[0:00]

[0:09] So are there cookies.

[0:19] Cookies that's insane.

[0:23] I mean.

[0:28]

[0:42] This is just like.

[0:43]

[0:52] Yeah that's crazy.

[0:54]

[1:01] Yeah OK he's I don't know.

[1:23] Can you turn on.

[1:24] Just having the executive session

[1:28] is going to be all right.

[1:31] Is everybody doing this right.

[1:35]

[1:37] Yeah The one executive that won't attend.

[1:40] Yeah a little bit of legal guidance is always a good thing.

[1:47] It is 5:30 on Monday, May the 4, 2026.

[1:54] And I will call our city manager.

[1:58] Council workshop session 2.

[2:01] And as we start out with here tonight,

[2:03] we have three discussion topics.

[2:06] And we will be starting out with hitting

[2:08] on property for discussion.

[2:11] And Mike, if you want to start us off.

[2:16] Yes thank you mayor.

[2:17] Members of council.

[2:18] Tonight's discussion on the property for

[2:22] is a result of some changes to our ordinance over the years,

[2:27] and then some recent communication with the council

[2:30] received related to camping along the river

[2:35] and how to address that.

[2:36] So we wanted to begin this discussion in two parts.

[2:41] First, our interim city attorney, Jeremiah Boyce,

[2:44] is going to discuss language, how

[2:47] it was added into the ordinance and what that history was.

[2:52] That'll be a brief update.

[2:54] And then following Jeremiah will.

[2:56] I will invite our chief of police

[2:58] to come up here next to me.

[3:00] And he's going to give an overview

[3:02] of how the city has dealt with this over the years since.

[3:09] I'll let him go through.

[3:10] When it started, I think it was around 2011.

[3:12] And then what's changed this year due to the language

[3:17] in the ordinance and then open that

[3:20] up for discussion with council.

[3:21] So first, we'll have Jeremiah talk about this.

[3:26] Yeah OK.

[3:27] Thank you.

[3:28] So just to give a little background

[3:30] on how we got to where we are now,

[3:32] the current version of the ordinance

[3:34] that we have on the books was passed in 2019.

[3:37] And that is essentially a prohibition

[3:40] of camping on public property.

[3:42] The important caveat in the reason for this discussion

[3:45] is there's a exception to our ability to enforce the camping

[3:49] ordinance contained within there,

[3:51] and that was based on Ninth Circuit case law.

[3:54] The way back in 2019, in the case

[3:57] of Martin, the city of Boise.

[4:00] And essentially in that case, there was a holding

[4:02] that they found it was a violation

[4:05] of a constitutional right to enforce camping when there was

[4:09] no overnight shelter available.

[4:11] And so at the time, our ordinance, as it was passed,

[4:14] was written to reflect the case law as it was at that time.

[4:18] Subsequent to that, in 2024, the United States Supreme Court

[4:22] took up a case with very similar facts dealing with this very

[4:26] specific holding from the Ninth Circuit, a case out

[4:29] of Grants Pass, Oregon that we just simply

[4:32] called the Grants Pass case.

[4:34] And in that case, they overturned the Ninth Circuit

[4:37] previous holding, and found that there

[4:39] was no constitutional violation for forcing a camping

[4:42] ban on public property when there was

[4:45] no overnight shelter available.

[4:47] Subsequent to that, as council knows,

[4:50] our predominant dominant overnight shelter that we have

[4:54] in town has permanently closed.

[4:57] And thus, we're essentially in a position

[5:00] where our camping ordinance becomes effectively

[5:02] unenforceable because most of the time,

[5:04] there is no overnight shelter available

[5:07] just due to circumstances.

[5:09] And so that's how we got here.

[5:11] And I guess I'll turn it back over to the city

[5:13] manager for the rest of it.

[5:15] Thank you chairman.

[5:17] All right.

[5:17] Thank you Jeremiah.

[5:19] You have to come up.

[5:20] He has a presentation to walk through,

[5:23] talking about the history of how we've addressed

[5:27] camping in these spaces over the years, what

[5:31] our approach has been.

[5:33] We've interacted with those who are camping

[5:38] and connected them to services or at least

[5:40] provided information.

[5:42] And then how we go through the cleanup and what the reasonings

[5:50] for taking that approach in the past.

[5:52] And then where we're at today in the discussion.

[5:58] Thank you.

[6:00] So really, this is the city manager said as a high level

[6:05] overview of what we've been doing

[6:07] and where we currently sit today, have some photographs

[6:11] for you to look at and just some different statistics,

[6:14] and then answer any questions you

[6:15] might have about what the process has been over the years.

[6:21] So in 2011 we had a team, so homeless outreach team

[6:26] and that team was really bridging

[6:28] the gap between our homeless community,

[6:30] nonprofit service providers that were out in the camps

[6:34] pretty frequently.

[6:35] And they identified some issues.

[6:39] So really, we boil those down to risks to public safety,

[6:43] risk to public health, risk to the environment and Wildlife

[6:47] and a risk for wildfire.

[6:48] So as a result, in 2011, we started doing camp cleanups.

[6:52] A lot of it was maybe camps that were abandoned and with debris

[6:58] left behind and literally were walking around with trash bags,

[7:02] picking things up, and quickly became

[7:04] overwhelmed and realized that just

[7:06] wasn't a sustainable approach.

[7:08] So that is when we started looking at different contractors

[7:12] that might be able to come in and help

[7:13] us with the hazardous waste disposal

[7:16] stuff just in the landfill.

[7:18] Not really a great idea.

[7:20] And so we have a company that really goes through

[7:23] and they separate trash from recycling from hazardous waste,

[7:27] and then they dispose of all of that.

[7:29] So they're taking tires to the dump in the right place,

[7:32] mattresses and so forth, disposing

[7:34] of meals properly and then taking stuff

[7:36] to recycling what they can.

[7:37] So that's where we developed.

[7:40] And that's how we got to where we are today.

[7:44] So process wise really there's two different categories.

[7:49] And so the first category would be

[7:52] public space owned by the city.

[7:54] I think the riverfront salt flats, those kinds of big, more

[7:57] expansive areas that are really just open space

[7:59] that are in the park.

[8:01] Then you have public right of way,

[8:03] which is roads, sidewalks, medians, alleys

[8:06] and those sorts of things.

[8:08] This change that you're talking about tonight

[8:11] does not impact the second piece there.

[8:15] So roads, sidewalks, medians, alleys that's a different part.

[8:19] So it's not really the focus is on the public space

[8:21] and primarily the riverfront.

[8:26] So how the process works is we find a camp

[8:31] and it's on city owned property.

[8:33] It's down on the riverfront.

[8:35] We go now, we make contact with the individuals living there,

[8:38] and we try to work through some solutions

[8:39] for them, gain compliance.

[8:41] We notify them that what they're doing is illegal.

[8:44] And sometimes that process takes weeks.

[8:47] Sometimes it takes a couple days.

[8:49] It depends on the size of the camp, the occupants,

[8:51] the level of cooperation and so forth.

[8:54] And really, our primary goal is to gain compliance

[8:57] and to get the camp cleaned up, get them someplace

[9:00] where they can be, and then link them up with services if we can.

[9:06] And if they want services.

[9:08] But like I said, there's no one size fits all.

[9:10] Sometimes it takes us a month, sometimes it's a couple of days,

[9:14] but we don't go in and just clean up the camp.

[9:17] The day that we find the exception to that

[9:19] would be just a bedroll, or if it's obviously an abandoned

[9:23] camp and it's just trash.

[9:25] There's no tents.

[9:26] And yeah, we might clean that up a day.

[9:27] We find it.

[9:28] But if there's people living there, we don't do it that day.

[9:30] We give them some time.

[9:32]

[9:36] That's all there.

[9:38] So now moving on to the encampments on the river.

[9:41] I know there was a cleanup effort

[9:44] that occurred a few weeks ago.

[9:45] There was a lot of volunteers that went out,

[9:47] and so we went out a couple days before that, took

[9:50] some photographs of some of the camps,

[9:52] and then we went out after the cleanup

[9:54] and took some photographs of the camps.

[9:57] Just to show you some perspective.

