what's great
[16:07] about it is most
[16:09] of these are kids who are
[16:10] in school. So actually,
[16:11] I was talking
[16:13] to some other officer not in
[16:14] this jurisdiction who they
[16:15] found the kids
[16:17] by taking pictures
[16:18] of them and then sending them
[16:19] to the school.
[16:21] Like pictures were sent to the
[16:22] schools and the schools ratted
[16:23] them
[16:24] out and they found that way.
[16:25] So, it does. They can't. They
[16:26] do have their ways to do it.
[16:27] But yes, obviously if they're
[16:29] evading, it's kind of hard
[16:30] to give them a ticket
[16:31] for doing that.
[16:32] >> They wrap them out or. Or
[16:33] assist them in law enforcement
[16:34] activities.
[16:36] >> Assist them. And I'm sure
[16:38] their lawyer would prefer
[16:39] to say it that way. Okay,
[16:40] >> I'm good with this.
[16:42] >> Okay. And next slide. All
[16:43] right, so this is the insurance
[16:52] provision. So, it requires you
[16:54] either to have an insurance
[16:56] policy complying
[16:58] with the state's requirements
[17:00] for motor vehicles or a state
[17:02] of self-insurance
[17:03] in full force and effect. That
[17:05] was just an option that other
[17:07] people had. And then this last
[17:08] bullet is basically that it's
[17:09] another separable offense if
[17:11] you fail
[17:12] to give them your proof
[17:13] of insurance.
[17:14] >> So, it's like when you're
[17:15] driving your
[17:16] car and you get pulled over,
[17:17] you can have a no proof
[17:18] of insurance citation. So, what
[17:20] do we think about
[17:22] with the self-insurance,
[17:23] do you want to put
[17:24] in specific requirements
[17:26] for the insurance?
[17:35] >> What do you think? I oppose
[17:38] this one strongly because
[17:39] number one, it's superfluous.
[17:41] It's making a law for something
[17:42] that's probably already covered
[17:44] already. And all it's going to
[17:45] do is cause an insurance
[17:52] coverage fight that will
[17:54] increase our premiums and we
[17:55] don't need that. And I don't
[17:56] see it being effective because
[17:58] there aren't any policies
[17:59] written for this right now.
[18:02] Okay. You can get an
[18:04] endorsement, but it doesn't,
[18:05] it's not that specific. It's
[18:06] for everything and it costs a
[18:08] lot. So now if we require it,
[18:12] we're increasing the cost
[18:14] to get insurance here
[18:15] in town.
[18:29] >> I guess I just want
[18:31] to understand. So, any vehicle
[18:33] that you operate has
[18:39] to be insured. We're
[18:40] classifying these vehicles as
[18:42] something that needs
[18:43] to be licensed and has to be
[18:44] follow those requirements. And
[18:48] I feel like it falls
[18:49] under the category
[18:50] of insurance. And plus if one
[18:51] of these kids, heaven forbid,
[18:53] gets in an accident or car hits
[18:54] them, I think they need
[18:56] to have insurance just
[18:58] like I need to have insurance
[18:59] when I'm driving
[19:00] down the street if I were
[19:02] to get into an accident.
[19:03] That's just my thoughts. And I
[19:05] understand the premium increase
[19:06] like but really it increases
[19:07] the premium for parents that
[19:08] are allowing their kids to
[19:10] violate this.
[19:15] >> I appreciate your
[19:16] perspective too. It's a, it's,
[19:17] it's tough.
[19:18] >> I know.
[19:19] >> I understand.
[19:22] >> Yeah.
[19:23] >> If I may ask a clarifying
[19:25] question. This insurance would
[19:26] be. Liability only would be the
[19:28] requirement?
[19:29] >> I think. Yes. That's what's
[19:31] required by your vehicle.
[19:32] >> Right.
[19:35] >> Okay.
[19:36] >> So, I know you explain this,
[19:37] so please forgive me. Would
[19:38] the,
[19:41] the vehicle itself be insured
[19:42] or the, or would you, the, the
[19:44] 16-year-old be insured?
[19:48] >> I think the way this is
[19:50] written it was you have
[19:51] to have insurance
[19:52] on the vehicle. On,
[19:54] on the vehicle. But then
[19:55] obviously your insurance unit
[19:57] doesn't cover non-name drivers.
[19:58] So, I mean, I definitely
[19:59] understand your point.
[20:00] But it's also
[20:01] like if you get hit by one
[20:04] of these things.
[20:07] >> Yeah. And most policies will
[20:08] cover a permissive user. So, it
[20:10] could be your neighbor riding
[20:11] your bike. That's just the way
[20:14] they're written.
[20:15] >> Oh, I'm not disagreeing. I
[20:17] don't know enough about
[20:18] insurance. I know that there's
[20:20] liability and full coverage.
[20:29] >> Yeah.
[20:30] >> I'm just curious because
[20:32] just reading this,
[20:33] I can't tell. Would the
[20:34] insurance cover if a
[20:35] 16-year-old,
[20:37] a minor drove their vehicle
[20:39] into a car and damaged it?
[20:40] >> I think that's definitely a
[20:46] person or a person would be
[20:47] more.
[20:48] >> Okay, what's the downside
[20:49] of endeavor insurance age?
[20:50] >> The policies already would
[20:51] cover for. There's two ways
[20:52] to get insurance coverage
[20:53] for something like this. You
[20:55] can. If a kid act does
[20:58] something stupid to cause harm
[20:59] to another person, it's still
[21:01] negligent entrustment or
[21:02] negligence on supervision
[21:03] on the part of the parent. And
[21:04] as long as it's negligent, you
[21:08] might have insurance coverage
[21:09] through the homeowner. So, the
[21:10] homeowner's policy. So, there's
[21:12] other ways that it might be
[21:15] already covered. And then if we
[21:17] require it, the type of
[21:18] endorsement that would be
[21:20] required would have
[21:21] to cover both what you said,
[21:22] property damage and personal
[21:23] injury. And it would have
[21:25] to cover everything
[21:26] under the sun,
[21:27] not just a broken ankle. So, it
[21:30] would then be across the board
[21:35] and it would become a rating
[21:36] issue. So, all the policies
[21:38] would have to have it and then
[21:40] everybody's would go up
[21:42] incrementally. I don't know if
[21:44] it would be a $10 endorsement
[21:45] or a $20 endorsement. So, I
[21:46] wanted
[21:48] to highlight it because it's
[21:49] on my mind
[21:51] in another matter.
[21:53] >> Okay. So, taking me back
[21:55] to the last time we spoke
[21:56] about this,
[21:57] and forgive my lack
[21:58] of knowledge
[21:59] of what they're called, a
[22:01] vehicle that is road ready has
[22:02] the turn signals and all
[22:05] of that, that must be
[22:07] registered and it must be
[22:08] by a license driver.
[22:10] >> Correct.
[22:11] >> In my opinion,
[22:13] that should have insurance. If
[22:14] it's not a vehicle that is not
[22:15] designed to be on the road,
[22:17] it shouldn't.
[22:18] >> That's what we're talking
[22:20] about here. These are
[22:21] technically not supposed to be
[22:22] on the road. Okay. So yeah,
[22:24] these are. So these are the
[22:25] dirt bikes who don't have,
[22:26] they don't have the turn
[22:28] signals, but
[22:29] for all other aspects,
[22:30] they're a motorcycle. That's.
[22:32] That's more of the. Then I'm
[22:33] in line
[22:35] with you guys because I,
[22:36] I see the distinction.
[22:41] >> So, if it's a street legal
[22:45] vehicle that needs a licensed
[22:47] driver, that's a, that needs
[22:48] insurance no matter what.
[22:49] That's not a.
[22:50] >> Correct. That's a state law.
[22:51] >> That's a state law, yeah.
[22:54] Okay.
[22:55] >> And just to Clarify, these
[22:56] are UTV's. They're not.
[22:57] >> I mean, yes,
[22:59] but we're mostly talking
[23:00] about the eater bikes here. So
[23:01] that's, that's kind
[23:02] of what I want to. That's
[23:03] like the loophole that I, I'm
[23:04] finding that they're basically
[23:05] the exact same vehicle. Just
[23:07] one has turn signals and a
[23:08] couple of their safety features
[23:09] and the other doesn't. And
[23:10] that's the one that is not
[23:11] required to have insurance,
[23:13] and they're not required to be
[23:14] on the road. I'm not saying
[23:15] they are like. Or
[23:16] like they're not allowed to be
[23:17] on the road,
[23:19] but they are.
[23:27] >> And they're not required
[23:28] to be registered either.
[23:29] Correct.
[23:30] >> Here's a whole new paint
[23:32] job. One thing for me.
[23:35] >> So, we just can't declare
[23:36] motorcycles correct.
[23:37] >> We're not allowed
[23:38] to change the definition
[23:39] of citizen.
[23:43] >> State law and you snip.
[23:44] So, is anyone opposed to this
[23:45] insurance?
[23:46] >> I don't really have your
[23:47] opinion either way.
[23:48] >> I know I kind
[23:49] of want that. This. Does this
[23:51] make it harder
[23:52] for the officers to enforce or
[23:53] does this most likely. If a
[23:55] person is pulled over
[23:56] by an officer, they've already
[23:57] probably broken some other
[24:01] correct tool.
[24:02] >> They have to have grounds
[24:03] to pull them over. So, they
[24:05] wouldn't know they didn't have
[24:06] insurance by looking
[24:07] at them.
[24:09] >> So, the. This is discovered
[24:10] after they've already pulled
[24:11] them over.
[24:12] >> Something else. Can I.
[24:13] >> So, it's
[24:14] like a telephone call,
[24:15] right?
[24:16] >> Yeah, it's a secondary
[24:17] offense, but they can't. So,
[24:18] it's not technically a
[24:20] secondary offense because a
[24:21] secondary offense usually says
[24:22] if you're. You have to. You can
[24:23] only ticket them if there's
[24:26] another thing on the ticket.
[24:27] But if they pull them over,
[24:28] they realize they haven't
[24:29] violated it and they don't have
[24:30] insurance, they get tick.
[24:31] >> But to Chris's point about
[24:32] how this stuff is processed
[24:36] in court and the severity
[24:37] of what the charge is, you
[24:39] know, you can identify a more
[24:40] severe usage
[24:42] with more charges. And just the
[24:44] same, you can also please
[24:48] something down. So, you know,
[24:49] some of these are going
[24:54] to have points. Insurance.
[24:55] Insurance violations don't have
[24:56] points, but the moving
[24:57] violations do have points.
[24:59] So, somebody who has made a
[25:01] stupid mistake and is. Might be
[25:03] worried
[25:06] about how many points they have
[25:07] on their license as a young
[25:09] person might have an
[25:10] opportunity to plead
[25:11] to the insurance violation.
[25:13] That's not the reason
[25:21] to enact it. But you asked the
[25:22] question before.
[25:24] >> I think. I think I'm
[25:25] on the fence too, because I.
[25:27] Council Member Mulvey makes a
[25:30] good point
[25:31] with homeowners insurance.
[25:33] They also could sue,
[25:34] of course, which is probably
[25:35] what will happen anyway.
[25:37] >> But. So, I, I think my
[25:39] biggest concern is if someone
[25:40] were walking
[25:44] down the street and got struck
[25:45] by one
[25:46] of these and severely injured,
[25:47] would they. Would they be
[25:48] covered medically? Could they
[25:50] be covered for that? And that's
[25:53] my biggest concern. If somebody
[25:54] were to get hit by one
[25:55] of these, I guess that's. And
[25:58] there's been noted deaths
[25:59] before too.
[26:02] >> I mean, well,
[26:03] it's what I saw yesterday.
[26:04] >> Yeah.
[26:05] >> So, I think didn't happen
[26:06] too long ago in Denver
[26:08] with a scooter. So, I, I, I
[26:11] just that would be my question
[26:12] is that the victim is protected
[26:14] or has some protection and
[26:15] maybe that's there's other ways
[26:16] for that to happen.
[26:18] >> I don't know if it's
[26:20] necessary or not.
[26:22] >> May I ask Michael?
[26:23] >> Mayor, another thing,
[26:24] thinking about your last
[26:25] conversation and creating
[26:29] disincentives,
[26:30] it might be a disincentive
[26:31] for the parent
[26:32] to allow the E-bike
[26:33] to be purchased
[26:35] in the first place because
[26:36] of the additional cost
[26:38] to co-inciprate it.
[26:40] >> So, would this not also
[26:41] penalize those who take their E
[26:43] bike to Rampart Range?
[26:45] >> And so, E-bikes are not a
[26:48] highway vehicle.
[26:53] >> So no, not you,
[26:54] but the motorcycle. Whatever.
[26:55] >> So that. Yes. I mean they'd
[26:56] have to have insurance under
[26:57] this and if they never intend
[26:58] or do right
[26:59] on the street.
[27:00] >> Yeah.
[27:01] >> It is saying that if you're
[27:02] operating in the city,
[27:03] regardless of where it is,
[27:04] if it's
[27:05] in the city's jurisdiction,
[27:06] you need insurance.
[27:08] >> The Rampart range is not in
[27:10] our drastic question that just
[27:11] came up as well. You know,
[27:12] this is more
[27:13] of a public policy issue.
[27:14] But do we want
[27:19] to be the first ones to do
[27:20] something this extreme?
[27:24] >> Well, you definitely aren't
[27:25] at the first for insurance
[27:26] because I did this is
[27:28] like it's a driver's license.
[27:29] Insurance is
[27:30] like the two top regulations.
[27:31] So, if you're going
[27:33] to regulate it,
[27:34] that's the top ones.
[27:35] >> Okay.
[27:36] >> So, you definitely won't be
[27:37] the first. But. So, I wouldn't
[27:39] let that necessarily dissuade
[27:40] you.
[27:41] >> Who would we be in bed with?
[27:42] I didn't mind being the first
[27:49] on the vaping statute, but this
[27:52] might be a little different and
[27:53] I feel
[27:54] like
[27:56] insurance one anyway,
[27:57] I might have it. Let me look it
[27:58] up while we are on here because
[27:59] I don't have my matrix printed
[28:00] out.
[28:01] >> I'm sure we can answer that
[28:02] later. Thank you.
[28:05] >> We amend this
[28:06] down the line though, so we
[28:07] could,
[28:08] we could be more conservative
[28:09] with this. And then if we
[28:10] wanted
[28:11] to amend it and add.
[28:13] >> Yeah, so, so for me, I'm
[28:15] on the fence
[28:16] on this too. I feel
[28:19] like there we would need,
[28:20] we probably don't have an
[28:22] obligation, but we would need
[28:24] to do a lot of education to
[28:25] parents and people that rule
[28:26] these to make sure that they're
[28:30] getting the insurance.
[28:32] But not having this does not.