[10:00] This overview kind of gives you an idea

[10:03] of where we find the most persistent areas

[10:07] where people are camping.

[10:09] Some of these camps, we've cleaned up five or six times

[10:12] in the same sites over the years.

[10:14] So you can see we have South of the ice rink.

[10:17] It's a little difficult to see on that one,

[10:19] but you can see the different color codes.

[10:21] The point which is where the Gunnison, Colorado converge

[10:26] South of the five Street Bridge, Watson island and railroad

[10:29] island, Watson island.

[10:32] For some perspective, we cleaned up in 2024 and there was no

[10:37] camps on Watson island after the cleanup,

[10:39] and we spent about $80,000 community

[10:42] of Watson island in 2024.

[10:46] So here's Watson island.

[10:49] These pictures are not the same camp.

[10:51] There are multiple camps.

[10:52] And on April 10 of this year, this was just some of the.

[11:00] Things April 10 after the cleanup.

[11:10] Really not much change other than probably

[11:12] what was right on the riverfront.

[11:14]

[11:17] So that's what it looked like on April 10.

[11:20] And here's on the 24 for Watson island.

[11:23]

[11:38] Here's an overview of the point.

[11:40] On April 10.

[11:42]

[11:47] This is what it looks like now in the camps.

[11:50]

[11:58] Fourth, a high level overview.

[12:01] You can see of the same thing.

[12:03] This one in particular is very difficult to access.

[12:07] And really to do a cleanup there.

[12:09] You're talking boats or having the railroad which we have

[12:13] partnered with the railroad before

[12:16] and they've come down with a rail car

[12:18] and we've been able to get that cleaned up.

[12:20] But that's a rather expensive one.

[12:22] And as you can see, it's right on the water side

[12:29] of the bridge, another area that we

[12:32] find some persistent problems.

[12:33]

[12:39] All the propane tanks there on the bottom right.

[12:42] Certainly this year we have some strong concerns

[12:45] with fires and wildfire risk.

[12:48]

[12:54] And April 24, these are really just the before

[12:57] and afters of the ice rink South of the ice rink,

[13:04] there's some private property.

[13:06] Just for clarification, if people are camping

[13:09] on private property, it's not a camping violation,

[13:11] it's a trespass.

[13:12] If the property owner wants to do something.

[13:15] We don't clean up the camps on private property.

[13:17] That's the responsibility of the property owner to do that.

[13:21] We're just talking public lands that the city owns.

[13:24]

[13:36] You're sort of redundant, but you

[13:40] get the idea of what caused us to start

[13:43] doing this back in 2011.

[13:46] Some of the hazards.

[13:47] You can see some things going in the water.

[13:51] Certainly there are fires in the camps.

[13:55] They're staying warm.

[13:58] Lots of needles and other hazardous materials.

[14:03]

[14:09] Rotting food.

[14:10] Unfortunately, feces, as you would expect.

[14:14]

[14:18] This is a little difficult to see,

[14:20] and I was worried that it might not be as easy to see

[14:22] on this bigger screen.

[14:23] But when we talk about our private contractor,

[14:27] you can see what some of the encampments

[14:29] might have looked like at the top.

[14:31] And then on the bottom is what they look like when they're

[14:33] finished with their cleanup.

[14:34] They do you a nice job of photographing and cataloging

[14:38] and categorizing and then taking photos when they're done,

[14:40] so that we can see the work that they've done

[14:42] and they can improve that work.

[14:45] 2022 to 2025, 119 tons is what we've removed from the camps

[14:51] just on the river.

[14:52] This is not including any cleanup

[14:55] efforts where city streets or parks or solid waste is helped.

[14:59] And it does not also include any efforts by nonprofits, volunteer

[15:03] organizations that go down.

[15:04] So 119 tons of trash.

[15:07] Some of that was recyclable.

[15:10] Some of it was the special units, tires

[15:12] and mattresses and so forth.

[15:14] And the rest was going into the landfill.

[15:16] And then our total expense was $460,000 from 2022 to 2025.

[15:29] What the typical cycle looks like

[15:32] for us is we identify the camps, usually in the spring,

[15:37] sometimes depending on the weather,

[15:39] depending on snow, those sorts of things.

[15:41] It's not easy to get back into the camps

[15:43] during the winter months, so we typically don't

[15:45] do much in the winter months.

[15:47] And our goal really is to do these camps before the spring

[15:50] runoff hits, because a lot of this stuff is in the floodplain,

[15:53] or all of it's in the floodplain, and a lot of it

[15:56] will go into the river.

[15:57] And so we're trying to prevent that

[15:59] by getting the camps cleaned up this time of the year.

[16:02] And then we monitor throughout the summer and spot check

[16:05] just so that we can make sure that we're

[16:07] reducing that risk of wildfire.

[16:09] And we certainly don't want the accumulation, really.

[16:13] We try to be in a maintenance mode

[16:16] where we're not having to do extensive cleanups.

[16:18] It's a little bit here and a little bit there,

[16:21] and that makes it easier on the people that

[16:22] are living down there as well.

[16:24] It's not quite as disruptive.

[16:26] They know that they can't be in certain areas

[16:28] and they are most of the time I will say,

[16:33] do you give voluntary compliance on the riverfront itself.

[16:36] We write very few tickets.

[16:38] We certainly do write tickets, but very few.

[16:42] I think in three years we wrote 17 TICAs down on the riverfront.

[16:49] So that's not a lot of tickets.

[16:50] Certainly we had some spikes in 24 and 25,

[16:54] but most of those tickets were all that other category

[16:58] that we talked about.

[16:59] And as you'll remember, desert vista, all the stuff

[17:02] around desert vista, the first street and Second Street,

[17:06] those areas where we had those large camps,

[17:09] that's probably where more of those were generated.

[17:12] But just on the riverfront in three years,

[17:14] I think we wrote 17 TICAs.

[17:17] And quite frankly, I think probably several of those people

[17:21] received more than one ticket.

[17:23] So it wasn't 17 different individuals.

[17:26] There was a few that we couldn't gain compliance from.

[17:30] And instruments, so they were issued tickets.

[17:33] That's really the bulk of it.

[17:36] The why, how it started, what we're doing.

[17:39] Just to give you some context as to how that process works.

[17:44] Thanks, Chief.

[17:46] I know that city council has recently received various emails

[17:51] from a concern related to impacts to the environment

[17:55] or to the river, and that came up as part

[17:59] leading into this discussion.

[18:01] I just want to be clear that from a staff standpoint,

[18:05] we recommend that the language be changed.

[18:10] That removes the sentence that was added after the Supreme

[18:16] Court first Supreme Court case so that we can continue

[18:21] as a police department, as a city, to address the camps

[18:25] and the way we have sewers that we're not able to.

[18:29] Currently, the concern is that without doing that,

[18:34] it will grow into a larger problem.

[18:37] We also completely understand that this is a very.

[18:44] Difficult subject to discuss because we're dealing

[18:47] with real people and real lives that

[18:50] might not have a place to go.

[18:52] And although there are many different programs,

[18:55] there's not necessarily enough slots at every program

[18:58] we have in this area for everybody that's

[19:01] experiencing homelessness.

[19:03] And so we're in that we're in that boat where we are.

[19:09] But from our standpoint, what we're held accountable to do,

[19:12] we are constrained.

[19:14] We appreciate the long history that our police department

[19:19] and the city has taken in a dignified way of working

[19:22] with people and coming in with a strong hand upfront,

[19:26] but working in a way of seeking compliance

[19:31] and doing what we can in coordination with other entities

[19:35] or employees of the city and the police department,

[19:39] and connecting with services.

[19:42] But we do have deep concern that if we don't change the ordinance

[19:47] language that we will be up against significant issues

[19:53] that we won't be able to address like we have in past years.

[19:58] Great thanks, Mike.

[20:00] Anything else from staff before I bring it back to council.

[20:02]

[20:05] So with that, I'll bring it back to council.

[20:11] And just as we tee this up, obviously we've

[20:13] had emails we might get mention any environmental impact

[20:17] concerns.

[20:18] We've had emails on both sides of this.