[28:34] We're still enforcing what we
[28:37] want to with the other rules
[28:39] that we're creating. So not
[28:40] having this there would not
[28:41] defeat what we're trying
[28:43] to accomplish. And so, I, right
[28:44] now I'm leaning towards we ERR
[28:45] on not putting this in there
[28:47] and we can potentially put it
[28:48] in there in the future.
[28:49] >> Could we also, in part
[28:51] of our communications,
[28:54] communicate that this was a
[28:55] consideration, but we didn't
[29:01] feel time was appropriate and
[29:05] we'd like to look
[29:06] into it more. That would
[29:08] generate the feedback that we
[29:10] want because for all we know,
[29:12] we have a huge amount
[29:14] of seniors in our community
[29:16] that want this. And then how
[29:19] many, you know,
[29:20] eight-year-old parents don't,
[29:23] you know? We don't know.
[29:26] >> Sure.
[29:27] >> We also have a lot
[29:28] of hills. I mean maybe not
[29:30] over here, but
[29:31] in my districts, all hills.
[29:33] And so the ability
[29:35] to fly up and
[29:36] down a hill carries both sides
[29:37] of this.
[29:39] >> Okay, so I will remove that
[29:42] for your first reading and then
[29:44] we can always add it back in.
[29:46] >> Scroll up that resolution.
[29:48] >> But you nodded
[29:49] this way instead
[29:50] of that way.
[29:51] >> Yeah. This is going
[29:53] to be an ordinance. So next
[29:55] slide. Okay, so this is the
[29:56] reckless driving. So, this
[29:58] prohibits someone from
[30:00] operating a hop highway vehicle
[30:02] within the city and a willful
[30:03] or wanton disregard
[30:15] for the safety or persons
[30:16] of persons or property. And
[30:17] this is the definition of
[30:21] willful or wanton disregard
[30:22] that.
[30:24] >> So, we track the model
[30:27] municipal code that we already
[30:29] use for careless and reckless
[30:30] in language.
[30:34] >> This is. I think that. No,
[30:35] this is a specific one for
[30:37] willful month because this will
[30:38] not be on points for your like
[30:39] driver's license because you
[30:40] don't need to be licensed
[30:41] to have this. So, it wouldn't
[30:43] go on your points. It would be
[30:44] a separate municipal code
[30:45] violation. So, it wouldn't go
[30:46] on here. So, I tracked it
[30:47] to match with other people's
[30:48] reckless.
[30:51] >> So, we have the model
[30:52] municipal code. The MUTC is our
[30:53] definition of what is reckless
[30:55] and what is careless. Match the
[30:56] same language as the 4202 for
[30:57] careless and the whatever is
[31:03] the equivalent for reckless.
[31:05] >> I will double check
[31:06] for you because I,
[31:07] I don't know that off the top
[31:09] of my head. I just know this is
[31:12] what other codes have said. So
[31:15] I wouldn't be shocked if they
[31:17] did. And that's where they took
[31:19] it from.
[31:23] >> It looks similar,
[31:24] but there's a couple of words
[31:25] that look a little different.
[31:26] So, I would just. That we could
[31:27] make them match them.
[31:28] >> Okay.
[31:29] >> So that there would be a
[31:30] fair expectation and not get
[31:31] nailed on a defense that it's
[31:32] not that.
[31:33] >> Okay, I can definitely make
[31:34] it match. If it does match. Is
[31:35] everyone okay with this?
[31:36] >> Yes.
[31:37] >> And then. So, it'll be the
[31:38] same one for next slide.
[31:39] That's careless. I will also
[31:40] make sure this matches the
[31:41] module.
[31:47] >> No, not that. Because we
[31:48] don't. And then would we.
[31:52] Would we have this. Would we
[31:54] have the same with and without
[31:57] injury distinction that the
[31:59] model traffic code has?
[32:01] >> Do you want that?
[32:04] >> So, the model traffic code,
[32:05] if you're operating a car, you
[32:06] get a careless and you don't
[32:08] injure anybody. It's one. It's
[32:12] like a X number of points. If
[32:13] you get a careless and you. If
[32:15] somebody claims injury,
[32:16] it's another kind of points and
[32:18] the fine is different.
[32:19] >> So, we wouldn't do points
[32:20] because again, it's not
[32:21] like no differential.
[32:22] >> Right.
[32:23] >> Knife.
[32:25] >> I just. Do we want to make
[32:27] that distinction? I don't know.
[32:28] I think it's. It makes a big
[32:30] difference.
[32:33] >> Right.
[32:34] >> If someone's injured or not.
[32:35] >> Okay, so instead of points
[32:36] to be fines,
[32:37] is that what you're saying?
[32:38] Like.
[32:39] >> Well, the penalty. So, the
[32:40] penalty is different. So,
[32:41] there's also a different kind
[32:47] of difference that the class
[32:48] of effects. But there's
[32:50] like section one is, you know,
[32:52] on your ticket, no injury,
[32:54] and section two is
[32:56] with injury. And the penalty is
[32:58] different for each. So.
[33:01] >> And it.
[33:03] >> And it's often harder
[33:06] to plead down an injury one.
[33:08] So, it's. It's just a deterrent
[33:11] feeling. So then would the
[33:14] judge then make a discretion
[33:15] of what the.
[33:16] >> Yeah, I mean, you could set
[33:17] one or the other a minimum fine
[33:18] for each type. Maximum fine
[33:20] for each type. So, I could have
[33:21] some language
[33:22] in there and you guys can play
[33:23] around with the fee. Whatever.
[33:24] I said, I'll look at what is
[33:26] recommended or what I can find.
[33:28] >> I'm sorry, please explain
[33:29] again,
[33:31] why would there be no points
[33:32] on driver's license?
[33:33] >> So, this. So, we can. You
[33:35] can only put driver's license
[33:36] points if you're operating a
[33:37] motor vehicle that's licensed
[33:39] and registered here. You don't
[33:40] technically even need
[33:41] to have a driver's license.
[33:43] So, you couldn't put points on
[33:44] someone else. A driver's
[33:46] license that doesn't exist
[33:47] because it's not operating a
[33:48] motor vehicle. So, I don't
[33:50] think. I don't want to get it.
[33:52] I don't think we should touch
[33:54] that. I don't think that would
[33:55] probably even be legal for us
[33:57] to do that. Yeah. So.
[33:58] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[34:00] >> Yes.
[34:03] >> So we're not talking here
[34:05] specifically on the streets.
[34:06] We're talking anywhere in
[34:07] California.
[34:08] >> Anywhere. So, I mean
[34:09] like a sidewalk or like, you
[34:10] know, an open space.
[34:12] >> Yeah.
[34:13] >> Okay.
[34:14] >> Okay.
[34:20] >> And next slide.
[34:21] >> What do we decide
[34:22] on that one?
[34:23] >> Oh, yeah. We do want will
[34:24] with and without injury. And
[34:25] I'll match it to the model
[34:26] traffic code and then I'll just
[34:27] put in a fee, or I'll talk to
[34:28] Michael and we'll talk
[34:29] about setting a fee. And then
[34:30] you guys can always amend that
[34:31] on.
[34:32] >> And Mayor, it does. It does
[34:33] appear that the model traffic
[34:35] code, the reckless driving,
[34:36] careless driving terminology is
[34:38] the same.
[34:41] >> Good.
[34:42] >> Thank you.
[34:43] >> All right, so safety
[34:45] equipment we touched
[34:47] on a little bit, but we didn't
[34:48] actually discuss specifics.
[34:50] So, I put more broad ones in
[34:51] and you guys can take them out.
[34:52] So, for safety of helmet,
[34:54] it's helmets. Operators
[34:56] under the age of 18 need to be
[34:57] wearing a helmet and then eye
[34:58] protection regardless of age.
[34:59] And then proof of compliance
[35:03] basically means that a.
[35:04] Like the sheriff can pull you
[35:05] over if you're not wearing a
[35:06] helmet and won't let you
[35:08] operate it until you put your
[35:09] helmet on.
[35:11] >> So, I think we did talk
[35:12] about helmets a little bit. We
[35:13] didn't talk
[35:14] about eye protection. So, I
[35:15] just wanted to hear.
[35:17] >> When you're. If we ask for
[35:18] eye protection and the shading
[35:19] is too much,
[35:20] that could obscure the vision,
[35:21] especially
[35:22] at dusk or nighttime driving,
[35:34] which these do. So that's the
[35:35] only thing that comes to mind
[35:39] for me that it might end up
[35:40] causing more of a problem.
[35:41] This is just a thought or just
[35:42] maybe.
[35:49] >> Have I seen other
[35:50] regulations that have more just
[35:52] a specificity about being able
[35:53] to see out
[35:54] of the eye protection? Because
[35:55] there are those helmets that
[35:56] make it dark in those when at
[35:57] night it doesn't count as eye
[35:58] protection because you can't
[35:59] see out of it.
[36:00] >> Yeah. The helmets the kids
[36:01] are using don't have a visor.
[36:02] So, we would be asking them to
[36:03] purchase something additional.
[36:04] >> Yeah, it'd be like eye
[36:05] goggles or getting a helmet
[36:06] that has advice advisor. But I
[36:09] don't know. I think that. I
[36:11] think it's unnecessary if I
[36:12] connection.
[36:13] >> I think.
[36:14] >> I think the helmet is what
[36:15] we're looking at for safety. I
[36:17] think if you were riding it
[36:18] on the highway and worrying
[36:19] about a rock kicking up or dust
[36:20] or something like that,
[36:21] I just. I think the likelihood
[36:22] of that biggest safety issue is
[36:23] not having a helmet,
[36:32] which is known
[36:36] to be a big safety issue.
[36:39] >> So, I would just say the
[36:40] helmet. That'd be my
[36:42] recommendation.
[36:44] >> How would. So, the sheriff
[36:46] would have the discretion
[36:48] to pull someone
[36:49] over because they maybe looked
[36:51] like they're on rating.
[36:52] >> Yeah. I mean, it's like the
[36:54] motorcycles have the same law
[36:56] right now that every
[36:57] motorcyclist or the HHC wear an
[36:58] helmet. So, it's basically the
[37:00] same. I think it's probably
[37:03] something they add
[37:04] on they pull you over
[37:06] for driving recklessly. You
[37:08] also don't have a helmet on.
[37:10] At that point,
[37:11] they know you're under 18 and
[37:13] they give you another ticket.
[37:17] Most likely. I mean, I guess
[37:18] sometimes it's pretty obvious
[37:19] they're not easy, but
[37:21] >> I don't think it's necessary
[37:22] either. But I still,
[37:25] I'm still curious
[37:26] about that aspect. Can a
[37:28] sheriff pull. I'm going
[37:29] to use the word air quotes,
[37:30] kid
[37:32] over because they think they're
[37:33] under 18 or it has to be only
[37:34] in conjunction
[37:35] with another infraction.
[37:36] >> So, the way that I've seen
[37:37] it, it's not a secondary
[37:38] defense because that usually
[37:39] has very specific language. But
[37:40] as an enforcement mechanism,
[37:41] I'm not sure I can ask how
[37:42] they're doing it now
[37:43] with motorcycles. And if they
[37:45] might, they might be treating
[37:46] it as a secondary offense, even
[37:47] though it's technically not.
[37:48] >> Yeah.
[37:49] >> Excuse me.
[37:50] >> You're more likely on a
[37:51] motorcycle. I think you're more
[37:52] likely to be 18 or older.
[37:53] Where these other vehicles
[37:54] maybe not so much. So, I,
[37:55] I just. Fear, not fear.
[37:58] But I, you know,
[37:59] my thought process is,
[38:01] does the sheriff have the,
[38:02] the authority to say,
[38:04] let me see your idea? Because I
[38:07] was doing nothing wrong other
[38:08] than not wearing a helmet?
[38:09] >> Yeah.
[38:10] >> You're getting a probable
[38:12] cause type stuff. Sure.
[38:13] >> Yeah. Yeah. I would say it's
[38:17] like a,
[38:18] it would be a probable cause
[38:20] to pull someone
[38:21] over if you think they're
[38:22] under 18 and the only thing
[38:24] they're doing is not helmet.
[38:25] >> I think that's a good
[38:27] question. I don't know how
[38:28] they're handling it now. I
[38:30] definitely. Please put that
[38:31] in the staff reports
[38:32] of the ordinance.
[38:35] >> Okay.
[38:45] >> And next slide. All right,
[38:52] so this is impoundment. This
[38:53] authorizes the sheriff's office
[38:54] to impound vehicle. Or these
[38:55] off highway vehicles may have
[38:59] probable cause that they're
[39:00] being operated in violation
[39:01] of this, again,
[39:03] article not chapter. And then
[39:04] it sets forth regulations
[39:05] for how long it's being held.
[39:06] There's an impoundment fee,
[39:08] which you would later establish
[39:09] by resolution your fee
[39:11] schedule, and a storage fee
[39:12] after five days. So again,
[39:13] when I was doing my research,
[39:15] only one municipality had an
[39:16] impoundment. But it might be
[39:17] something that y' all want
[39:24] to add on as eligibility
[39:25] for the sheriff's office
[39:26] to do. We ran this by the
[39:27] sheriff's office and they were
[39:30] fine.
[39:35] >> I have a question. I know
[39:36] that the, the other
[39:37] municipality that's doing this
[39:39] also has a provision where they
[39:40] can sell it after 90 days or
[39:41] something.
[39:42] >> That's something they want
[39:43] to do.
[39:45] >> So, it's not just they're
[39:46] not
[39:47] like huge garage full of.
[39:48] >> So, is it 90 days?
[39:54] >> So, this one doesn't have
[39:55] the 90-day thing,
[39:56] but I can look into that.
[39:57] >> It has
[39:59] to be something that's going
[40:01] to sting or it's not going
[40:03] to be like Nate was saying.
[40:04] You give some of These families
[40:06] a 200 fine, they're going to.
[40:08] They're going to pay it.
[40:09] But if you on top of that,
[40:17] take the vehicle,
[40:18] either they'll go buy another
[40:19] one, or there's what the other
[40:20] one doesn't. I think the
[40:21] palace.
[40:22] >> I. I think we need one of
[40:23] those pool tickets because
[40:24] everyone's just talking
[40:25] to each other.
[40:26] >> Okay, I'm sorry.
[40:28] >> I had my hand up,
[40:29] but I'll you go. Michael. Can
[40:32] we get a ticket taker? We can.
[40:33] So, my proposal for this and
[40:34] maybe the same or different
[40:36] than the municipal, whatever,
[40:39] if someone is able
[40:42] to drive the vehicle home,
[40:46] then not impound it. Someone
[40:48] of age, illegal, all that. And
[40:50] then if there's not,
[40:52] then it gets impounded. That's
[40:54] my two thoughts. Two cents.
[40:58] >> I'm glad you went
[41:00] before me because I was going
[41:06] to hearken back to what we see
[41:07] with the golf carts. And the
[41:08] golf carts, sometimes they'll
[41:09] let them drive them home and
[41:10] then they just come back. So,
[41:12] there's that. I
[41:13] like impoundment,
[41:14] but I'm thinking about. This is
[41:15] my second point about the
[41:16] sheriff really is the one
[41:18] with the authority on that.
[41:19] And so,
[41:21] if we impose a pedal a time
[41:22] period, are we asking the
[41:24] sheriff's office to do more
[41:25] than they already do? So maybe
[41:26] we could mirror what they
[41:28] already do.
[41:29] >> So, they have no regulations
[41:30] on off highway.
[41:31] But I could ask what they do
[41:32] for other goals. Yeah, I mean,
[41:33] we did.
[41:35] >> We.
[41:36] >> I think we discussed broad
[41:37] terms of impoundment
[41:39] with the sheriff's office,
[41:43] and they were all for it.
[41:45] But I also probably would want
[41:46] to talk to them about the
[41:47] 90-day thing. I don't want to,
[41:48] you know, commit
[41:50] to them holding something for
[41:52] 90 days and they don't want to.
[41:53] So, I think let's let me loop
[41:56] back with the sheriff
[41:57] on how they handle impoundment.
[41:58] And if they want
[41:59] to have a time frame to what
[42:01] Ron said as well, the time
[42:02] period has a definite deterrent
[42:03] value. And then it becomes non
[42:04] deterrent to whoever said they
[42:05] could just go buy another one.
[42:06] So that does matter. You know,
[42:07] you had your stuff taken away
[42:08] for like your phone taken away
[42:10] for a week matters. Do you know
[42:11] what I mean?
[42:12] >> That kind of thing. Yeah.
[42:13] >> Okay, so is there levels
[42:14] to this?
[42:15] Like if they had three of the
[42:16] Violations like we've had, you
[42:17] know, we have multiple
[42:18] violations here.
[42:20] Like not everyone, Not. Not one
[42:39] small infraction gets the.
[42:41] Sure, like impounded. But if
[42:43] there were maybe a severity
[42:44] of it,
[42:45] I think that's how it would be
[42:48] with like vehicle, motor
[42:49] vehicle,
[42:50] like a DUI or something
[42:51] like that.
[42:55] >> The heightened level is what
[42:56] determines if the car is
[42:57] impounded or not.
[42:59] >> And under this provision,
[43:00] it's just saying they're here
[43:02] but authorized, not directed.
[43:03] So, they would have the
[43:04] discretion. They know the
[43:06] repeat offenders. I would
[43:07] probably. I would want them
[43:09] to have the discretion of when
[43:10] to found the vehicle so that.
[43:11] That would have that. So, I
[43:13] will look up and selling the
[43:14] vehicle after certain
[43:15] amendments and also make sure
[43:16] it's. The sheriff wants to do
[43:17] this and all that stuff.
[43:18] >> And what
[43:19] about returning it, you know,
[43:20] is there. We don't want
[43:22] to add a due process concern
[43:23] with how
[43:24] to get something back.
[43:30] >> Yeah, I'll check with how
[43:31] they handle impoundments
[43:32] of other vehicles.
[43:33] >> Be nice if we just follow
[43:34] the same policy that they
[43:35] already have for impound.
[43:36] >> I do have one last question,
[43:37] I think, though. So, if my
[43:38] vehicle is impounded
[43:40] after five years, it goes into.
[43:41] I pay a storage fee. Do I pay
[43:42] that storage fee every day up
[43:43] until 90-days or after
[43:44] Friday? Like, if it ultimately
[43:46] gets sold, I lose my vehicle.
[43:47] Plus, I pay 85 days
[43:48] of storage.
[43:49] >> Storage, yeah.
[43:50] >> So, the way it's written
[43:52] now, it's that you should pay
[43:54] the storage fee,
[43:55] which is established or
[43:56] modified by resolution for each
[43:57] day that the vehicle remains.
[43:58] So, you guys would set a per
[43:59] day that does the sheriff's
[44:00] thing again?
[44:01] >> I think probably, yeah,
[44:02] you'd want to talk
[44:03] to the sheriff to make sure
[44:04] that number was high enough.
[44:05] And you probably would have
[44:06] to use kind
[44:07] of cautionary.
[44:08] >> A little bit out of the box
[44:10] that serves the storage fee.
[44:11] How about a cheap version
[44:12] of the California Boot?
[44:13] >> I don't. Yeah, that's not
[44:14] something I looked up. But I
[44:16] could ask them if that's
[44:17] feasible.
[44:18] >> That way the cops don't have
[44:23] to store it
[44:25] in their facility. Who they are
[44:26] responsible for.
[44:42] >> Garage, you're booted.
[44:44] >> And if you. If you break the
[44:45] boot, you get another. Get
[44:46] another file on top
[44:47] of that.
[44:48] >> So, I will talk to the
[44:49] sheriff. I don't think you can
[44:50] follow the kid home and force
[44:51] them to do it
[44:52] in their property.
[44:53] >> Well, I would just point
[44:54] out that I think so. So, the
[44:55] sheriff's office did read the
[44:57] ordinance, and they were fine
[44:58] with this language
[44:59] for the comment. And keep
[45:00] in mind, we're. I mean,
[45:01] similar
[45:02] to a vehicle they're not going
[45:04] to let the vehicle sit there
[45:05] in an unsafe manner. And so,
[45:06] if you can't push the thing
[45:07] home, they're going to.
[45:08] They're not going
[45:10] to let the kid ride at home
[45:11] in violation
[45:12] of what they just witnessed.
[45:13] And so having an impoundment
[45:14] option or come have your parent
[45:16] come down. Going back
[45:17] to the DUI example, hey,
[45:18] if you can get somebody here
[45:19] in the next 30 minutes type
[45:21] of thing. So. But they did read
[45:22] it as written,
[45:23] and they were comfortable
[45:25] with as proposed.
[45:26] >> So, thank you.
[45:27] >> We'll follow up
[45:28] to all the questions.
[45:30] >> Michael, does that have to
[45:31] be an ordinance or a resolution
[45:32] from us or can that just be
[45:33] part of the discretion
[45:35] of the sheriff?
[45:36] >> Well, right now. Right now,
[45:37] it's written as discretion
[45:39] of the sheriff
[45:40] for the impoundment. Right. Or
[45:42] if the kid says, well,
[45:43] my house is right there, well,
[45:44] put it neutral and push it up
[45:48] there and let me. And I'll sit
[45:50] here for the next two minutes
[45:51] while you push it home. Those
[45:52] kind of discretions. I think
[45:54] now the sheriff would really
[45:55] handle that.
[45:56] But they're not going
[45:57] to leave it on a sidewalk
[45:59] inside of CPY, right? Yeah, I'm
[46:00] pretty sure they're. You're not
[46:01] going to carry separate boots
[46:03] around for us.
[46:07] >> That's what they do
[46:08] with the golf carts. They make
[46:10] them take it home. Yeah, but
[46:12] they can't enter the home
[46:13] property. The police can't go
[46:14] on the home property
[46:19] without a different kind
[46:21] of private phone.
[46:23] >> All right, so that is all
[46:25] the off-highway vehicle stuff.
[46:26] So, I will get those changed.
[46:28] Now we're going to switch
[46:29] to these LSEVs as a reminder.
[46:30] Those are basically the golf
[46:32] carts that can go a little
[46:33] faster and are street legal.
[46:35] So next slide. So, this first
[46:37] provision is a driver's license
[46:42] requirement. This is already
[46:43] required by state law,
[46:44] but some people like to put it
[46:45] in there so that they can take
[46:46] it for it
[46:48] in their own municipal court.
[46:49] So again,
[46:50] this is already required.
[46:52] >> Do we want an argument?
[46:53] Yes, because otherwise we may
[46:54] copy all the ticket for yes,
[46:55] because we might not be able
[46:57] to ticket for it, but you have
[46:58] to call somebody else.
[47:00] >> They can still write
[47:01] to county court. So, they could
[47:03] still at the good sheriff.
[47:04] So, they can. They can still
[47:05] write it in the county court.
[47:06] It's just saying you guys want
[47:07] to see this in your court? If
[47:09] you just want it to go to
[47:10] Gabby.
[47:13] >> Well, yeah, go into county
[47:14] courts more severe. And then if
[47:16] you have the same offense
[47:17] with one
[47:18] in county court and one
[47:20] in our court, makes no sense.
[47:21] So, I'd say put it in Our
[47:22] court.
[47:24] >> Well, then we get the fine
[47:25] associated with it.
[47:27] >> Always looking
[47:29] at a dollar.
[47:30] >> Well, and then your
[47:33] municipal judge is overseeing
[47:34] enforcement
[47:35] of your ordinances,
[47:36] dismissing them too. Yeah,
[47:37] whatever you feel is
[47:38] appropriate
[47:39] to give them circumstances.
[47:41] >> This, I just want
[47:42] to start. You know,
[47:43] this is not the golf cart
[47:45] with the seat belts, the
[47:46] lights, the license plate.
[47:47] We're talking about
[47:48] like golf cart, golf carts
[47:50] on the pool of passenger.
[47:51] >> So, we're talking about the
[47:52] ones that do have their street
[47:53] legal. So they have to have,
[47:55] they have to be registered.
[47:56] They have
[47:57] to have a driver's license.
[47:59] They have
[48:00] to have turn signals, brake
[48:02] lights, headlights,
[48:03] all that stuff. We're not
[48:04] talking about golf carts that
[48:05] are not allowed
[48:07] on the street. So, these are
[48:08] just. The original intent
[48:09] of this part
[48:10] of the ordinance was
[48:12] to do child restraints,
[48:13] which is going
[48:14] to be the next slide.
[48:16] But I also put driver's license
[48:17] on there.
[48:18] >> But again, saying what
[48:19] for those same.
[48:21] >> You have to have a driver's
[48:23] license to operate.
[48:24] >> Thank you.
[48:26] >> Sorry, can I ask a question?
[48:27] Just, just for us to think
[48:28] about if we're, if we're
[48:31] regulating the ones that are
[48:32] already safer and not the ones
[48:34] that are ordinary golf carts.
[48:35] The Pete kids are driving
[48:36] on the street anyway. Do we run
[48:38] the risk
[48:39] of encouraging the wrong type
[48:40] of thing? Just to think about.
[48:42] I don't know how people would
[48:44] react to that. But if I'm
[48:46] buying a golf cart and I know
[48:48] the tricked out one's going to
[48:49] get me a ticket and the other
[48:52] one isn't,
[48:53] I might be more inclined
[48:56] to buy the other one.
[48:57] But you're going to go
[48:59] through those regulations too,
[49:00] right?
[49:01] >> So, you guys did not want
[49:03] to. Yeah, the child one. So,
[49:04] the golf carts are not
[49:05] in the ordinance. If you guys
[49:06] want to do something
[49:08] with golf parts,
[49:09] I think the only. And then you
[49:10] can actually just go to the
[49:12] next slide because you can.
[49:13] >> It's the child restraints.
[49:16] >> So, this is the child
[49:18] restraints and then they have
[49:19] the specific ones. The issue I
[49:21] think with the golf part is
[49:23] there's no way
[49:24] to put a child restraint in
[49:25] them because they don't have
[49:27] seat belts, they probably don't
[49:28] have the latch system,
[49:29] that kind of stuff. So, they're
[49:30] not legal
[49:31] on the roads and they're not.
[49:32] They're not ever intended to be
[49:33] used the way that they are
[49:35] actually being used. So, this
[49:36] is. So, for this one, though.
[49:37] So, it's basically saying that
[49:42] you have to have. Everyone has
[49:43] to have a safety belt
[49:44] on or a child restraint system.
[49:45] We didn't talk
[49:47] about safety belts. So, if you
[49:48] don't want safety Belts, I can
[49:49] remove that. And then this is
[49:50] just the more specific ones
[49:52] that I saw
[49:53] from another municipality.
[49:54] >> So, the first two are not
[49:55] impacted by my concern the
[49:57] driver's license and the child
[49:58] restraint.
[49:59] But the safety one is. The
[50:01] safety belt one is.
[50:02] >> Okay, so do we want. We
[50:03] didn't talk about that. So do
[50:05] we want
[50:07] to require safety belts
[50:09] for people who wouldn't need
[50:10] to be wearing and need to be
[50:12] in a child restraint system
[50:13] for kids who wouldn't need
[50:16] to be around.
[50:17] >> Are they already equipped
[50:18] with them? Safety is something.
[50:19] >> So, so yeah. So, these ones,
[50:21] they would probably would most
[50:22] likely have a safety belt. And
[50:23] then we can also specify
[50:34] in the ordinance if. If they
[50:35] are equipped for one. So, you
[50:36] don't have to like add one
[50:37] for safety belts.
[50:54] >> But if it's equipped,
[50:55] you have to have it
[50:56] on the ordinary. Golf carts
[50:57] tend not
[50:58] to have safety belts.
[50:59] >> Yeah,
[51:00] >> I'm leaning towards no.
[51:01] >> No for safety or no
[51:02] for child.
[51:04] >> No for child. Well, no,
[51:05] I'm all about safety,
[51:07] I guess.
[51:09] >> The seat belt or the child
[51:10] restraints. No, ver.
[51:11] >> I think. There we go.
[51:12] >> Street legal.
[51:15] >> These are street legal.
[51:16] >> Okay. Street legal
[51:17] to me implies same requirements
[51:18] for an automobile,
[51:20] which means you got
[51:21] to have a seat out. That's sort
[51:22] of redundant. If it's street
[51:24] legal, why would you not have
[51:26] to have.
[51:27] >> Not because of the way it's
[51:28] currently written. It's motor
[51:29] vehicles have the requirement.
[51:30] These aren't motor vehicles.
[51:31] >> Technically.
[51:35] >> I think we should.
[51:36] >> They're low speed electric
[51:38] vehicles. Yeah, I agree.
[51:40] >> These are. These would be
[51:41] driving industry with cars
[51:42] without the child restraint. I
[51:44] can hold the kid on my lap.
[51:46] And if there's an accident,
[51:47] which many people do, either
[51:50] whether some car hits them or
[51:52] they hit a car or they hit a
[51:53] curb or something. So, the
[51:55] conversation we heard from the
[51:56] last study session was there
[52:02] was a desire
[52:03] to ensure that kids were safe.
[52:05] Children are safe on these
[52:06] low-speed vehicles driving
[52:07] on city streets. So.
[52:08] >> Okay, so if it's a. If it's
[52:09] one that meets the criteria
[52:10] of illegal. Not illegal. A
[52:11] legal.
[52:13] >> Which is what these are.
[52:14] >> Yeah.
[52:26] >> Because then we require
[52:28] retrofitting for people who
[52:30] have them that have not. Or is
[52:31] this. Are they grandfathered
[52:33] in? Are we going.