[20:20] To be fair, there's been people that

[20:22] have talked about their concerns regarding

[20:25] homelessness and that type of thing, which I appreciate.

[20:29] Chief, you mentioned specifically

[20:30] that 17 TICAs in three period of three years, and most of that

[20:36] was maybe not all of that wasn't something different.

[20:39] So anyway, I don't want that concern to go on.

[20:46] Maybe not answering is the right word, but unaddressed.

[20:48]

[20:51] Yeah I just wanted to touch base on if there will be

[20:58] internal guidelines around enforcement,

[21:00] and I'm assuming we would be doing outreach first protocols

[21:04] as we move forward as well.

[21:07] We haven't changed our practices 2011.

[21:09] So really, the only thing that's changed

[21:12] is the last couple of months since the closure

[21:16] of the shelter.

[21:17] We don't.

[21:20] Our intent is to again, really reduce

[21:23] those risks to public safety, public health, environment.

[21:26] Fire mitigation, especially this year and our goal

[21:29] is to get people connected with services.

[21:34] I want to add that if this change were to be made,

[21:37] that's an ordinance change.

[21:38] So there would be a first reading for weeks

[21:41] at least second reading, and then there's

[21:44] 30 days to go into effect.

[21:47] And so while we would utilize that time where we can't change

[21:52] enforcement to what we've typically done,

[21:54] but we would definitely use that time for education,

[21:57] getting information in coordination of those things

[22:00] that need time that would be longer than the typical days,

[22:06] but just keeping.

[22:07] So you would know what that process would look like.

[22:09] And it would be an ordinance change and the time it takes

[22:13] for ordinance to take effect.

[22:15] So would you where's the sense you're referring

[22:21] to that we're going to change.

[22:23] We have that.

[22:24]

[22:31] You see, if I can find it for you,

[22:32] it is in one of the exceptions to.

[22:35]

[22:37] Subsection D I don't know if you have the staff report up,

[22:42] but essentially, it says email it to us again.

[22:46] It's in the packet.

[22:49] Oh is it page.

[22:50]

[22:56] H3 of the packet.

[22:57] Thank you.

[22:58] At the very bottom of that page there's that subsection D.

[23:03] And those are the exceptions to enforcement.

[23:06] And one of the exceptions is says the campers is or are

[23:10] on public property other than sidewalk, street,

[23:12] parking, strip, alleyway, Lane, breezeway

[23:14] or public right of way.

[23:16] And there is no available overnight shelter.

[23:18] So essentially the only thing I think we would change

[23:22] is that one term that says, and there is no overnight shelter.

[23:27]

[23:40] In anything where it's at the bottom of the page

[23:43] three of the packet, the very last

[23:46] subsection D. So just taking that out.

[24:01] So what would be the anticipated outcomes of implementing that.

[24:06] And what would we like to see happen

[24:09] and how would that happen.

[24:12] I can answer just from the legal side, which would be that there

[24:15] would no longer be a requirement to determine

[24:17] whether or not there's overnight shelter

[24:19] before enforcement can happen.

[24:21] But actually what effectively happens on the street,

[24:23] I think the chief or the city manager

[24:25] are better able to answer that.

[24:29] Yeah Council my office.

[24:31] I think that's a great question.

[24:32] What we would propose is if we remove that language,

[24:37] then we would go back to doing exactly what Chief Smith

[24:43] discussed earlier, which would be working with the camps,

[24:48] giving them notice, giving them education of what services are

[24:51] available and then giving them notice

[24:54] of the timeline to if they can, and their belongings.

[24:59]

[25:02] So typically, if you're moving somebody out of a living

[25:06] location, that we would counsel them

[25:10] as to where they could move to.

[25:12] So what would that look like.

[25:17] The counseling would be trying to get

[25:18] them with service providers that take care of them.

[25:22] We have none.

[25:23] We have quite a few service providers

[25:25] that help our unhoused community, different forms.

[25:31] And so we would link them up with those services

[25:33] and trying to encourage them to go

[25:35] seek those services to see what those folks can offer.

[25:38] Those services, as we all don't include housing or shelter.

[25:45] Very, very, very just tiny.

[25:47] I disagree with that.

[25:49] I think you just could you give some examples of where somebody

[25:53] could go right now and get a new place to move

[25:56] their tent to a shelter.

[25:59] And the reason I'm sorry to interrupt,

[26:02] but when you say things like, as we all

[26:05] know and you insinuate that we all agree,

[26:08] I'm just going to pause there.

[26:10] I don't want to interrupt your train of thought.

[26:12] I'd be happy to provide a conversation.

[26:14] I have recently as this week.

[26:17] Sorry last week, but I also don't

[26:19] want to interrupt your opportunity to speak as well.

[26:22] Well, I just said if you could give us some examples of where

[26:28] we move to because some of us all know that we don't have

[26:36] additional places in town right now,

[26:38] and we haven't for a long time.

[26:40] So there would have to be some alternates to where they could

[26:44] camp, where would be safe, where they could legally

[26:47] stay and not get harassed.

[26:50] Many are elderly, many are disabled

[26:52] and need do need some services.

[26:54] You probably saw in some of the pictures

[26:56] wheelchairs, walkers, crutches and machetes and things.

[27:02] They're at risk.

[27:04] So it's a complicated thing.

[27:06] It's not just go check in at the Super eight.

[27:11] It is a complicated thing.

[27:12] And certainly, I don't want to debate you here, other than I

[27:16] did have a very good, and I thought,

[27:20] productive conversation with Helene from the Joseph center

[27:24] this last week about people that she's servicing specifically

[27:27] to these needs and some areas where

[27:29] she's seeing the growing needs.

[27:30] As you say, relatively in particular,

[27:33] the program has received a lot more applicants.

[27:38] So there are those challenges and limited resources.

[27:41] I don't argue that point.

[27:43] I do want to make sure that we're careful in not using

[27:47] the connotation like rest when we have a very compassionate

[27:52] police department who has.

[27:56] OK well, I just if you didn't say that,

[27:59] I just want to make sure that's not taken.

[28:02] So yeah.

[28:06] I have a question.

[28:09] Kind of.

[28:10] So it seems like a lot of the concerns

[28:12] around maybe kind of sanitation waste.

[28:17] And I'm curious to what degree we have ever implemented

[28:21] preventative measures on that front,

[28:23] like buying dumpsters, toilets, that type of thing

[28:25] to avoid the problem, getting to a point

[28:28] where it's kind of overwhelming.

[28:30] Like, it seems like we're spending 400k to clean

[28:33] up three years of camps.

[28:35] Like, could we just provide dumpster service

[28:38] and maybe not have to do that.

[28:39] Or would that address enough of the concerns we have.

[28:44] Yeah so I can talk a little bit about that.

[28:46] Yeah thank you.

[28:47] Council Member Nguyen until this year, what we have done

[28:54] is in certain times of requests or cleanups,

[28:57] we've placed dumpsters or for a very specific time frame, not

[29:04] a consistent and sometimes porta potties in certain areas

[29:08] for a specific period of time.

[29:11] We haven't done that permanently because until we got to

[29:16] with this change and then with the North Avenue

[29:19] shelter closing, it had never been allowed

[29:22] to camp in these locations.

[29:25] And so we had not taken measures that would encourage camping

[29:30] or camping is not allowed.

[29:32] And so now by default, we're in a position where.

[29:39] It's more difficult to address for camping

[29:41] traditionally is not allowed due to the closure of North Avenue.

[29:45] As you can see from the history, we

[29:49] had the same demand or the same challenges with the shelter.

[29:55] The shelter addressing.

[29:56] So it goes back quite a few years

[30:01] as the chief portrayed or showed in the slides.

[30:05] But I would say that's the only answer we've had.

[30:10] And we are not coming from a place

[30:13] where we are saying we should designate areas

[30:17] within public space and that we allow camping because there's

[30:24] a number of components there that we can manage or address

[30:30] what could happen situations.

[30:32]

[30:36] It was I mean, a lot of the things

[30:39] you're referring to were previous

[30:43] to some of the amazing some of the really.

[30:48] Amazing efforts that the community

[30:51] has stepped up and done.