[52:35] >> I will put something in here
[52:36] that says that the safety belts
[52:37] have to be. If it was
[52:39] like originally equipped
[52:40] with it or something. Some kind
[52:41] of language that. That's what
[52:43] I've seen. Yeah, that's like.
[52:44] If it was originally equipped
[52:45] with it,
[52:47] you have to.
[52:48] >> I'll do.
[52:50] >> Alrighty. And that is all I
[52:51] have. So, I will get you a
[52:53] Revised ordinance. The staff
[52:54] member will have the answers
[52:55] to some of the questions you've
[52:57] had and then we'll move
[52:59] from there.
[53:03] >> All right,
[53:04] thank you very much. Thank you
[53:05] very much for your work
[53:07] on this. And we are going
[53:08] to hold our other two topics
[53:09] from the study session
[53:11] to another study session. And
[53:12] we will begin our markers this
[53:13] meeting, regular business
[53:18] meeting at 6:30.
[53:20] Thank you. Thank you again.
[53:27] >> [ BREAK ]
[1:00:02] >> Thank you.
[1:00:05] Good evening, Council, citizen
[1:00:07] staff. I call our March 24,
[1:00:09] 2026, City Council meeting
[1:00:10] to or at 6:30pm Please call the
[1:00:13] roll.
[1:00:16] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]
[1:00:36] >> Madam Mayor, you have a
[1:00:37] quorum.
[1:00:38] >> Thank you very much. Would
[1:00:39] everyone please rise and join
[1:00:40] me for the Pledge of
[1:00:42] Allegiance.
[1:00:45] >> My pleasure.
[1:00:47] >> I pledge allegiance to the
[1:00:49] Flag of the United States of
[1:00:51] America and to the Republic
[1:00:53] for which it stands,
[1:00:55] one nation under God,
[1:00:56] indivisible,
[1:00:57] with liberty and justice
[1:00:58] for all.
[1:01:08] >> Moving on to the approval
[1:01:09] of the agenda. If there are no
[1:01:10] objections,
[1:01:12] the agenda will be approved.
[1:01:13] Hearing none. The agenda is
[1:01:17] approved as presented. Next, we
[1:01:20] have public comment which is
[1:01:21] designed for you to share your
[1:01:22] thoughts and concerns
[1:01:23] with city council. But it's not
[1:01:24] an interactive discussion. If
[1:01:26] you're attending tonight's
[1:01:27] meeting virtually and would
[1:01:28] like
[1:01:29] to give general public comment,
[1:01:30] please sign up
[1:01:32] by taking your name and address
[1:01:33] into the chat feature. If you
[1:01:34] called
[1:01:35] into tonight's meeting,
[1:01:36] the clerk will recognize you
[1:01:38] by the last four digits
[1:01:39] of your phone number. We ask
[1:01:40] that the chat feature only be
[1:01:41] used to sign up
[1:01:43] to give public comment. Clerk
[1:01:48] Duffy, do we have anyone signed
[1:01:49] up this evening?
[1:01:50] >> We do have individuals
[1:01:51] signed up
[1:01:52] for public comment.
[1:01:53] >> Okay, let me give a few more
[1:01:54] instructions then
[1:01:55] for our public comment. When
[1:01:56] the clerk recognizes you,
[1:01:57] please start
[1:02:01] with your name and address.
[1:02:02] For the record, there's a
[1:02:04] three-minute time limit for
[1:02:06] individuals and a five-minute
[1:02:07] time limit for anyone
[1:02:08] representing a group. Again,
[1:02:09] although the format for public
[1:02:11] comment does not allow
[1:02:12] for an interactive dialogue
[1:02:13] with council, we do listen and
[1:02:15] we really do value your voice
[1:02:17] and what you have
[1:02:18] to say this evening. So, Clerk
[1:02:19] nephew, please call the first
[1:02:20] person.
[1:02:24] >> Certainly. Gretchen Coyle,
[1:02:26] if you will approach the
[1:02:27] microphone and start
[1:02:28] with your name and address
[1:02:29] for the record, please.
[1:02:44] >> Gretchen Coyle, 7389
[1:02:47] Timber Stone Street, Calvin.
[1:02:50] Started. Jeff. Right.
[1:02:51] >> My name.
[1:02:53] >> Your time has started.
[1:02:54] >> Mayor Engerman and City
[1:02:56] Council. I'm a member of PAT
[1:02:58] People Against Annexing
[1:02:59] Crowsnest. I am sure you are
[1:03:02] familiar with our group as you
[1:03:03] have read our letters and heard
[1:03:04] our members speak
[1:03:06] at your meetings. Our group is
[1:03:07] over several hundred strong,
[1:03:08] keeps growing every day and
[1:03:10] includes residents
[1:03:11] from all parts of Castle
[1:03:13] Pines. One
[1:03:16] of the guiding principles
[1:03:17] of PAT is transparency. And it
[1:03:18] is in this spirit that I want
[1:03:21] council to know that since
[1:03:24] October 2025, when the
[1:03:25] Crowsnest developer brought
[1:03:28] their first annexation petition
[1:03:30] to the city, the public's
[1:03:31] perception is that the council
[1:03:33] has already made their decision
[1:03:34] and the annexation process is
[1:03:35] just a formality. This has led
[1:03:37] many citizens to lose trust
[1:03:38] in the council and to believe
[1:03:39] that you are not acting
[1:03:40] in their best interest, but
[1:03:42] rather are acting the best
[1:03:43] interest of the developer.
[1:03:44] Resolution 2623 has not helped
[1:03:46] to diminish these feelings,
[1:03:47] but to exasperate,
[1:03:48] exacerbate them. Because the
[1:03:49] language
[1:03:51] of the resolution is favorable
[1:03:52] to the Crowsnest developer. We
[1:03:53] would like
[1:03:54] to acknowledge and thank the
[1:03:55] Council
[1:03:57] for recognizing the need
[1:03:58] for an annexation policy. We
[1:04:01] want to work in partnership
[1:04:04] with the city. However, we
[1:04:05] cannot accept Resolution 26, 23
[1:04:06] as it is currently written. We
[1:04:07] specifically ask that
[1:04:09] paragraphs 5 and 6, which are
[1:04:10] highlighted
[1:04:11] in yellow and crossed out
[1:04:12] in red, be removed
[1:04:14] from the resolution. Why?
[1:04:21] Because one,
[1:04:22] by including the language
[1:04:23] in these two paragraphs, it
[1:04:25] reinforces the public's
[1:04:26] perception that the withdrawal
[1:04:30] of the Crowsnest petition is
[1:04:35] merely temporary with an
[1:04:37] already predetermined outcome,
[1:04:38] the annexation of Crow's
[1:04:40] Nest. And two, the inclusion of
[1:04:42] the two paragraphs is very
[1:04:44] suspicious as they are
[1:04:45] Superfluous to resolution
[1:04:47] 26, 23. Why include them? As the
[1:04:49] language is not benign,
[1:04:52] but rather beneficial to the
[1:04:56] Crowsnest developer for when he
[1:04:58] submits his third annexation
[1:04:59] petition. Council,
[1:05:01] before you vote on resolution
[1:05:05] 26, 23 later this evening, we
[1:05:07] ask that you remove paragraph
[1:05:09] five and six. If you do not
[1:05:10] remove them,
[1:05:14] then I respectfully asked
[1:05:15] on behalf of everyone in this
[1:05:20] room and our online audience,
[1:05:21] that during your discussion
[1:05:22] of Resolution 26, 23, each
[1:05:24] council member publicly answer
[1:05:25] this question. Why are you
[1:05:27] unwilling to remove paragraphs
[1:05:28] five and six? Thank you.
[1:05:38] >> Thank you. Next speaker.
[1:05:40] >> May I approach the desk and
[1:05:41] give hand up, please?
[1:05:42] >> You can leave them to me and
[1:05:43] I will pass them out.
[1:05:44] >> Lisa woods, if you'd like
[1:05:45] to approach the podium.
[1:05:47] >> Yes.
[1:05:48] >> And start with your name and
[1:05:49] address for the record,
[1:05:50] please.
[1:05:52] >> Absolutely.
[1:05:54] >> Hi, Lisa Woods. I live at
[1:05:55] 6639 Barnstead Drive and I am a
[1:05:58] six-year resident of Castle
[1:05:59] Pines. So good evening, mayor
[1:06:01] and city councilmembers. I'm
[1:06:02] here today to ask that you
[1:06:03] extend the timeline
[1:06:05] for the development
[1:06:07] of a draft annexation policy
[1:06:09] from 90 days to at least 120
[1:06:11] days before it comes back
[1:06:12] to you for A vote that
[1:06:14] additional time matters
[1:06:19] for three key reasons. Number
[1:06:21] one,
[1:06:23] it stops the unnecessary rush
[1:06:24] like we just had with the
[1:06:27] Crowsnest annexation and a
[1:06:28] compressed timeline that
[1:06:29] disadvantages residents
[1:06:31] in the process. Number two,
[1:06:33] it allows for more robust data
[1:06:35] collection and more meaningful
[1:06:37] input from residents. And
[1:06:38] number three,
[1:06:40] it gives the public enough time
[1:06:41] to become educated
[1:06:43] on the issue, review the draft
[1:06:44] policy and provide thoughtful
[1:06:45] feedback before any final
[1:06:47] decision is made. Also, from my
[1:06:49] public service experience, I
[1:06:54] know effective policy
[1:06:55] development depends on
[1:06:57] consistent intentional
[1:06:58] engagement and education
[1:06:59] with those most affected,
[1:07:01] which is also essential to
[1:07:02] building trust and
[1:07:03] strengthening community.
[1:07:05] On that note, I also ask you
[1:07:11] to go beyond only a third-party
[1:07:12] survey and offer three
[1:07:13] suggestions
[1:07:14] to more fully partner
[1:07:15] with residents. Number one,
[1:07:17] hold open forums, such as town
[1:07:19] halls that are accessible and
[1:07:21] welcoming, where residents can
[1:07:23] have real two-way conversations
[1:07:24] with you. Our elected officials
[1:07:25] use this time
[1:07:29] to engage and educate with us
[1:07:31] in dialogue so we all better
[1:07:35] understand one another and this
[1:07:37] policy. Number two, of course
[1:07:42] council members will connect
[1:07:43] directly with their
[1:07:45] constituents and I and other
[1:07:47] Canyon's residents,
[1:07:48] look forward to conversations
[1:07:50] with Councilmembers Winegar and
[1:07:52] Blue. Number three,
[1:07:53] give residents
[1:07:54] at least two weeks
[1:07:55] to review and respond to the
[1:07:56] draft policy via written and
[1:07:57] public comment and well
[1:07:58] before a final vote. This
[1:07:59] annexation policy will shape
[1:08:00] the future of Castle Pines
[1:08:02] for years and decades
[1:08:03] to come,
[1:08:05] which is why it's so important
[1:08:07] to slow down enough to get it
[1:08:09] right and let all voices be
[1:08:10] heard. So, in closing,
[1:08:12] I ask again the City Council
[1:08:14] to extend the timeline to
[1:08:17] at least 120 days and
[1:08:19] to expand opportunities for
[1:08:20] public input that will ensure a
[1:08:27] process that is more
[1:08:28] thoughtful, more transparent,
[1:08:29] and truly reflective
[1:08:32] of our community.
[1:08:35] >> Thank you very much
[1:08:36] for your consideration and time
[1:08:37] to speak. Thank you. Any
[1:08:38] further speakers? Donna Cook,
[1:08:40] if you would like
[1:08:41] to complete, you can start
[1:08:42] with your name and address.
[1:08:43] For the record, please.
[1:08:47] >> George Lava Club, 7316
[1:08:48] Canyon Sky Trail. Good evening,
[1:08:49] Mayor Engerman, members of
[1:08:51] council and fellow residents.
[1:08:52] It is our understanding that
[1:08:55] you truly want to hear what
[1:08:56] Castle Pines residents want
[1:08:57] in our future annexations. And
[1:08:58] then, once resolution 26, 23
[1:09:02] passes, the city will begin
[1:09:04] gathering community input,
[1:09:05] primarily through surveys,
[1:09:06] to help shape that new policy.
[1:09:07] Council many residents felt
[1:09:09] that the city was already
[1:09:10] strongly inclined
[1:09:12] to approve the Crowsnest 5
[1:09:14] ball annexation despite
[1:09:15] widespread community
[1:09:17] opposition. For that reason,
[1:09:18] there is a deep concern that
[1:09:20] this new annexation policy
[1:09:21] could be used to fast track
[1:09:23] similar future proposals. Once
[1:09:24] adopted, developers could
[1:09:26] simply claim projects meet the
[1:09:27] criteria,
[1:09:36] effectively shutting the public
[1:09:38] out of any further meaningful
[1:09:40] input. Therefore, as a part
[1:09:42] of this process, we
[1:09:43] respectfully ask that you
[1:09:44] include a clear educational
[1:09:46] component when gathering
[1:09:47] feedback from the residents.
[1:09:48] Many residents are not as
[1:09:52] familiar with technical terms
[1:09:54] such as flagpole, annexation,
[1:09:56] 1, 6, consecutuity, density or
[1:09:57] even our three-mile plan. It's
[1:09:59] essential that the city clearly
[1:10:00] explain these terms and the
[1:10:05] long-term impacts as a part
[1:10:06] of the data collection process.
[1:10:08] In addition, we ask that the
[1:10:11] data gathering involves as many
[1:10:12] Castle Pines residents as
[1:10:14] possible through town halls and
[1:10:15] genuine dialogue,
[1:10:17] not just surveys. And that
[1:10:21] at the draft stage, the
[1:10:22] community has that opportunity
[1:10:24] to review and comment
[1:10:25] on the draft policy, their
[1:10:27] concerns heard and discussed
[1:10:28] before it's finalized. So,
[1:10:30] in sum, council members, here
[1:10:34] are four clear actions that we
[1:10:35] kindly ask you to consider.
[1:10:36] Direct the staff to include a
[1:10:38] strong educational component
[1:10:39] in their outreach to the city
[1:10:41] so that every resident
[1:10:42] understands the key terms and
[1:10:43] the long-term implications.
[1:10:45] Two, commit to multiple forms
[1:10:47] of engagement, including town
[1:10:53] halls and focus groups
[1:10:55] in addition to the surveys.
[1:10:56] Three, extend the timeline
[1:10:57] beyond 90 days
[1:10:59] for whatever time it takes to
[1:11:01] do this data gathering
[1:11:02] properly. And four,
[1:11:04] bring the draft policy back
[1:11:05] to the public
[1:11:06] for review and input
[1:11:07] before your final adoption.
[1:11:09] Thank you very much
[1:11:11] for your time this evening.
[1:11:13] >> Thank you. Any additional
[1:11:15] speakers? We do have two more.