[30:53] And many of the people in this room have been part of that.

[30:56] And so I think things have changed,

[30:59] and he participated, like at the people experiencing

[31:03] homelessness thing at Sunshine.

[31:05] And out of that meeting came the use of some dumpsters

[31:09] for a while, and I think they collected

[31:11] six or 7000 pounds of stuff.

[31:15] And that was because our leaders have worked with those camps

[31:20] and have gotten to know those people

[31:22] and build relationships that, quite honestly,

[31:24] have taken years to build.

[31:27] And many of the camps are run like many cities,

[31:31] and there's leadership and there's coordination.

[31:34] There's people part of and they build relationships with them.

[31:38] So all I'm saying is the door is open for a new effort in getting

[31:45] the camps to clean up and to working with the camp leadership

[31:51] and the community leadership.

[31:54] We identified from some of our meetings

[31:56] that they need water, toilets and dumpsters pretty simple.

[32:03] The water part we're working on.

[32:05] It's pretty close to being wrapped up.

[32:07] The toilet thing is getting there,

[32:10] but the support is needed.

[32:12] And in the interim, while we're working on some other stuff,

[32:17] at a very base level, to help clean up some things in advance.

[32:23] We could be at the table on that.

[32:24] And that would be a huge help.

[32:27] And I don't disagree with that.

[32:30] I think those are important points.

[32:31] And what Jason talked about also about whether we put dumpsters

[32:37] in the meanwhile while we're trying to work through this time

[32:41] of transition.

[32:42] But I will to say that it's city leadership

[32:46] or that it's leadership like a city.

[32:48] I've spent some time in those camps over the years.

[32:50] Over the 17 years I was a police officer, including handling

[32:54] homicides down in those camps.

[32:56] And I've seen some pretty horrific living

[33:02] situations down there.

[33:03] Their needles.

[33:03] Human waste.

[33:05] I know I went down there with a group one time

[33:06] because we had pit bulls going out off of the point

[33:09] into the river, biting kayakers.

[33:12] So this is impactful to not just our riparian areas,

[33:17] but grand junction's namesake, right in the junction

[33:20] of the Gunnison, Colorado, which is where the point is.

[33:24] So I like the idea of we can do these things together,

[33:28] that we can maybe if we are putting dumpsters down there

[33:31] because as Jason pointed out, we're spending half a million

[33:35] on picking up 120 tons of trash.

[33:39] If we can do some things to get dumpsters to try to get

[33:41] that result along with that.

[33:43] But yeah.

[33:45] And I am paying attention if Hannah or Robert or.

[33:51] Go ahead.

[33:52] Yeah I think we're in an extremely fortunate position

[33:55] to have such a compassionate chief of police

[33:58] that we do have in our community,

[34:01] from being a downtown business owner

[34:03] and working a lot with the unhoused community

[34:06] and seeing the way things work in our community,

[34:09] seeing not only the way that Chief Smith has handled

[34:12] this population, but also officer Nick and other officers

[34:16] with GPD.

[34:18] That gives me a lot of solace, a lot of.

[34:22]

[34:27] I don't believe that GJPD is an anti-homeless.

[34:31] We're going to come in and tear up every account.

[34:34] We have the opportunity type organization.

[34:37] I look at this more from the perspective of we have to give

[34:42] our public safety officers the tools that they

[34:44] need to be able to enforce the laws that our community upholds.

[34:49] And this is just simply clearing up

[34:51] a little bit of language to give law enforcement the ability

[34:54] to actually do their job.

[34:56] I don't see this as an anti homeless move.

[34:59] I don't see this as a move to move people out of our community

[35:04] by any means.

[35:05] To me, it's just a cleanup on enforcement,

[35:10] and I'm supportive of it because of that.

[35:13] Do you have any either Robert or Anna.

[35:17] And I'm sorry I didn't call that out earlier

[35:19] that they are in attendance.

[35:21] Virtually both council members.

[35:25] Council Member Scott is not.

[35:27] Oh I'm sorry.

[35:28] Correction for the record.

[35:30] Council Member Ballard is present.

[35:33] Council Member stout is not.

[35:35] OK yes Mr. mayor, I'd like to talk.

[35:40] I'd like to speak.

[35:41]

[35:45] Yes, please.

[35:46] Yeah so I. I understand the sensitivity to this,

[35:49] and I know that there's a lot of great people

[35:53] who have a lot of compassion that would like to see more

[35:59] restrictions on or fewer restrictions, I guess,

[36:03] depending on how you look at it.

[36:04] But more restrictions on our law enforcement,

[36:06] on what they can and cannot enforce in our public spaces.

[36:10] And, I go back to a couple of things.

[36:13] First off.

[36:16] This is not only just vacant and open area that

[36:23] doesn't have any stakes to it.

[36:26] We're talking about parks.

[36:28] We're talking about open spaces.

[36:29] We're talking about places that are

[36:30] adjacent to homes, to family businesses, restaurants,

[36:34] and so on.

[36:35] And these people all are taxpayers as well

[36:39] and deserve to share these spaces without being

[36:45] adjacent to some of the other more hazardous conditions,

[36:50] sanitary or otherwise, that exist in homeless camps,

[36:56] especially if they've been there for a significant period

[36:58] of time.

[37:00] The other thing I look at, too, is

[37:03] that I don't think it's very compassionate to encourage

[37:09] and allow for extended camping or camping

[37:15] that is unsanitary or dangerous or poses risks to others,

[37:21] especially when we're talking about fire hazards

[37:24] down by the river and stuff.

[37:26] And so I would agree with council member Van Dyke that

[37:29] says that our law enforcement is compassionate and compassionate.

[37:34] They've proven that they can adapt to the changes

[37:38] that we've seen in recent months.

[37:42] And I think that this is good to give them more flexibility.

[37:47] So that way they can enforce where they need to enforce.

[37:53] Thank you.

[37:54] Council that's where I went.

[37:56] Yeah just a question for staff.

[37:59] So I'm curious if there are other

[38:06] more direct policy solutions that

[38:11] address the specific concerns we have with.

[38:14]

[38:16] These camps.

[38:17] So for example, instead of having

[38:21] it be around simply camping in public space, if we observe.

[38:28]

[38:31] Like fire danger, is there a way we can tie the policy

[38:35] to the concern we have, as opposed to Ty Ty the tool

[38:40] to the camping.

[38:42] Does that make sense.

[38:43] Before you respond to that, if I can tack on that one thing,

[38:48] please answer Jason's question.

[38:50] But also with that I have the parallel concern of limiting

[38:56] the tools that are available to law enforcement

[38:58] for discretionary use to say, based on what I'm seeing here,

[39:02] this is a dangerous situation, even if it's not

[39:05] clear if perhaps that it is.

[39:07] They have several dogs that are consistently at large

[39:11] and creating a dangerous situation where they have

[39:14] somebody that has behavioral health issues

[39:16] that they're struggling with, maybe self-medicating in ways

[39:19] that the doctor has prescribed.

[39:21] So it's those kind of things.

[39:23] If you want to just address those two points together,

[39:28] and if you don't mind, I'll have the chief

[39:33] help me out with the second part of that question.

[39:35] But I think the first part of Jason's question.

[39:39] I would just say that there could be perhaps

[39:42] there are creative solutions, like in our suite of services,

[39:47] in with our current resources and with the departments

[39:52] and services that we actually have, we are not

[39:55] capable of managing, overseeing and running camps,

[40:03] just suggest is the same as we are not capable

[40:06] or have the resources to run or manage shelters as a city.

[40:11] I think that is where it comes into play, which

[40:14] is another conversation we have coming up this year that we've

[40:19] identified is evaluating the unhoused strategies

[40:23] with our partners.

[40:24] And I think understanding the full suite of services

[40:27] that are provided and where the gaps are

[40:29] and previous discussions.

[40:33] Council, we've steps we've taken have

[40:36] been to fund existing programs or expansion

[40:40] of those programs in the past.

[40:42] Not saying we have the ability to continuously fund,

[40:45] but I think that's the challenge.

[40:49] And I have not asked or tasked our police department

[40:54] with doing anything to.

[40:57] They are not the Department.