[1:11:16] Brigitte Landstrom, if you
[1:11:18] would like to come
[1:11:19] to the podium, start
[1:11:20] with your name and address
[1:11:21] for the record, please.
[1:11:22] >> Hello Council. Thank you
[1:11:23] very much
[1:11:28] for giving me this time.
[1:11:29] >> My name is Brigette Foley
[1:11:30] Lanstrom, 7325 Castle Canyon
[1:11:31] Sky Trail. Nervous Apologies. I
[1:11:32] am here because I care
[1:11:33] about our community. I care
[1:11:35] about where we live. I'm
[1:11:36] invested
[1:11:37] in keeping it safe. I am here
[1:11:40] to ask you
[1:11:41] for this resolution and for all
[1:11:42] future resolutions that involve
[1:11:43] development to include language
[1:11:45] that protects our environment.
[1:11:46] I for one am tired of seeing
[1:11:48] the developers bury miles and
[1:11:51] miles of plastic
[1:11:56] underneath our canyons. And I
[1:11:57] know you all know about this
[1:11:58] because this is not the first
[1:11:59] nor the second time it's been
[1:12:01] brought up to the council. We
[1:12:02] need to start caring about our
[1:12:04] community or nobody else will.
[1:12:05] And you are the only ones that
[1:12:17] stand in between the developers
[1:12:18] burying miles and miles. I'm
[1:12:20] not exaggerating. Of trash and
[1:12:22] keeping our canyons and our
[1:12:24] community and our wildlife
[1:12:26] flourishing. So please consider
[1:12:27] that for this and all future
[1:12:29] proposals to actually have
[1:12:32] language that protects our
[1:12:35] environment and standards that
[1:12:36] the that the public agrees to.
[1:12:38] Thank you.
[1:12:44] >> Thank you. Our next speaker,
[1:12:47] Jane Bylenberg, if you would
[1:12:48] come to the podium and start
[1:12:49] with your name and address
[1:12:50] for the record.
[1:12:57] >> Jane Bielenberg, 1025 Dear
[1:12:58] Clover Way Mayor and Council. I
[1:13:00] want to read something
[1:13:02] to you that was shared in the
[1:13:03] Denver Post. This is not
[1:13:05] about Crowsnest. This is in
[1:13:06] El Paso County referencing
[1:13:08] similar situations and similar
[1:13:10] concerns. And it's regarding
[1:13:12] the boundaries and what is
[1:13:13] being done there.
[1:13:14] The residents of Tri Lakes
[1:13:16] area have reached a breaking
[1:13:18] point.
[1:13:20] Despite overwhelming
[1:13:21] documented opposition, the El
[1:13:22] Paso County Board of
[1:13:25] Commissioners continues to
[1:13:27] facilitate a land use process
[1:13:28] that effectively treats the
[1:13:30] community as an obstacle to be
[1:13:31] bypassed rather than a
[1:13:32] stakeholder to be heard.
[1:13:34] By allowing developers such as
[1:13:35] Vertex corporations such as BUC
[1:13:36] EE's to exploit administrative
[1:13:41] loopholes such as the recent
[1:13:44] boundary line adjustment, the
[1:13:52] county is signaling that deep
[1:13:56] pocketed developers dictate the
[1:13:57] future of Monument Hill, not
[1:13:59] the people that actually live
[1:14:02] there. Residents are rightly
[1:14:07] furious that their voices are
[1:14:09] systematically marginalized by
[1:14:11] a process that grants the
[1:14:12] applicant extensive time and
[1:14:14] resources while limiting
[1:14:16] community input
[1:14:17] to mere three-minute snippets.
[1:14:18] The consequences
[1:14:20] of this project, ranging
[1:14:21] from water depletion,
[1:14:22] traffic congestion to permanent
[1:14:24] environmental degradation,
[1:14:25] will be borne by those
[1:14:26] in the immediate vicinity. Yet
[1:14:27] the current system ignores this
[1:14:30] reality. Members
[1:14:31] of the community are tired
[1:14:33] of the charade. They're
[1:14:34] demanding structural reforms
[1:14:35] including equal presentation
[1:14:36] time for citizen groups and the
[1:14:38] integration of prior records
[1:14:39] to stop this reset to zero the
[1:14:40] cycle that protects the
[1:14:42] corporate interests
[1:14:43] at the expense
[1:14:44] of local sovereignty. The
[1:14:46] message
[1:14:47] to the board is clear.
[1:14:49] Citizens versus developers.
[1:14:50] Theodore Roosevelt once said,
[1:14:51] the government is us. We are
[1:14:53] the government, you and I. A
[1:14:56] government that prioritizes the
[1:14:59] convenience of a corporation
[1:15:00] over the voice of its citizens
[1:15:02] has forgotten its primary duty
[1:15:03] as elected officials. We do not
[1:15:05] exist to accommodate a
[1:15:06] developer site plan. The
[1:15:07] developer exists to operate
[1:15:49] within the community we have
[1:15:50] built. I couldn't have said it
[1:15:52] better,
[1:15:54] so I copied it. I thank you
[1:15:55] for your time. I thank you
[1:15:57] for your consideration. It
[1:15:58] really. We're not. We're your
[1:15:59] community. I mean we. We voted
[1:16:03] you in to protect us and
[1:16:05] to look out for us. And there's
[1:16:09] a lot of issues, you know,
[1:16:10] water, sewer, electrical
[1:16:13] traffic, environment, animals.
[1:16:16] I've only been here four years,
[1:16:18] but I've been a licensed
[1:16:20] realtor since 1990. I moved
[1:16:23] people here when it was
[1:16:25] nothing. They moved here
[1:16:27] for the outdoors, the beauty,
[1:16:30] all of it. And it's development
[1:16:31] has just engulfed us. I know
[1:16:33] that some has to happen, but I
[1:16:35] just respectfully ask your
[1:16:37] consideration
[1:16:41] in going forward. Thank you.
[1:16:46] >> Thank you. Do we have any
[1:16:47] additional speakers? We have no
[1:16:48] further person signed up this
[1:16:49] evening. Thank you very much.
[1:16:50] All right, we are going
[1:16:51] to move on to our next item
[1:16:54] on our agenda,
[1:16:57] which is the presentation
[1:16:58] of our minutes. Are there any
[1:16:59] corrections to the minutes
[1:17:00] from the March 10, 2026, City
[1:17:02] Council meeting hearing none.
[1:17:07] >> The minutes are approved as
[1:17:08] presented. Next is our consent
[1:17:09] agenda. Tonight's consent
[1:17:10] agenda is Resolution 26 to
[1:17:15] 20, which approves an
[1:17:17] intergovernmental agreement
[1:17:18] between the Urban Drainage and
[1:17:19] Flood Control District doing
[1:17:20] business as Mile High Flood
[1:17:22] District in the city of
[1:17:23] Castle Pines regarding City
[1:17:24] of Castle Pines stream
[1:17:25] condition assessment and
[1:17:26] project prioritization.
[1:17:28] Resolution 26 21, which awards a
[1:17:29] bid in approving a construction
[1:17:30] contract with EDWC Levy Co
[1:17:31] doing business as Schmidt
[1:17:33] Construction Company for the
[1:17:34] 2026 pavement maintenance
[1:17:36] program. 2026-PW-003. And our
[1:17:41] last resolution is 26 22, which
[1:17:42] approves agreement
[1:17:43] with services and equipment
[1:17:44] between the City of Castle
[1:17:46] Pines and Barricade holdings
[1:17:47] LLC, doing business as
[1:17:52] Colorado Barricade Co for on
[1:17:54] call striping and pavement
[1:18:05] marking services. May I have a
[1:18:07] motion
[1:18:10] for the items I can send,
[1:18:12] please? I move
[1:18:13] to approve items
[1:18:15] on consent agenda.
[1:18:16] >> Second.
[1:18:18] >> A motion and a second.
[1:18:19] Please call the vote.
[1:18:20] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]
[1:18:35] >> The motion passes.
[1:18:38] >> Thank you. All right,
[1:18:39] moving on
[1:18:41] to our general business. The
[1:18:42] first item
[1:18:43] on general business this
[1:18:45] Evening is Resolution 26, a
[1:18:46] resolution of the City Council
[1:18:47] of the City of Castle Pines,
[1:18:48] Colorado concerning the
[1:18:49] development of an annexation
[1:18:50] and policy imposing a stay on
[1:18:53] future annexation applications
[1:18:54] and accepting the withdrawal
[1:18:55] of the annexation petition
[1:18:57] for properties known as
[1:18:58] Crow's Nest annexation.
[1:18:59] At the 2026 City Council
[1:19:01] retreat, Council discussed the
[1:19:06] need for an updated annexation
[1:19:07] policy that lays the framework
[1:19:09] for council's vision
[1:19:11] of the city's future. This
[1:19:12] resolution directs staff
[1:19:14] to create for policy which will
[1:19:15] be approved by council
[1:19:16] at a later date.
[1:19:17] Additionally, this resolution
[1:19:19] accepts the letter received
[1:19:20] on March 19, which withdraw the
[1:19:21] application for the Crowsnest
[1:19:25] annexation petition. May I have
[1:19:31] a motion to begin discussion
[1:19:32] on this, Mayor?
[1:19:34] >> I don't know if you want to.
[1:19:35] May I add in either
[1:19:37] before or after. When would you
[1:19:38] like me to. I had a couple
[1:19:39] comments.
[1:19:41] >> Okay.
[1:19:42] >> Yes, please.
[1:19:43] >> Okay.
[1:19:44] >> Now would be their
[1:19:45] appropriate time.
[1:19:46] >> Okay. So, I wanted
[1:19:47] to address some
[1:19:48] of the comments
[1:19:49] since they're related
[1:19:51] to staff action in there. So,
[1:19:52] as the mayor said,
[1:19:54] this occurred
[1:19:55] during the council meeting.
[1:19:58] And just
[1:19:59] from a process standpoint, the
[1:20:00] withdrawal letter is contingent
[1:20:01] on council approving this
[1:20:06] resolution this evening
[1:20:08] for the Crowsnest annexation.
[1:20:09] We can,
[1:20:11] and these are not necessarily
[1:20:12] in the order of the comments,
[1:20:14] but there's certainly no issue
[1:20:15] from a staff perspective
[1:20:17] to extend the line to 120 days.
[1:20:19] The intent
[1:20:20] in the draft resolution was
[1:20:21] to convey what I took away
[1:20:23] from the council retreat,
[1:20:24] which was this is a priority.
[1:20:25] And not to bring it back in
[1:20:26] 2028 or 2027, but
[1:20:28] to get this done as a component
[1:20:29] of all the other updates that
[1:20:30] we're doing this year,
[1:20:35] but shifting to 120 or 180
[1:20:37] days,
[1:20:38] we'll get it done sooner.
[1:20:39] Obviously. No issue there.
[1:20:41] Just want to be clear that
[1:20:43] under no circumstances does an
[1:20:45] annexation policy override the
[1:20:46] state statute, and the state
[1:20:48] statute still requires all of
[1:20:50] the conditions that the council
[1:20:54] went through before. So should
[1:20:56] there be another annexation
[1:20:57] application anywhere
[1:20:59] around the city, all
[1:21:01] of those conditions still have
[1:21:02] to be met. The purpose of.
[1:21:04] Sorry, paragraphs 5 and 6 were
[1:21:05] I used the Crowsnest annexation
[1:21:12] property language in there. I
[1:21:14] don't know that it's ultimately
[1:21:16] necessary, but the intent was
[1:21:17] to acknowledge, as you look at
[1:21:19] the development that's moving
[1:21:20] up from the north through the
[1:21:21] Canta and the development
[1:21:23] that's moving south. And there
[1:21:24] is not any open space property
[1:21:25] within in any of this area.
[1:21:26] This is all owned
[1:21:49] by private property owners.
[1:21:50] So, whether they're LLCs or
[1:21:51] individuals or whatever that
[1:21:52] might be. So those two
[1:21:54] paragraphs, which are could
[1:21:55] argue are a little bit
[1:21:56] redundant, are really
[1:21:57] to imply, with the actions that
[1:21:58] the council had taken
[1:22:00] to date, acknowledging whether
[1:22:01] annexations happen or not,
[1:22:02] or it gets developed in the
[1:22:04] county or it gets developed
[1:22:05] in as part of Castle Rock or
[1:22:06] Barker, that this area
[1:22:07] between south or west Parker
[1:22:08] and north Castle Rock, if you
[1:22:09] will, over time will ultimately
[1:22:11] get developed. So that's the
[1:22:13] intent
[1:22:14] of those two paragraphs. So,
[1:22:15] whether you want to keep those
[1:22:16] in ultimately or not,
[1:22:17] that was the intent. It really
[1:22:18] wasn't intended to. It
[1:22:21] certainly wasn't intended
[1:22:22] to be an open door for Crows
[1:22:23] nest. But because that's the
[1:22:24] language we would use, I use
[1:22:26] Crowsnest annexation
[1:22:27] properties
[1:22:29] in surrounding areas. So just
[1:22:31] so council understands the
[1:22:32] intent in there and then we
[1:22:33] certainly can do and we have
[1:22:37] not discussed the outreach
[1:22:40] because council hasn't approved
[1:22:42] the resolution.
[1:22:43] But if you do, one of the first
[1:22:44] things we will do is sit down
[1:22:45] and staff and develop what that
[1:22:46] outreach looks like.
[1:22:47] But I don't see anything
[1:22:48] in any of the comments tonight
[1:22:49] or requests, if you will, that
[1:22:52] are things we wouldn't have
[1:22:54] normally included
[1:22:57] in our public outreach process.
[1:22:58] So, I think council can rest
[1:22:59] assured we can meet those,
[1:23:00] especially around the education
[1:23:01] piece because it's hard
[1:23:02] to ask people about things that
[1:23:03] they don't understand. And so
[1:23:06] that education has to come
[1:23:08] before any kind of outreach
[1:23:09] that's there. I think those
[1:23:11] were the things I wanted
[1:23:12] to add in there. So, thank you.
[1:23:14] >> Appreciate that.
[1:23:16] Before we have a motion,
[1:23:17] council members, do any
[1:23:19] of you have any questions
[1:23:20] for staff about the Council
[1:23:21] Member Mulvey?
[1:23:24] >> I do appreciate that you
[1:23:25] shared that you drafted this.
[1:23:26] I'm going to put this. Will you
[1:23:27] agree
[1:23:29] to set up regular town halls
[1:23:39] for the districts? We've asked
[1:23:41] for it before. I know you've
[1:23:47] done it
[1:23:48] for district one a couple
[1:23:50] of times. Would you. Do we have
[1:23:51] the resources
[1:23:52] to really do that on a regular
[1:23:53] basis where we have that one
[1:23:54] on one?
[1:23:58] >> I don't want to commit to
[1:23:59] that right now because I can't
[1:24:00] answer that question.