[40:59] I want to make sure it's not a police versus services

[41:03] because they are just looking to enforce the laws

[41:08] and rules of the area, and it's humane in the best way possible.

[41:14] But not tasked with coming up with solutions

[41:17] as to be brought into our housing division and others.

[41:24] But we really function as more of a coordination role

[41:28] right now.

[41:28] So I would do those types of things,

[41:31] would be taking on a different level of service

[41:33] from a survey and analysis.

[41:36]

[41:39] And not to cut this short, but if anybody

[41:43] has any questions that haven't been asked and answered,

[41:47] this is the time.

[41:48] But I do feel like maybe we have enough to move this forward.

[41:51] Unless again, not wanting to cut this off.

[41:53] If you have additional questions,

[41:56] address not making decisions here,

[41:58] but I do want to be able to give staff direction if that's

[42:02] council is willing to move forward with the change

[42:04] to the ordinance.

[42:07] We are putting an awful lot on the Joseph center

[42:11] again, similar to the one place that people can go.

[42:15] I mean, as far as I and I talk to them periodically

[42:19] to our million dollars for two small buildings gave them

[42:24] 12 more beds and they're using them and it's working

[42:29] and they are winning and people are getting into housing,

[42:34] but they only have to work.

[42:36] They work.

[42:37] I mean, the people that are living there,

[42:39] it's only about 20.

[42:42] So it's a very, very big lift to move hundreds of people

[42:45] off the river and expanded.

[42:47] And they are not all fighters or addicts or stuff.

[42:53] There are people that want to work and some of them

[42:55] do have jobs and that's where they live.

[42:58] So without having some answer to eliminating

[43:04] this sentence, on the city's part, what is our answer.

[43:08] Where do we tell them.

[43:10] Just I can't support it.

[43:12] No problem.

[43:13] And I get that you can't support it.

[43:15] I also want to make sure these are two issues

[43:20] what we're talking about.

[43:21] And given that we start with the tools

[43:23] that they've been utilizing all these years,

[43:25] just as they have in the way they

[43:27] continue to do it, we're not giving them a directive

[43:29] to go sweep the camps and clean up the river,

[43:33] in the next two months is not what's happening here.

[43:35] What we're doing is we are trying to make sure that we are

[43:39] being compliant with case law changes

[43:42] through our attorney's office, that the recommendations they

[43:45] make, and then also give the police

[43:46] the tools they need to do the job that they've been doing.

[43:50] And not to belabor this point, happy

[43:53] we can talk about the unhoused issues separately

[43:56] and what resources there are and where

[43:59] they go, but I think we have enough to give

[44:02] a direction to move forward.

[44:04] Hear from the council.

[44:08] For now, we can get to four on this.

[44:11] So anything else from us on that.

[44:14] Just I heard some thoughts from most everybody, but making sure

[44:18] we do have consensus just as you to bring

[44:22] forward to the regular meeting.

[44:24] So I'll ask this, I'm assuming, Robert,

[44:28] if you want to give me council member Ballard,

[44:32] are you in favor of this.

[44:33] I know you said that in your comment,

[44:35] but just for the sake of record here.

[44:38] Yeah, I'm in favor of it.

[44:39] Thank you, Council Van Dyke.

[44:42]

[44:45] Two months.

[44:47] OK Council Nguyen is not.

[44:49] Council Bomba said.

[44:50] He is not.

[44:51] I am so comfortable that I did want to mention I think it's

[44:58] good for the record, but I want to clarify,

[45:00] this is not a full answer.

[45:02] As I mentioned earlier.

[45:04] Council offices question regarding what's available.

[45:09] We know that before, during, and after the North Avenue shelter,

[45:14] we did not have enough available for everybody

[45:18] to have shelter overnight.

[45:19] But the question of where there are I

[45:23] think the city has funded homeward bound

[45:26] and they have pathways.

[45:27] We funded Catholic outreach that has shelter.

[45:30] We funded United Way, which combined with sunshine,

[45:35] that has shelter space.

[45:36] We've funded Joseph center.

[45:41] I'm trying to think if I'm missing any others.

[45:43] Now, with all those.

[45:45] Oh, and hilltop has other resources now.

[45:49] Shelter space.

[45:50] Those are all various programs that have certain requirements

[45:54] and steps to participate.

[45:56] And again, still do not provide an equal level of shelter.

[46:02] But it's not nothing.

[46:05] And it's something that all those groups are working at.

[46:08] There's been a higher success rate than no barrier

[46:12] shelter North Avenue.

[46:15] As far as moving through with other services.

[46:19] But I just want to clarify that again, not in a way of saying,

[46:22] oh, it's taken care of and there's

[46:23] a place for everybody to go.

[46:26] But it's more than just those.

[46:31] Great, great.

[46:32] Do you have what you need from us.

[46:35] All right.

[46:37] So Mayor Pro tem.

[46:41] Before we continue on.

[46:42] Sorry so.

[46:43] Well, why I see the need for this enforcement.

[46:47] I do still think that I'm.

[46:49] I'm kind of torn.

[46:50] I do think I mean, I think we need

[46:52] to be able to enforce and have health and safety

[46:54] is a priority in our community.

[46:55] But I think we also need to have a time to further discuss

[47:02] what we're doing with no.

[47:03] With homework on closing, I know that it's not necessarily

[47:06] the city's role, but I think we need to still

[47:08] have that conversation as the city on how we're navigating

[47:11] that, especially if we're saying, that the camping ban can

[47:17] be enforced, because I mean, what's going to happen

[47:21] is they're just going to migrate around

[47:26] and you're going to be cleaning up in a circle.

[47:28] And so we still need to talk about that next step

[47:32] and look at interim housing solutions and things like that.

[47:36] So I think that I'm in support of moving forward,

[47:39] but with the caveat that we have that conversation.

[47:42] If everyone else agrees, then if everyone else agrees with that,

[47:45] I'd like to see that on a future agenda for us to talk about.

[47:49] Yeah, I definitely agree with that idea.

[47:51]

[47:56] OK thank you.

[47:58] All right thank you chief.

[48:00] OK moving on to the Community Survey.

[48:04] I can see this one was.

[48:07] Yes thank you.

[48:08] Mayor, members of council, our next discussion

[48:11] is this year in the 2026 annual budget we had budgeted.

[48:15] It's time to do the next community satisfaction survey.

[48:19] And by our Communications and Engagement manager,

[48:22] Kelsey Coleman, up here to help us walk through a slide

[48:27] show on brief about the survey.

[48:30] The purpose of tonight is, again,

[48:33] these surveys we tend to stick with the same questions

[48:39] so that we can benchmark ourselves

[48:41] against thousands of other cities

[48:44] and then also against ourselves.

[48:46] So a couple of years, we can see where there's improvements,

[48:50] where there need to be improvements,

[48:52] where maybe there's a change in service level satisfaction.

[48:56] So we're not necessarily looking to change all those questions,

[48:59] but there is sometimes room for a couple other more

[49:02] timely topics to be added.

[49:04] Tonight is not the intent to try and draft those questions.

[49:08] But if there's topics that council wants to share with us

[49:11] during this discussion, they might

[49:13] want to be of interest to council

[49:15] to engage the community on.

[49:17] Once we bring in the group that actually

[49:21] puts the survey together.

[49:23] We did task them with drafting a few questions

[49:26] related to those thoughts that you have.

[49:29] So this isn't a once and done opportunity to bring them up.

[49:32] But there's some thoughts.

[49:35] And Kelce's going to walk through how

[49:37] this process typically works.

[49:39] Again, when we engage with a professional service type

[49:44] entity, we don't necessarily have to go out

[49:48] or request for proposals.

[49:50] Because of professional service, there's

[49:52] the ability to continue working with the existing group

[49:56] and save money, time and efficiency

[49:59] when they've done previous surveys

[50:01] and keep that consistency.

[50:02] But I'm going to with that long intro,

[50:05] I'm going to turn it over to Kelce just

[50:07] to walk through a little bit and then

[50:09] entertain some discussion in the Q&A

[50:11] and make sure we get this going.

[50:13] We'd like to get this going sooner than later so that we can

[50:17] have those results hopefully embedded

[50:20] into some of the budget discussions

[50:22] before the end of the year.

[50:25] Yeah thank you.

[50:26] City manager and members of council.

[50:28] Really excited to talk about this tonight.

[50:31] Our community satisfaction survey

[50:32] is really how we hear consistently from the community

[50:37] and not just one area of the community, but across all

[50:40] eight neighborhoods.

[50:41] And so this is an opportunity for us every two years to launch

[50:44] this survey during the summer months

[50:47] to figure out what do we need to focus on.

[50:50] Where are we hitting the mark.

[50:51] Where are we missing.

[50:53] And then where should we put our dollars.

[50:55] And so that's really what we look at with this survey.

[51:00] A big thing that we are looking at this year

[51:02] specifically is we have, as our strategic plan

[51:06] that's guiding our priorities.

[51:09] And so what we're looking at this year specifically

[51:11] is how do those metrics line up to our strategic plan.

[51:15] How are we doing with core services

[51:17] and how are we doing with housing affordability.

[51:20] How are we doing with efficiency and how

[51:23] are we doing with communications and engagement.

[51:26] So these questions really do guide that plan

[51:29] and tell us how we're doing specifically to that point

[51:32] that you all created.

[51:33] If I could add in, if you recall, in the strategic plan,

[51:36] the metrics that we report on, there

[51:39] are some metrics within the various sections

[51:44] of the strategic plan that are annual metrics that really own

[51:49] not all of them, but there's a handful throughout that document

[51:53] that those metrics only actually come

[51:55] from the soul of the survey.

[51:57] And then we update those benchmark to the last survey.

[52:00] So there are a few we don't have that pulled up in front of us

[52:05] tonight.

[52:05] So there's also not just the way Kelsey described in general,

[52:10] but there are specific metrics.

[52:14] That is the measurement survey.

[52:17] Yes Thank you.

[52:20] Survey methodology.

[52:22] So we use consultants to help us navigate this.

[52:26] They created a survey in 2018 2022, 2024.

[52:30] And so we're hoping that they will help us with the survey

[52:33] again this year.

[52:34] It really does, again, help us guide

[52:37] to see how are we doing year over year or every two years.

[52:41] And so this methodology really helps us these questions

[52:45] standardizing them really tells us if we're improving

[52:49] and where we're missing.

[52:50] The way they do it is they create a list of addresses

[52:56] that are across the city.

[52:58] And so again, in those eight neighborhoods and then

[53:01] they do it randomized.

[53:02] So every fifth, every ninth person

[53:05] they send this survey to and it is English and Spanish.

[53:09] So whoever lives in that household

[53:10] it was attached to the packet.

[53:13] So I think you all could see that it was English and Spanish,

[53:15] depending on what language you speak

[53:18] and what language you prefer.

[53:20] Last time we sent this out in 2024, it was

[53:23] sent to over 5,400 residents.

[53:25] And so this really tells us this is

[53:27] a good guide to tell us what exactly is

[53:32] happening within our community.

[53:34] Our hope is that we would launch this in July.

[53:37] These consultants tell us about 7 to 10 days

[53:40] is the best time period.

[53:41] And so their expertise is in this specific

[53:46] the survey research.

[53:48] And so this tells us that survey is in the hands of the community

[53:51] longer than that.

[53:52] It's unlikely that they're going to fill it out.

[53:56] We would then present the findings to council

[53:59] in August or late September.

[54:01] These are those eight neighborhoods

[54:03] that I was talking about.

[54:04] They're highlighted here for everyone

[54:06] to see the city center, the Northwest edge, horizon,

[54:10] Fruitvale, park, park, Orchard, Mesa, Redlands, and Appleton

[54:14] are neighborhoods that they hold on what those questions entail

[54:20] again, community outlook, how residents feel about Grand

[54:23] Junction and how we're doing.

[54:25] City priorities.

[54:26] Which issues should be received and pay the most

[54:29] attention to how we're doing with our infrastructure

[54:32] utilities.

[54:32] So there's a lot of questions on if you are a utility user,

[54:36] how would you rate this.

[54:37] If you have received EMS or fire service, how would

[54:41] you rate that service if you had an encounter with PD.

[54:44] How would you rate that if you're recycling.

[54:49] If you have recycling, how would you rate that.

[54:53] Parks and rec.

[54:54] We have a question in there about what I'm trying

[54:58] to remember the exact question.

[55:00] But what are the facility priorities.

[55:02] So circle the top five priorities

[55:06] list out the top three priorities.

[55:08] So that's a question on the survey.

[55:11] It asks a lot about the neighborhood that you live in.

[55:13] So how is your neighbor.

[55:16] How has your neighborhood improved since you moved in.

[55:19] What would you like to see improve in your neighborhood.

[55:22] So there's a lot of data there that we can pull move on

[55:24] and it really does help guide us.

[55:28] Consistency matters.

[55:30] This trend analysis, your comparison

[55:32] is really, really what we need.

[55:34] That number that I told you earlier that 5,000

[55:36] 5,400 is statistically valid.

[55:39] That number would go up this year just because our population

[55:41] is going up.

[55:43] But yeah, it tells us what we need to further our work.

[55:47]

[55:51] And that's the end of my presentation.

[55:53] I didn't want to interrupt you.

[55:55] Thank you.

[55:56] Yeah all right.

[55:58] So, Mike, did you have anything for.

[56:00] Bring it back to Council.

[56:01] So I see Laurel.

[56:04] Excuse me, Mayor Pro tem.

[56:05] Let's reaching for her microphone,

[56:07] and I think she has something to.

[56:09] Yeah, I just had a couple questions.

[56:12] First, are the survey homes there are.

[56:15] They're randomly selected each time.

[56:17] They're not the same homes.

[56:18] Correct Correct.

[56:19] Yes yeah.

[56:20] And then I was wondering, I know we've talked a little bit

[56:24] about trying to feel out how the community

[56:27] feels about the Orchard pool.

[56:29] Is that something that we could add onto the survey.

[56:31] It seems like the timing would be pretty good for us.

[56:35] It is.

[56:37] We'd have to.

[56:39] Yes, it is something we could add on

[56:41] to this in some future discussions we'll have.

[56:44] It's also something that we could do with a separate timing

[56:50] was needed.

[56:51] If a different timing was needed.

[56:53] However it could be.

[56:56] I've had a lot of success throughout my career

[56:58] when thinking about some things like that,

[57:00] especially if that's something that might.

[57:03] And I'm not.

[57:03] I'm not suggesting or giving.

[57:07] I don't want to give the false impression that this is that

[57:10] necessarily for sure turns into some kind of ballot measure,

[57:13] but often an approach for consideration of things

[57:19] that you as a council may be considering in the future.

[57:23] It could turn into a ballot question.

[57:26] Rather than asking how people would vote on ballot questions.

[57:30] It sometimes can be beneficial to should we put this on.

[57:34] And this is defined by whether it's

[57:37] this topic or another topic.

[57:39] Because I can give you an indication of something

[57:41] you can react to.

[57:42] You can get a clear vote of yes, put it on the ballot.

[57:47] It's an overwhelming no to put it on the ballot.

[57:51] That changes maybe the likelihood that you can.

[57:56] It's always coming up with and we would work with a consultant

[57:58] on how to word the questions in the right way

[58:01] where we can respond to the feedback.

[58:05] But yes, I think the short answer is yes, it would.

[58:10] We want to push for that earlier or end of August.

[58:15] If you were to ask questions that are related to the ballot.

[58:18] There are a couple of dates that we have to meet.

[58:23] No matter what the topic, if we were considering something

[58:25] for November in those dates, try to remember off

[58:28] the top of my head, but I think it's somewhere in early

[58:32] to mid August.

[58:32] I don't know what the specific date was.

[58:34]

[58:37] There's an indication towards the end of July or early August

[58:42] where we have to let them know that we're considering,

[58:44] and then I think there's a drop dead deadline

[58:47] of the actual language in September.

[58:50] So I don't remember the exact date,

[58:53] but that gives you at least a ballpark of where

[58:57] it's going to be close.

[58:58] But we want to get moving quickly

[59:00] and get those survey August 25.