[1:24:02] >> Okay.
[1:24:03] >> Because it depends
[1:24:04] on how much. And I would say
[1:24:05] that that can be a separate
[1:24:06] conversation outside
[1:24:07] of this resolution. Because
[1:24:10] you're talking. I assume what
[1:24:11] you're asking is
[1:24:13] on an ongoing regular basis.
[1:24:14] Certainly,
[1:24:15] on the occasional one we can.
[1:24:17] But as you know,
[1:24:18] we have limited staff,
[1:24:19] so it's just a matter
[1:24:20] of putting them together.
[1:24:21] But if there was interest
[1:24:22] by other districts
[1:24:24] to have those meetings,
[1:24:25] we can facilitate those
[1:24:26] on a kind of as needed basis.
[1:24:27] But I'd be cautious
[1:24:28] on a regular and ongoing. Just
[1:24:29] because our communication staff
[1:24:32] who put those together aren't
[1:24:34] here for. And I have to talk
[1:24:35] to them about them.
[1:24:39] >> I'll reserve my comment
[1:24:40] on that for later, but the
[1:24:41] reluctance is concerning.
[1:24:43] Thank you. I have a question
[1:24:46] just about outreach,
[1:24:48] because I'm just kind
[1:24:49] of getting an idea of. We did
[1:24:50] the town halls recent. Not town
[1:24:52] halls, I'm sorry,
[1:24:53] the open houses recently. And
[1:24:55] that was driven by the economic
[1:24:56] development that's happening
[1:24:58] and just some other updates
[1:24:59] that we're ready to do. Yeah.
[1:25:00] Like we're going to have an
[1:25:01] open house coming up that
[1:25:03] canyon interchange. Focus
[1:25:04] solely on that. So, there are
[1:25:06] kind of topics specific.
[1:25:07] >> And then when we did the
[1:25:09] parks outreach,
[1:25:10] I'm just trying to get an idea
[1:25:11] of like sequencing. Like how
[1:25:12] often do we do them?
[1:25:13] >> How. I mean,
[1:25:15] are they twice targeted
[1:25:16] on specific topics? Right.
[1:25:17] So, we need them to not.
[1:25:18] >> No, it's more as an admin as
[1:25:19] needed. So, the Happy Canyon,
[1:25:20] if you allow me of that,
[1:25:21] as that example is we wanted
[1:25:23] to get Barna through the CDOT
[1:25:24] and FHWA process,
[1:25:25] the one we had in open house.
[1:25:27] We had confidence that the
[1:25:28] approvals were there and it was
[1:25:29] timely. But
[1:25:31] before construction started
[1:25:32] type of thing. So, it's
[1:25:33] intended to be. That one's
[1:25:34] intended
[1:25:36] to be an educational one,
[1:25:37] not a feedback loop. Something
[1:25:38] like this. We would put
[1:25:40] together an overall feedback
[1:25:46] loop. And as was suggested,
[1:25:47] obviously once there's a draft,
[1:25:50] you want to put that out
[1:25:55] for a period
[1:25:57] of time so people can respond
[1:25:59] to it. But we don't have any
[1:26:00] similarity. Council Member
[1:26:05] Mulvey's question. We don't have
[1:26:06] any standard ongoing schedules
[1:26:07] and that goes for our
[1:26:09] communication other than the
[1:26:10] council post council meetings,
[1:26:12] pre council meeting things that
[1:26:14] we do a lot of. That's again
[1:26:15] just a staffing level issue.
[1:26:17] >> I'm not talking about
[1:26:18] ongoing.
[1:26:19] >> I know we've done them
[1:26:20] targeted towards like we need
[1:26:21] the parking outreach. We did
[1:26:22] the economic development
[1:26:24] outreach idea of
[1:26:25] like do they tend to happen
[1:26:26] within three months? I don't
[1:26:27] know if there's any sort
[1:26:29] of timeline.
[1:26:32] >> No, there's not. This one
[1:26:33] would be really time to. If
[1:26:34] council moves it to,
[1:26:37] for example, 120 days. We would
[1:26:38] sit down with the communication
[1:26:41] staff and the community
[1:26:42] development staff and look
[1:26:43] at overall workload, whether
[1:26:45] what other things are already
[1:26:46] on the plate and what are we
[1:26:48] building the timelines
[1:26:51] for those Are there,
[1:26:52] are there. There's an
[1:26:53] educational piece and there's,
[1:26:55] you know, survey outreach piece
[1:26:56] and there's a feedback loop
[1:26:59] piece and lay
[1:27:00] out the entire timeline
[1:27:01] for that, which is typically
[1:27:02] what communications does
[1:27:03] on any of these problems. Does
[1:27:04] that help?
[1:27:07] >> Yes.
[1:27:08] >> Thank you,
[1:27:09] council member.
[1:27:10] >> Thank you, Mayor.
[1:27:11] >> Actually, this is directly
[1:27:12] to Clerk Duffy. If I want
[1:27:13] to move on this resolution
[1:27:15] with a couple
[1:27:18] of friendly amendments. Do we
[1:27:20] have to have a. We have to have
[1:27:21] a. A motion first or can I make
[1:27:23] the friendly amendments as part
[1:27:24] of it?
[1:27:26] >> You could make the motion
[1:27:27] with the amendments to the
[1:27:28] suggest if I just gave you guys
[1:27:30] a cheat sheet because there's,
[1:27:31] you know, no slides tonight
[1:27:32] on this item. But yeah,
[1:27:33] and we could definitely,
[1:27:34] if you needed me
[1:27:35] to help you decide,
[1:27:37] you have to. The mayor could
[1:27:38] call.
[1:27:41] >> Let's give it a try first.
[1:27:42] >> Okay.
[1:27:43] >> Mayor, am I okay
[1:27:44] to make a motion?
[1:27:45] >> Let me make sure there's no
[1:27:46] other further questions.
[1:27:47] They'll come back together.
[1:27:48] Are there any other questions
[1:27:49] for staff?
[1:27:50] >> Not a question.
[1:27:52] >> But just with the town hall
[1:27:53] versus just meeting
[1:27:57] with constituents like myself
[1:27:58] in District 3
[1:27:59] with Council Member Blue.
[1:28:00] There's no limit to that. So,
[1:28:02] we can continue to meet
[1:28:04] with community, gather
[1:28:05] information, bring that back
[1:28:06] and that's something I would
[1:28:07] commit
[1:28:09] to multiple times outside
[1:28:10] of the structure,
[1:28:11] the funnel structure.
[1:28:14] >> Absolutely agree. Yeah.
[1:28:15] Thanks.
[1:28:16] >> Curiosity question. Should
[1:28:18] we go for a true city form,
[1:28:19] meaning we don't have a
[1:28:20] facility
[1:28:24] to handle something?
[1:28:26] >> No, we would break it up
[1:28:27] into similar to what we do.
[1:28:28] We'd have probably something in
[1:28:30] here if we could get the room.
[1:28:31] If it continues beyond. I can't
[1:28:33] say I've done the math. But
[1:28:34] beyond July, we've got the
[1:28:36] community center. We can
[1:28:42] certainly use that the Canyon
[1:28:44] house and the exchange. So, I
[1:28:45] mean that that is part of the
[1:28:47] overall planning is where is
[1:28:49] there space available for us
[1:28:50] to hold different meetings.
[1:28:55] >> So, thank you. So, is it
[1:28:59] reasonable to assume that we
[1:29:00] could probably do the same type
[1:29:01] of outreach and education and
[1:29:02] focus groups that we did
[1:29:03] for the parks of Rec update?
[1:29:04] Maybe not for the length of
[1:29:06] time because this is one topic,
[1:29:07] not as broad of a topic but.
[1:29:09] But those opportunities.
[1:29:12] >> I think council can be
[1:29:15] comfortable that this would be
[1:29:16] a robust public engagement.
[1:29:17] >> All right. Any further
[1:29:18] questions? All right.
[1:29:19] >> Councilor Eubanks, you would
[1:29:23] like to make your motion and if
[1:29:24] we need to, we can always take
[1:29:25] a break too.
[1:29:33] >> Thank you. A resolution. I'm
[1:29:35] sorry, Mayor. I move to
[1:29:37] Approve resolution number
[1:29:38] 26-23, a resolution
[1:29:40] of the city council
[1:29:42] of the City of Castle Pines,
[1:29:43] Colorado concerning the
[1:29:45] development of an annexation
[1:29:46] policy imposing a stay on
[1:29:47] future annexation applications
[1:29:48] and accepting the withdrawal
[1:29:49] of the annexation petition for
[1:29:51] properties known as cronies
[1:29:53] annexation
[1:29:54] with the following amendments.
[1:29:56] Remove the following two
[1:29:57] paragraphs. Whereas the city
[1:29:58] council recognizes that the
[1:30:00] proposed Crowsnest annexation
[1:30:01] properties and surrounding
[1:30:03] areas will be urbanized and
[1:30:05] deposited developed
[1:30:08] in the future as illustrated by
[1:30:09] the surrounding development
[1:30:10] adjacent to Crowfoot Valley
[1:30:11] Road within the town of Parker
[1:30:15] and town of Castle Rock.
[1:30:17] Second paragraph I would like
[1:30:18] to amend to be removed is
[1:30:19] whereas the city council finds
[1:30:20] that designation of the
[1:30:22] Crowsnest annexation property
[1:30:23] for urban development is an
[1:30:24] appropriate and logistical.
[1:30:25] Sorry. Logical expansion of the
[1:30:27] area growth patterns can be
[1:30:29] developed
[1:30:30] in a compatible manner with
[1:30:31] surrounding land uses reflects
[1:30:33] the changing conditions
[1:30:34] in the area north of Douglas
[1:30:36] County and can be appropriately
[1:30:37] developed through future
[1:30:39] detailed review and phasing.
[1:30:40] And the last amendment I would
[1:30:41] propose would be
[1:30:42] to change the day
[1:30:44] from the draft
[1:30:45] for the city council
[1:30:47] from 90-days to 120-days.
[1:30:52] >> Is there a second? Thank
[1:30:54] you. We have a motion and a
[1:30:55] second and an additional second
[1:30:56] just to reemphasize the.
[1:30:57] >> So, Council Member
[1:30:58] Eubanks, we'll go ahead and
[1:31:00] begin discussion
[1:31:01] with you.
[1:31:03] >> Thank you, Mayor. I thought
[1:31:04] for. I'll address the 90-days
[1:31:05] first. When we were
[1:31:06] in our retreat,
[1:31:07] I thought we went through a
[1:31:12] very thoughtful process
[1:31:13] to talk about it and I feared
[1:31:14] that if we limit to 90 days
[1:31:15] things we talked about,
[1:31:17] I think that I feel
[1:31:18] like that's rushing. So, I
[1:31:19] would like to see that 120
[1:31:21] days. As far as the other two
[1:31:23] paragraphs, I won't get into a
[1:31:25] long-detailed explanation, but
[1:31:26] I just don't find them relevant
[1:31:27] for the purpose
[1:31:28] of this resolution.
[1:31:33] >> Council Member Cole,
[1:31:34] Council Member Winegar.
[1:31:36] >> I agree with Council
[1:31:38] Member Eubanks that I do not
[1:31:39] find those necessary for this.
[1:31:40] I would actually say 180-days.
[1:31:42] I know we're at that 120. I
[1:31:44] think we need to take time
[1:31:45] with this. We need to make sure
[1:31:46] that we get this right
[1:31:52] for future endeavors
[1:31:53] with this and to make sure that
[1:31:55] all voices are heard in the
[1:31:56] community. I also know that we
[1:31:57] have time like time frames and
[1:32:00] we have a lot of things
[1:32:02] to do too. So, I would say a
[1:32:03] minimum 120,
[1:32:04] but I'm highly would recommend
[1:32:06] 180 days for this.
[1:32:10] >> And I would just echo that.
[1:32:11] I would agree
[1:32:12] with you. I don't want it
[1:32:14] to be a rush, but we can always
[1:32:15] come back and amend this
[1:32:16] resolution if we feel
[1:32:17] like we don't. We need more
[1:32:18] time. We haven't got everything
[1:32:19] that we're looking for and
[1:32:20] haven't gotten the first the
[1:32:21] participation that we would
[1:32:23] like to see from the community
[1:32:24] that we can also back
[1:32:25] to make a resolution
[1:32:26] to change this
[1:32:28] to extend it past 100.
[1:32:33] >> Additional comments.
[1:32:34] >> Yes please, Councilor
[1:32:35] Mulvey.
[1:32:37] >> So, I actually had this
[1:32:38] conversation beforehand with
[1:32:40] the manager and said we don't
[1:32:41] need a lot of whereas clauses
[1:32:42] in this. And he said I know you
[1:32:44] don't like a lot
[1:32:45] of whereas clauses. And my
[1:32:46] primary reason for that is that
[1:32:48] it gives impression that we're
[1:32:50] making a decision when a
[1:32:52] whereas clause is not binding.
[1:32:53] And all aware as clause does is
[1:32:55] supposed to give you the basis
[1:32:56] for why you're making the
[1:33:04] resolution. And I see duplicity
[1:33:06] in addition
[1:33:08] to what maybe duplicate,
[1:33:10] duplicativeness, circle
[1:33:12] opposite whatever you want
[1:33:13] to call it. But there's
[1:33:15] definitely repetitiveness
[1:33:16] in additional provisions here.
[1:33:17] And it says
[1:33:19] in the seventh one, whereas
[1:33:31] city council establishes a stay
[1:33:33] that's nearly identical to
[1:33:34] Section 2
[1:33:36] in the operative part
[1:33:38] of the resolution. So, my
[1:33:41] suggestion is that we take that
[1:33:43] out because it's duplicative.
[1:33:45] Number eight, the second
[1:33:47] to the last one, says whereas
[1:33:49] city council directs. That's
[1:33:52] nearly identical to Section 1
[1:33:55] in the operative resolution
[1:33:57] language. So, my concern is
[1:34:03] it's technical. We don't need
[1:34:05] to say it twice. It's totally
[1:34:09] ineffective. It's not binding
[1:34:12] at all to say something we're
[1:34:14] taking action
[1:34:15] in a whereas clause. So, I
[1:34:19] would suggest that we take out
[1:34:23] those two as well simply
[1:34:25] because they're complicative
[1:34:26] on a technical basis. The other
[1:34:27] thing I want
[1:34:29] to mention is that, you know,
[1:34:31] we say that it's not a give and
[1:34:34] take for public comment,
[1:34:40] but we had one because Manager
[1:34:42] gave and take answered it.
[1:34:51] So, I'm going to answer it
[1:34:53] because I think it deserves an
[1:34:55] answer. I think that it's not
[1:34:57] so much how much time it takes
[1:35:00] for somebody to draft something
[1:35:03] and give us this thing we want
[1:35:04] to amend, it's how much time we
[1:35:05] spend considering it. And
[1:35:07] that's what I think is most
[1:35:09] important. I also think that if
[1:35:16] we're supposedly growing up as
[1:35:20] a city and making these
[1:35:21] comments
[1:35:23] about how things are going
[1:35:24] to be developed anyway, then we
[1:35:28] should grow up and have town
[1:35:30] halls like other towns do. And
[1:35:31] it doesn't take a lot
[1:35:34] of money or time to schedule
[1:35:35] something where you don't need
[1:35:37] food, you don't need drinks,
[1:35:38] you don't need staff. It's help
[1:35:40] setting up and getting the word
[1:35:41] out for a town hall with a
[1:35:43] particular council member. And
[1:35:45] I would,
[1:35:46] I think I've already given
[1:35:48] in the past years screenshots
[1:35:49] of what other towns do,
[1:35:51] particularly Centennial,
[1:35:52] Aurora. You see them on
[1:35:53] Facebook. The city process
[1:35:54] would not necessarily be needed
[1:35:56] for the logistics of it because
[1:35:57] it's the council that needs
[1:35:58] to engage. It's our commitment
[1:35:59] and it's a different kind
[1:36:01] of thing than our open houses.
[1:36:02] And so we've asked
[1:36:03] for it before. It's been done
[1:36:04] before. I too do them. I did it
[1:36:06] all throughout budget season.
[1:36:07] So I,
[1:36:09] I don't think we're asking
[1:36:10] for a lot to do that. And I'm
[1:36:11] going to withhold any further
[1:36:13] comments and listen
[1:36:14] to my colleagues. Council
[1:36:16] member of Salsa you I actually
[1:36:17] don't have a problem
[1:36:18] with the language of talking
[1:36:20] about Crowsnest and this is
[1:36:21] why, because this is private
[1:36:22] property. They have the. They
[1:36:24] can do whatever they want
[1:36:25] with it. They can go to us,
[1:36:27] they can go to the county,
[1:36:28] they can go to Castle Rock.
[1:36:51] >> But I don't want
[1:36:52] to put a stain on them just
[1:36:53] because we don't want them
[1:36:54] at this point, we're not ready
[1:36:55] for them or we're just not
[1:36:56] right for us or we need time
[1:36:57] to figure out if it's right
[1:36:58] for us. I don't want that
[1:36:59] to look bad
[1:37:01] for the developer. If they want
[1:37:02] to go somewhere else,
[1:37:03] I want them
[1:37:04] to re acknowledge it's going
[1:37:05] to get developed. We hope it
[1:37:06] gets developed properly
[1:37:08] with all the studies and
[1:37:09] in consideration of the
[1:37:12] surrounding areas and the
[1:37:13] community. But again,
[1:37:15] I don't have a problem with the
[1:37:16] language because simply it's
[1:37:21] going to get developed and I
[1:37:23] don't want it to be.
[1:37:45] >> We're the ones, you know,
[1:37:51] making a stain on their
[1:37:54] application because maybe it is
[1:37:55] a good fit in the future
[1:37:57] for someone else. So, I don't
[1:37:58] have a problem. That's all I'm
[1:37:59] saying. I do want the time. I
[1:38:01] do want four or five months
[1:38:02] to go through the process, do
[1:38:05] education,
[1:38:10] make sure community that wants
[1:38:11] to get heard is heard. People
[1:38:12] that have questions can have
[1:38:13] their questions answered. And
[1:38:14] the process is well done.
[1:38:16] >> Thank you, Mary. So, I still
[1:38:17] disagree. If this is
[1:38:18] about a policy
[1:38:19] for annexation, we do not need
[1:38:20] to call out Crowsnest because
[1:38:21] this isn't just a policy for
[1:38:22] Crowsnest. This is a policy
[1:38:24] for the city going forward.
[1:38:25] So, I believe any mention of
[1:38:26] crow's nest is not relevant. I
[1:38:28] have a motion on the table.
[1:38:29] We've had a couple seconds. I'm
[1:38:30] not interested
[1:38:31] in amending my amendment. So,
[1:38:32] if there's someone else who
[1:38:34] would like to make a different
[1:38:35] motion or amend my amendment,
[1:38:36] feel free. If not, I'm ready to
[1:38:37] vote.
[1:38:39] >> I would. I don't know if
[1:38:40] you've just made a motion, but
[1:38:41] I do have another comment.
[1:38:42] >> No, I didn't make a motion.
[1:38:43] >> There's already a motion
[1:38:44] on the table. I go ahead
[1:38:45] with your trouble. Oh, pardon
[1:38:47] y'. All, but there is a motion
[1:38:48] that calls the question. So, I
[1:38:49] just wanted
[1:38:50] to give him the courtesy
[1:38:51] to ask if he was doing that.
[1:38:52] You know, I am astounded
[1:38:53] by the frequency
[1:38:54] with which we have people
[1:38:55] on this dais saying one thing
[1:38:56] in one session and another
[1:38:57] thing in another. One thing
[1:39:03] in executive, one thing
[1:39:05] in the public, one thing
[1:39:06] in one meeting,
[1:39:09] one thing here. It astounds me
[1:39:11] and it infuriates me.
[1:39:19] >> Mayor Point Board, this is
[1:39:20] not.
[1:39:21] >> State your point. Go ahead,
[1:39:22] please state your point.
[1:39:23] >> Council Member Eubanks.
[1:39:25] >> Thanks.
[1:39:27] >> My point is this is a
[1:39:29] conversation
[1:39:30] about this resolution, not
[1:39:31] about disparaging other council
[1:39:32] members.
[1:39:33] >> Your point is well taken.
[1:39:34] >> Council member.
[1:39:36] >> Please keep your comments
[1:39:38] to you and not speaking
[1:39:41] about your colleagues. That is
[1:39:42] what you agree to with our
[1:39:43] decorum and our policies.
[1:39:44] >> Yes, ma'am. Holda and I will
[1:39:45] continue my comment. I for one
[1:39:46] will give a consistent
[1:39:47] statement. Everywhere I am,
[1:39:48] I see in Sterling Ranch
[1:39:50] residents who want one thing
[1:39:51] and people in Solterra,
[1:39:52] unincorporated nearby and
[1:40:04] Roxboro Park wanting another
[1:40:05] thing. And when I go somewhere,
[1:40:07] I hear the same things that
[1:40:08] some of we hear. And I know you
[1:40:10] all hear it too,
[1:40:13] in the public. And you're
[1:40:15] hearing that we have a push and
[1:40:17] a poll about what the community
[1:40:19] should look
[1:40:21] like and what's best
[1:40:22] for everybody. And there should
[1:40:23] be absolutely no limit
[1:40:26] on public comment
[1:40:27] for that.
[1:40:29] >> Again, Mayor Point maybe
[1:40:32] please take a five-minute
[1:40:33] break.
[1:40:34] >> Yes, we can take a tone and
[1:40:36] 10-minute break right now. We
[1:40:37] will come back
[1:40:39] at 7:15. Thank you. I'm sorry if
[1:40:42] you're upset.
[1:41:08] >> [ BREAK ]
[1:45:08] >> All right. Thank
[1:45:10] you everyone
[1:45:11] for your patience. We are going
[1:45:16] to have our meeting. All right,
[1:45:17] Council members,
[1:45:18] we are still have a motion
[1:45:19] on the table. Continue
[1:45:20] discussion. Council Member
[1:45:21] Salazar, call the question.
[1:45:22] >> Excuse me,
[1:45:25] am I cut off? I'm moving on
[1:45:26] because you've been called
[1:45:27] twice out.
[1:45:28] >> So, Council Member Mulvey,
[1:45:29] we have the call the question.
[1:45:31] Is there a second
[1:45:32] to call the question
[1:45:33] about motion and a second
[1:45:34] to call the question. Clerk,
[1:45:35] Deputy, please call the vote.
[1:45:41] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]
[1:45:57] >> The motion passes.
[1:45:59] >> Thank you. All right. We are
[1:46:00] moving on to our final item on
[1:46:02] our general business which is
[1:46:03] the Mayor.
[1:46:05] >> We called the question,
[1:46:06] now we have to call the vote
[1:46:07] on the motion.
[1:46:08] >> Oh, thank you very much.
[1:46:09] >> Yes.
[1:46:10] >> All right. Yes, please.
[1:46:11] >> Look, Duffy. Do I need
[1:46:12] to reread it? Yeah.
[1:46:13] >> Does anyone need it re-read?
[1:46:15] >> No.
[1:46:16] >> With all your. The first
[1:46:17] qualification was that we would
[1:46:19] vote immediately.
[1:46:21] >> And since there was a 2/3
[1:46:23] vote voting on your motion.
[1:46:25] >> Thank you.
[1:46:31] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]
[1:46:41] >> The motion passes.
[1:46:44] >> Thank you very much. All
[1:46:46] right. Now we will move on
[1:46:47] to our final item on general
[1:46:48] business which is a public
[1:46:49] hearing. Initial zoning. The
[1:46:51] crow, the Crowsnest plan
[1:46:52] development. PD case number
[1:46:54] RPD-2025-001. I think I'm okay.
[1:47:04] >> Yeah.
[1:47:06] >> Okay.
[1:47:07] >> Thank you.
[1:47:08] >> Go ahead.
[1:47:10] >> I was letting the community
[1:47:11] development staff off this
[1:47:13] evening given that it'd be
[1:47:14] easier so, as the memo.
[1:47:15] >> So, I'm sorry. So, this is a
[1:47:17] resolution or a motion?
[1:47:19] Resolution to ultimately vacate
[1:47:24] the annexation application
[1:47:25] based on the applicant's
[1:47:26] withdrawal which was as I said
[1:47:28] earlier, continued
[1:47:29] on the council adoption code
[1:47:30] of the. I'm sorry,
[1:47:31] at the pd.
[1:47:32] >> Manager Penny, I need to
[1:47:34] interrupt you because I didn't
[1:47:36] actually open the public
[1:47:38] hearing. I need
[1:47:39] to open the public hearing
[1:47:40] before we continue
[1:47:41] at 7:17 soon.
[1:47:46] >> Okay, go ahead.
[1:47:48] >> So. So this is.
[1:47:50] >> This policy question is
[1:47:55] relevant now given the language
[1:47:57] and the applicants withdrawal
[1:47:58] of the annexation petition and
[1:48:01] council's adoption
[1:48:03] of the previous resolution.
[1:48:05] And we were required because
[1:48:06] this goes back a ways in terms
[1:48:08] of when we were originally
[1:48:10] posting dates. So, this was a
[1:48:12] posting issue from. I believe
[1:48:13] it was initially a March 5th
[1:48:15] planning commission meeting.
[1:48:16] But because the application is
[1:48:18] withdrawn. Their. Their PD
[1:48:20] application. We just need
[1:48:25] counsel to open the public
[1:48:27] hearing and vacate the county
[1:48:28] section petitions, and we have
[1:48:30] as the city attorneys was
[1:48:43] during my year. We have no
[1:48:44] jurisdiction to hear it now.
[1:48:46] So.
[1:48:50] >> Okay, so what you're looking
[1:48:51] for is the a motion to vacate
[1:48:53] the public proposed motion
[1:48:55] on page two
[1:48:56] of the staff memo.
[1:49:03] >> Council members,
[1:49:06] does anyone have any questions
[1:49:07] for staff right now
[1:49:08] before I entertain our session?
[1:49:10] Okay, go ahead. I will
[1:49:11] entertain the motion. And
[1:49:12] someone tells them
[1:49:13] on the piece of paper given
[1:49:15] to us.
[1:49:17] >> I move to the safe the
[1:49:19] public hearing
[1:49:20] for initial zoning for the
[1:49:21] Crowsnest plan development. PD
[1:49:24] case number RPD-2025-001.
[1:49:25] Sorry, have a motion and a
[1:49:27] second. Is there any discussion
[1:49:29] seeing that? None.
[1:49:30] >> Clerk Duffy. Please call the
[1:49:32] vote.
[1:49:36] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]
[1:49:52] >> The motion passes and the
[1:49:53] public hearing is vacated.
[1:50:00] >> Right. Clerk Duffy, I need
[1:50:01] to close the public hearing.
[1:50:02] Do I not? Or.
[1:50:03] >> Okay, yes.
[1:50:04] >> Perfect. All right then. We
[1:50:05] are moving on
[1:50:06] to comments and report. City
[1:50:09] Manager Penny, do you have
[1:50:13] anything
[1:50:14] to report this evening?
[1:50:15] >> As I mentioned
[1:50:17] during the previous resolution,
[1:50:18] we will now start working
[1:50:20] on that timeline. And I'll
[1:50:21] update council on what our
[1:50:22] proposed process is as we put
[1:50:24] that together. And the only
[1:50:26] other thing I want to let you
[1:50:27] know is the community center
[1:50:28] remodel is going
[1:50:29] along as well. There's still
[1:50:30] demo work, but we're still
[1:50:32] on track
[1:50:33] for the clerk's council meeting
[1:50:34] in July to be in that room.
[1:50:36] And I think you guys will be
[1:50:37] very pleased with the outcome
[1:50:39] of both the physical, physical,
[1:50:40] built, physical layout of it.
[1:50:41] And then the audio visual will
[1:50:42] be much nicer than what we've
[1:50:43] experienced in the library.
[1:50:44] While we appreciate the
[1:50:46] library, I think it's going to
[1:50:47] be certainly the next level up.
[1:50:48] So, I'm excited. It has
[1:50:49] pictures. It's still just demo
[1:50:50] right now,
[1:50:52] but as we start it starts
[1:50:53] to come together. We'll bring
[1:50:57] some pictures. We'll share
[1:50:58] those with you or else you're
[1:50:59] obviously welcome
[1:51:00] to go up there and take a look
[1:51:02] around us together. So that's
[1:51:03] all I have to see.
[1:51:09] >> Thank you. All right,
[1:51:10] we'll move on
[1:51:11] to council member reports.
[1:51:12] Council Member Mulvey, we'll
[1:51:13] start with you. Thank you. I
[1:51:15] appreciate that. The mayor did
[1:51:17] a roundtable for Douglas
[1:51:18] County citizenry. I was a
[1:51:20] little dismayed that I was the
[1:51:21] only council member there
[1:51:22] to support her,
[1:51:23] but she did a great job,
[1:51:25] and it was really good
[1:51:26] to see that. I wanted
[1:51:28] to ask staff
[1:51:30] to add the raise grant to our
[1:51:31] grant list because I know it
[1:51:32] just happened so it's just want
[1:51:36] to make sure that the public is
[1:51:37] seeing that we're applying for
[1:51:38] those funds as well as the
[1:51:39] congressionally directive
[1:51:41] spending for Happy Canyon
[1:51:43] Interchange to try to get
[1:51:45] everything we're entitled to. I
[1:51:46] want to thank council and
[1:51:48] staff. I had a few tangential
[1:51:53] questions in advance,
[1:51:55] so I want to thank you
[1:51:56] for that. Just taking the time
[1:51:59] so it didn't take time away
[1:52:00] from our meeting. And then I
[1:52:03] also want to express to council
[1:52:08] that I had some terrific
[1:52:09] conversations with some
[1:52:12] of our peers
[1:52:14] in other jurisdictions, local
[1:52:15] jurisdictions, and I think that
[1:52:16] the comments that have been
[1:52:18] made about us collaborating and
[1:52:19] learning from other
[1:52:20] jurisdictions is meaningful.