[59:04] Thank you.

[59:05] Thank you.

[59:06] I think my mind went to the same place

[59:08] Laurel's did right off the bat, and as I read

[59:11] through the survey, I got to question 13,

[59:14] and it seems like that would fit in really well on that list.

[59:17] We have Linkin Park already in there,

[59:20] and that gives us that base level

[59:22] of prioritization within the community

[59:25] without it being fully.

[59:27] Would you support a ballot measure to increase

[59:29] taxes to support yada, yada.

[59:33] This just really would truly say like, hey, this

[59:35] is the true priority within our community.

[59:38] And I would add, I'm happy to talk with the research team

[59:42] and see if we can activate this earlier.

[59:45] I mean, that timeline is just what we've always done,

[59:47] but there's no reason to just see if we can bump it up as long

[59:51] as they have the availability.

[59:54] Great thank you.

[59:55] Did you see Council go ahead.

[59:57]

[1:00:00] Yes, Mr. mayor.

[1:00:01] I think the concern I have with relating something

[1:00:06] like the Orchard Mason pool or something specific with that

[1:00:10] that's tied with some of the local action groups

[1:00:15] that we have in our area is that I worry about the potential,

[1:00:19] that it could skew the satisfaction feedback

[1:00:22] that we get on our general performance,

[1:00:26] on our other strategic goals.

[1:00:28] And I'd like to I guess, Kelce's opinion on that, if there would

[1:00:33] be any potential influence on that

[1:00:35] and if those concerns are valid.

[1:00:40] Great thanks, Robin.

[1:00:41]

[1:00:43] Excellent.

[1:00:44]

[1:00:49] Thank you.

[1:00:49] Yeah, I did forget to mention that there's

[1:00:51] actually two surveys.

[1:00:52] And so the statistically valid survey, it is randomized.

[1:00:56] And so I don't think that it would be an issue at all

[1:01:00] with that validity piece.

[1:01:02] It is random.

[1:01:03] And the way that the question is written,

[1:01:05] I don't see how that would impact the other questions

[1:01:09] on that survey.

[1:01:12] The thing I'm thinking about as I speak

[1:01:15] is that other piece and that is the online survey.

[1:01:19] And so anybody can actually take that version of it.

[1:01:22] But the thing is, we get to two sets of data.

[1:01:26] And so I don't think that there would be an issue

[1:01:28] there, because we really would be able to see a statistically

[1:01:31] valid survey and those results, and it wouldn't be

[1:01:35] skewed based on the language.

[1:01:37] And then the other one, it could be impacted.

[1:01:42] The numbers could be very different,

[1:01:44] because you could essentially take that survey

[1:01:46] a million times if you wanted.

[1:01:48] And so those numbers would be different.

[1:01:49] But that's why we have the two separate surveys.

[1:01:53] And so that would give us a guide there.

[1:01:55] Thank you.

[1:01:56] That's been my concern so often about some of the feedback

[1:02:00] that we get on certain community things,

[1:02:02] especially when you see Facebook posts

[1:02:04] trying to get people to jump in and jump on a survey.

[1:02:07] And it's their friends and their group that

[1:02:09] think like they do that are voting

[1:02:11] and maybe everybody in their household.

[1:02:13] And maybe somebody goes forth once

[1:02:15] and it really skews that person's knowing, hey,

[1:02:18] we set these out in a randomized way.

[1:02:20] We know who's filling out the survey

[1:02:22] and where it's actually valid.

[1:02:24] And so we don't have somebody trying to put their thumb

[1:02:26] on the scale of the policy.

[1:02:28] They actually are getting that statistically valid.

[1:02:30] And just a survey result that we can count on.

[1:02:35] Yeah I agree.

[1:02:37] Thank you Scott.

[1:02:38] So I mean you guys have all heard this before,

[1:02:41] but it seems like there's the turnout is skewed

[1:02:47] towards higher income, whiter neighborhoods,

[1:02:50] older people blah blah blah.

[1:02:53] Could you help me understand why you're saying that this turnout

[1:02:59] is skewed towards because if you look at the statistics,

[1:03:04] they come from specific zip codes more heavily.

[1:03:08] So we've talked about this and they're

[1:03:10] making they're making efforts to reach

[1:03:12] out to other parts of town.

[1:03:14] I mean, I could go into a lot more things,

[1:03:16] but we're not going to.

[1:03:17] All I'm going to ask is that if there

[1:03:20] are lower turnout neighborhoods, could we send them more US out.

[1:03:29] Before you answer that, just for the premise of it.

[1:03:31] Good, good.

[1:03:32] One of you address what Council has

[1:03:37] said regarding as skewed towards white or whatever if just sorry

[1:03:44] if I missed anything.

[1:03:45] Did they say that skewed toward the response

[1:03:49] is coming from higher zip codes.

[1:03:54] So I think correct me if I'm wrong, Kelsey, but the way

[1:03:56] it works is those 08 or 09.

[1:03:59] I think it was 8.

[1:04:01] Areas of the city, if you take a population of households,

[1:04:05] not people, how many households are

[1:04:08] in each of those eight areas.

[1:04:10] That number is different.

[1:04:11] So some areas have a larger number

[1:04:13] and some areas have a smaller number.

[1:04:16] But they are trying to get the same percentage base from each.

[1:04:21] But if there's an area with a much larger number of households

[1:04:26] then for a statistically valid survey,

[1:04:29] then it has to reach a certain threshold

[1:04:32] in households in that area.

[1:04:34] But you expect to see more from a larger population.

[1:04:37] But the percentage base is similar to what

[1:04:39] they're trying to work on so that it's

[1:04:42] throughout the entire city.

[1:04:44] And that's how they pull that.

[1:04:46] And then the number has to be clearly past what it

[1:04:49] would be statistically valid.

[1:04:51] Or we would have to go out for more.

[1:04:53] If not, or if we saw that one area did not respond,

[1:04:57] I think we then as a city would want the group to reach out

[1:05:01] to that area and make sure we're getting

[1:05:03] that response, because that would not be people's house.

[1:05:08] Councilman? yeah.

[1:05:09] Just kind of building off of maybe what I think Scott's

[1:05:12] getting at.

[1:05:14] So it sounds like people are determination of whether or it's

[1:05:19] statistically valid is kind of based on a number of responses

[1:05:24] from each kind of neighborhood.

[1:05:27] Is that kind of my understanding that correctly.

[1:05:33] So the yes, the number is important to represent

[1:05:40] the community, but also how many people are getting it

[1:05:44] within that population density.

[1:05:47] And that makes sense.

[1:05:48] And so breaking it out to those eight neighborhoods

[1:05:51] allows the research team to really think through,

[1:05:54] OK, are we getting a read from every neighborhood.

[1:05:58] And if we're not I can't speak to what it was,

[1:06:01] what was happening in the past.

[1:06:03] But I can say that this year, moving forward,

[1:06:05] that if we are seeing that we're not getting a good response

[1:06:08] from a certain neighborhood, we would then reach out

[1:06:10] to the research team and see how can we incentivize

[1:06:15] these individuals to submit that form, or do we need to find,

[1:06:20] another household to fill it out in that neighborhood.

[1:06:22] And I see here that we do have demographic data

[1:06:27] as part of the survey.

[1:06:28] And I think what Scott might be getting at is we could come up,

[1:06:32] come into a situation where we have more

[1:06:35] responses from various demographics

[1:06:39] that don't actually match the demographics of our community.

[1:06:43] Would it be statistically valid anymore.

[1:06:47] But if we're not evaluating it on that criteria,

[1:06:50] if we're just going based on number of people

[1:06:53] from each region, we could have, for example, this example,

[1:06:59] we could have, let's say, our community

[1:07:02] is probably I need some wine.

[1:07:05] Like, we could have 95% of the respondents be white.

[1:07:09] So it's valid in terms of the raw number of responses

[1:07:13] we're getting but it's not really matching

[1:07:15] up with our census data.

[1:07:18] Yeah Johnny MacFarlane, assistant to the city manager,

[1:07:21] just reminded me a very important piece that I missed.

[1:07:24] So this is weighted.