[1:52:22] And while it's unfortunate that
[1:52:23] I could not properly express or
[1:52:25] clearly enough
[1:52:29] for you and concisely enough
[1:52:32] for you express what I meant,
[1:52:33] I'll say it here where I'm
[1:52:34] allowed the I've learned from
[1:52:39] Castle Rock how they deal with
[1:52:41] these conflicting push and pull
[1:52:44] issues,
[1:52:46] and it's different than the way
[1:52:48] Parker handles it. And I've
[1:52:50] learned from Lone Tree how they
[1:52:52] handle them. They have a
[1:52:53] different kind of system. So,
[1:52:56] I've also taken the time
[1:52:58] to learn a little bit more
[1:52:59] about some
[1:53:01] of the developments that Mr.
[1:53:05] Penny referred to. And I shared
[1:53:07] that. I shared all of these
[1:53:08] things that I've learned with
[1:53:10] him so that they can be
[1:53:11] incorporated. And I hope
[1:53:14] to share them
[1:53:16] with you all as well. But I for
[1:53:18] one am learning a tremendous
[1:53:20] amount, particularly
[1:53:23] from what is happening with
[1:53:26] public comment and the push and
[1:53:28] pull in the other jurisdictions
[1:53:29] and including at Sterling
[1:53:32] Ranch. And I think that
[1:53:35] sometimes the issues aren't
[1:53:37] exactly the same, but sometimes
[1:53:38] they are exactly the same. And
[1:53:39] I think the way that we go
[1:53:41] about our process here is a
[1:53:42] combination
[1:53:47] of what we're learning
[1:53:49] from there, from all
[1:53:51] of these places. And so
[1:53:54] to me, it's what we do with our
[1:53:56] information and our time,
[1:54:00] no matter where it comes from,
[1:54:02] that matters. And so,
[1:54:05] I do intend to continue
[1:54:06] to do that. And I would
[1:54:07] encourage you all
[1:54:09] to have an open mind
[1:54:10] to it as well. Thank you.
[1:54:15] >> Thank you, Mayor. First, a
[1:54:17] question for the city manager.
[1:54:19] With your fancy new audio
[1:54:21] visual, can we get some kind
[1:54:22] of button where I can press and
[1:54:23] on the screen, it puts us
[1:54:25] in a queue? You think I'm
[1:54:26] kidding?
[1:54:27] >> Actually, I don't think
[1:54:29] you're kidding.
[1:54:30] >> I don't.
[1:54:31] >> Do not know the answer
[1:54:32] to that. But we will ask.
[1:54:33] >> That would be outstanding. I
[1:54:34] may be the only one.
[1:54:35] >> So, Stephanie has it. Oh,
[1:54:37] really?
[1:54:38] >> Yeah.
[1:54:39] >> Yeah. I'll tell you what it
[1:54:40] is.
[1:54:42] >> I just felt like tonight
[1:54:43] there was a lot of talking
[1:54:44] over each other
[1:54:45] in the study session. So, maybe
[1:54:47] not a digital solution, but we.
[1:54:48] I think we need something and.
[1:54:49] And I probably was the worst
[1:54:50] offender.
[1:54:52] >> So, I don't know myself.
[1:54:53] >> I like the deli
[1:54:54] ticket idea.
[1:54:55] >> That's because we're from
[1:54:58] Jersey, right?
[1:55:00] >> We're going
[1:55:02] to give the city clerk the
[1:55:03] power to turn on and
[1:55:04] off the bikes.
[1:55:07] >> There you go. On March 12, I
[1:55:09] had the pleasure
[1:55:10] of attending a reception
[1:55:11] for youth in Douglas County.
[1:55:12] Reception. And it was the youth
[1:55:14] councils from Parker, Lone
[1:55:16] Tree, Castle Rock and Douglas
[1:55:20] County. We do not have one,
[1:55:22] but it was a wonderful event.
[1:55:23] It was a roundtable that we
[1:55:24] each had a topic. And my topic
[1:55:27] that I had with my group as
[1:55:28] they rotated was leadership.
[1:55:29] And a lot
[1:55:31] of these folks are interested
[1:55:33] in civic duty, interested
[1:55:35] in local government. So, I had
[1:55:36] a real good conversation with
[1:55:39] those folks. I was delighted
[1:55:41] to be part of that. You know,
[1:55:43] I had something else, but must
[1:55:45] not have been very important
[1:55:49] because I don't remember it.
[1:55:51] That's it, man.
[1:55:53] >> Council Member Cole.
[1:55:54] >> Thank you, ma'am.
[1:55:56] >> Just this past Friday, I had
[1:55:57] a pleasure graduating from
[1:55:58] Invisible Leadership Academy,
[1:55:59] which is a yearlong program.
[1:56:01] It is well worth the time and
[1:56:02] the effort you put into it.
[1:56:06] There were 18 others
[1:56:08] from communities under
[1:56:10] 25,000, so we got to meet some
[1:56:12] and there are some problems
[1:56:13] out there I probably didn't
[1:56:14] want to know about. But it was
[1:56:16] a great education program and
[1:56:17] recommended to any
[1:56:18] of the council members. It runs
[1:56:20] a year, but it's well worth
[1:56:21] your time and I thank you
[1:56:23] for sponsoring.
[1:56:27] >> Council Member Salazar.
[1:56:28] >> Thank you, Mayor. I just
[1:56:30] want an update. The parks and
[1:56:31] recreation board met
[1:56:32] on the 19th, so last Thursday
[1:56:33] we honored our outgoing
[1:56:34] members, and we welcomed our
[1:56:36] new members. Our first meeting
[1:56:37] with our new members and we
[1:56:39] discussed what's coming up
[1:56:40] for this year. Many things
[1:56:41] coming up, but the priority
[1:56:42] right now is working
[1:56:43] on trail signage. So, we will
[1:56:44] have signs on our trails and
[1:56:45] those will also be added. The
[1:56:46] trails are already on GIS, but
[1:56:48] having some trail signs up and
[1:56:52] some trail heads so you can see
[1:56:54] the map of all the trails. So
[1:56:55] that's something that the park
[1:56:56] score will be working on.
[1:57:06] >> Council Member Winegar.
[1:57:08] >> Thank you, Mayor. I had the
[1:57:09] fortunate honor. I have the
[1:57:10] fortunate honor
[1:57:12] of attending the Commonsense
[1:57:13] Institute here recently. It was
[1:57:15] my first time experiencing
[1:57:16] something like this. They're a
[1:57:18] bipartisan organization. They
[1:57:19] brought data related to
[1:57:22] Colorado's economy and I think
[1:57:23] there's someone worthwhile
[1:57:24] checking out and continuing. I
[1:57:25] look forward to going to more
[1:57:27] of those and learning more. I
[1:57:30] think that, you know,
[1:57:31] regulations,
[1:57:32] taxation and tabor were big
[1:57:33] Topics, and it was nice
[1:57:34] to hear both sides
[1:57:36] of the fence on that.
[1:57:37] >> And I thought it was a nice,
[1:57:38] robust conversation. And there
[1:57:48] was a lot
[1:57:49] of representation there,
[1:57:51] public and about them. So, it
[1:57:52] was enjoyable. Comment I have
[1:57:53] is just again, thank you
[1:57:54] for the community showing up,
[1:57:55] voicing their voice
[1:57:57] for whatever it is. It's
[1:57:58] important
[1:58:01] to have a community that,
[1:58:02] that stands up
[1:58:03] for their beliefs, and I
[1:58:05] appreciate all their efforts
[1:58:06] to come in front of us and
[1:58:07] to speak up their boss.
[1:58:11] >> Mayor, before you go, may I
[1:58:12] ask council member Salazar a
[1:58:13] question? Council member,
[1:58:15] would you mind sharing the kind
[1:58:16] of the cool news we had
[1:58:17] about the naming
[1:58:18] of the parks, the name
[1:58:19] of the parks, the name
[1:58:20] of the trails.
[1:58:21] >> Naming of the trails.
[1:58:22] >> See, what's the cool news?
[1:58:23] >> The name. Didn't we approve
[1:58:24] voting on it? Yes, I was hoping
[1:58:25] it'd be a little bit more
[1:58:26] enthusiastic.
[1:58:31] >> Yeah, so we did approve
[1:58:33] at our last meeting.
[1:58:34] >> So, on the west side,
[1:58:35] all the
[1:58:38] trails have been named,
[1:58:40] and they have been named based
[1:58:42] on geographical or geological
[1:58:43] or geographical features. So,
[1:58:44] ridges and tall grasses, trees,
[1:58:46] those kinds of creeks, also
[1:58:47] by neighborhood. So if you're
[1:58:49] out on the trail
[1:58:50] on the west side,
[1:58:52] if you see something wrong
[1:58:56] with the trail now,
[1:58:57] you know how to report it
[1:58:58] because you know the trail has
[1:59:01] a needle or if you get lost,
[1:59:07] they're going
[1:59:08] to need help.
[1:59:17] >> You know how
[1:59:22] to help someone to come find
[1:59:23] you because you know the trail
[1:59:24] has a need. And then we'll
[1:59:25] start working on the trails
[1:59:26] on the east side to get them
[1:59:27] all names and get trail
[1:59:28] signage. So, it's all one
[1:59:29] connected city. So, we're super
[1:59:30] excited that we've. There were
[1:59:31] 35 trails we've already named.
[1:59:33] So, it's a big. It's a big
[1:59:34] project for the parks Board.
[1:59:35] >> Thanks for coming up.
[1:59:36] >> And Mayor, thank you
[1:59:37] for allowing that question.
[1:59:38] >> All right, thank you.
[1:59:39] >> Thank you, audience,
[1:59:40] so much
[1:59:41] for being here this evening.
[1:59:42] We really do appreciate hearing
[1:59:44] from you, and we hope to hear
[1:59:45] from you as we explore this
[1:59:46] policy and hear what we're
[1:59:47] going to do. The retreat was
[1:59:48] fantastic
[1:59:49] to have this conversation
[1:59:50] with council about. We don't
[1:59:51] really have framework right now
[1:59:52] to help guide us on how
[1:59:53] to make these types
[1:59:54] of decisions, and we need you
[1:59:55] to participate in that
[1:59:56] to help us determine what's
[1:59:57] in the best interest of
[1:59:58] Castle Pines. And so,
[1:59:59] we really look forward to that
[2:00:00] discussion and further dialogue
[2:00:01] to find out more about what the
[2:00:02] community is looking
[2:00:03] for the future of Castle
[2:00:04] Pines. So, then we can create
[2:00:05] our policies that state those
[2:00:06] things and make it very clear
[2:00:07] to people that want to come
[2:00:08] to Castle Pines. What it is,
[2:00:09] our expectation is
[2:00:10] of them that they want
[2:00:11] to be part of Castle Pines.
[2:00:13] So, thank you
[2:00:14] for that and I look forward to
[2:00:15] our future conversations. I had
[2:00:16] a very great attendance with
[2:00:17] South Metro Denver Chamber. We
[2:00:19] had a mayor's panel two weeks
[2:00:24] ago, very well attended. At the
[2:00:25] end they had a networking
[2:00:26] opportunity, and I had a lot
[2:00:27] of, not necessarily residents
[2:00:29] of Castle Pines, but residents
[2:00:30] of the area that were really
[2:00:31] surprised about the things that
[2:00:33] are happening in Castle
[2:00:34] Pines. So, I think it was
[2:00:36] successful in the fact that
[2:00:38] they hear what's happening here
[2:00:39] and that there are things
[2:00:40] happening. And we are looking
[2:00:42] forward to seeing more
[2:00:43] commercial and retail
[2:00:47] opportunities in the future
[2:00:56] for us. And we're getting more
[2:00:57] attention and I think that's
[2:00:59] good. I think it's going
[2:01:00] to bring the type
[2:01:02] of users that we're looking
[2:01:03] for to this community just by
[2:01:04] them having knowledge that
[2:01:06] we're open
[2:01:07] for business and we'd
[2:01:08] like them to come here. And
[2:01:10] then I spent some time in D.C.
[2:01:11] this past week working on our
[2:01:13] zip code advocacy and we maybe
[2:01:14] didn't make as much progress as
[2:01:15] the last visit. And I think
[2:01:17] that's part to do
[2:01:20] with there's a lot going on
[2:01:21] in D.C. right now.
[2:01:24] >> So, we got a lot
[2:01:25] of more visits
[2:01:26] with staff as opposed
[2:01:28] to elected officials.
[2:01:29] But we had a couple roadblocks
[2:01:30] with a few senators that I
[2:01:31] think that we made progress,
[2:01:33] that they're going
[2:01:36] to not be the hurdle. They're
[2:01:37] not going
[2:01:39] to necessarily put a hold
[2:01:40] on the bill.
[2:01:42] >> Not 100% sure, but we
[2:01:43] definitely made some inroads.
[2:01:45] And so I think that we've made
[2:01:46] some more progress. I think
[2:01:48] it's probably going
[2:01:49] to require us
[2:01:51] to go there again sometime
[2:01:53] in the future. But Senator
[2:01:54] Rand Paul made it clear that he
[2:01:55] is willing
[2:01:57] to see our bill and markup
[2:01:58] in either May or June or
[2:02:04] sometime in the future. But
[2:02:06] Homeland Security Committee
[2:02:07] doesn't have very many markups.
[2:02:08] They're not necessarily a super
[2:02:09] functioning committee. So,
[2:02:10] we'll see if that happens.
[2:02:12] But two of the other senators
[2:02:13] are also working
[2:02:14] on merging the two Senate bills
[2:02:16] together. So, we're still
[2:02:19] making progress. I mean,
[2:02:20] this is a lot farther
[2:02:21] from where we are right now,
[2:02:23] from where we started even
[2:02:24] three years ago. So. So
[2:02:26] hopefully we will see this bill
[2:02:28] get in front of the entire
[2:02:30] Senate and get passed and then
[2:02:31] back to the House and pass
[2:02:33] there too. But I think that it
[2:02:35] is absolutely doable
[2:02:36] for this year. So, we're going
[2:02:38] to keep our fingers crossed
[2:02:40] with that. We adjourn the
[2:02:41] meeting at 7:32. Thank you
[2:02:43] everyone.