[1:07:26] So invite results are weighted by age and ethnicity.

[1:07:31] And so that accounts for that OK.

[1:07:34] Thank you.

[1:07:35] I think that hits the nail on the head everybody.

[1:07:38] Is any other comments on this.

[1:07:42] Mike do you need anything from us

[1:07:43] or is this kind of information more informational for us to

[1:07:46] and get moving and get engaged with the group.

[1:07:51] Of course, we can.

[1:07:51] We can provide that final kind of draft

[1:07:55] to make sure if there's other topic areas that you are

[1:07:59] interested in, I think whether tonight or in future

[1:08:03] workshops could be shared as we are still before we

[1:08:06] get to the end of those stages.

[1:08:09] But really, we want to just get moving on this as again, it's

[1:08:12] a budgeted project and we want to engage the consultant,

[1:08:15] get started with drafting the survey

[1:08:16] so that we can get it out for people to take anything else.

[1:08:23] No, I think if you're all good, I can see how early we can get

[1:08:28] this moving and report back.

[1:08:30] Yeah if you get some feedback from the consultant regarding

[1:08:33] the appropriateness of bringing in the Orchard mesa pool,

[1:08:36] or if we need to reach out because we can do some polling

[1:08:39] on that separately if we really want to get that a

[1:08:43] feel for the community on that.

[1:08:45] And I know that does cost money, but we

[1:08:47] can have that conversation separately just if it's

[1:08:49] going to skew our results here.

[1:08:51] But we'd love to hear the feedback that you bring us.

[1:08:54] Yeah, definitely.

[1:08:55] OK thank you.

[1:08:56] Thank you.

[1:08:57] Before we go on to item C, I just

[1:08:59] want to check around the room, see if anybody needs a break.

[1:09:02] Before we move to our last item.

[1:09:05] Yeah how about we do a five minute.

[1:09:08] All right.

[1:09:09]

[1:14:39] And we are on to discussion topic C

[1:14:42] And this is going to be regarding our trails committee

[1:14:46] CC including a letter requesting representation on the housing

[1:14:52] affordability task force.

[1:14:54] And I will start this off with you, Mike.

[1:14:58] All right thank you.

[1:14:58] Mayor members of council, this item, the city council

[1:15:02] received a letter from our urban trails committee

[1:15:06] asking for a few things related to the housing

[1:15:09] affordability task force.

[1:15:12] And there's a recommendation that task force has been long

[1:15:16] term, making bicycle parking from the land use code

[1:15:21] and making changes to the short term bicycle

[1:15:24] parking to the land use code.

[1:15:25] And representatives from the UTC had reached out

[1:15:30] and met with the co-chairs of the housing

[1:15:32] affordability task force.

[1:15:35] And it's been a few months now, I believe.

[1:15:38] And then seeing that recommendation was continuing

[1:15:43] from the task force, the UTC sent the letter to council

[1:15:46] to consider a member of the UTC on the affordability task force.

[1:15:53] As you will recall the city council

[1:15:56] all held a pretty extensive process for applications

[1:16:01] for the housing affordability task

[1:16:03] force that was geared towards those

[1:16:07] in the development industry.

[1:16:09] To be on that task force.

[1:16:10] We have a number of committees, a number

[1:16:12] of boards and commissions, and they

[1:16:13] all have different focus areas.

[1:16:16] And this one was created to be an industry led, staff,

[1:16:20] supported focus on the code and opportunities

[1:16:24] to find reductions to the cost of housing.

[1:16:27] And we went through a process I should have I can't recall off

[1:16:32] the top of my head, it was either 45 or 60 applicants,

[1:16:36] and you narrowed that down through everybody

[1:16:40] voting and ranking to 15.

[1:16:42] And that created the housing affordability task force.

[1:16:45] I think that's the history tonight.

[1:16:47] This was added on to the workshop

[1:16:50] after I heard and talked to at least four of you

[1:16:54] at the end of last week.

[1:16:55] And so because we had two items that had the parties that were

[1:17:01] interested in coming to speak with us and discuss,

[1:17:04] we're not ready for tonight.

[1:17:06] We had the room and so we got that on because in two weeks,

[1:17:10] as we'll discuss later, is a full slate.

[1:17:13] Great thanks, Mike.

[1:17:14] So I'll bring this to council, but obviously

[1:17:16] and I just want to say for the record

[1:17:19] and I'll ask the staff at this to public record

[1:17:23] just in my letter is there.

[1:17:24] But I put once I saw that letter I put probably I'm going

[1:17:28] to guess 20 plus hours into this over the last several or well,

[1:17:33] since then, I think we received a letter on the 23rd.

[1:17:37] In seeing that statistic, that 20% claim,

[1:17:40] obviously that jumped off the page at me.

[1:17:44] So I put in.

[1:17:46] I put in a lot of time on that, and I wrote a four page letter

[1:17:50] after going through literally every recording of the UTC

[1:17:54] meetings dating back to August and creating transcripts

[1:17:57] and pulling exact quotes pertaining to that.

[1:18:01] So with that, I think you probably heard enough from me

[1:18:06] on this.

[1:18:06] With that just in general, I want to bring this back

[1:18:09] to council for discussion.

[1:18:11] So I don't want to reiterate what I wrote in the letter.

[1:18:14] But again, just for the sake of just the record,

[1:18:19] I'll have staff for that.

[1:18:21] And as part of the package for tonight's after the fact,

[1:18:23] just so it's there as a course.

[1:18:27] So with regards to a member of the UTC being appointed

[1:18:37] to the housing affordability task force,

[1:18:42] I think that might pretty clearly went through the process

[1:18:47] that we had, and I do.

[1:18:48] I'm not against having representation there,

[1:18:53] but we do have the voice of Jason

[1:18:56] as well, because he's the UTC liaison

[1:18:59] and he's one of the three council

[1:19:02] members that's on the housing affordability task force.

[1:19:06] So I wanted to ask you, what your thoughts are on that.

[1:19:10] Do you feel like you're able to liaison somewhat.

[1:19:14] So I think in terms of the ask of the UTC,

[1:19:17] I think I personally think it's a reasonable one, primarily

[1:19:21] because there are people on UTC who have experience

[1:19:26] both as somebody who kind of lives and breathes this stuff,

[1:19:30] they use their bike to get around

[1:19:33] and they have worked in development.

[1:19:35] They're like project engineers supported

[1:19:38] like implementing these codes.

[1:19:40] And so I think they had like I get the piece of where

[1:19:44] the friction points are, where I think they would add value

[1:19:48] is around of what tweaks or solutions or ways can

[1:19:54] we still meet that demand in a less expensive way.

[1:19:59] That's where I don't have the expertise.

[1:20:02] So that can I respond.

[1:20:04] Sure so and I think that's an important voice to have.

[1:20:08] But I think that they could come to those meetings as guests too,

[1:20:13] versus having to sit through all of the code talk,

[1:20:17] because I know that's yeah, real hard for someone who

[1:20:20] doesn't want to listen to that.

[1:20:21] And I agree, I think that there's obviously a lot

[1:20:24] that the task force has been working

[1:20:27] on that has no real nexus to utc's interests.

[1:20:31] But there is a decent amount.

[1:20:33] There's bipartisan.

[1:20:34] There's the stuff that hasn't really started yet.

[1:20:37] So I think those are the two areas where

[1:20:39] I could see that type of perspective

[1:20:42] adding value to the discussion.

[1:20:44] So I literally during our last housing

[1:20:46] affordability task force, I think

[1:20:47] you were in another meeting.

[1:20:48] So this is not an attack on your attendance at all.

[1:20:50] I literally you were in the City Hall

[1:20:52] at that time in another meeting.

[1:20:54] But we were talking about, parking a chance

[1:20:58] and we were talking about the importance

[1:21:00] of two points of contact.

[1:21:01] And we were debating on whether or not that was for security

[1:21:05] to secure the bike, or whether it was

[1:21:07] to keep it from falling over.

[1:21:08] And I was like, well, Jason, what are you doing.

[1:21:10] And I mean that in sincerity.

[1:21:12] But it was.

[1:21:14] But I can see in that.

[1:21:16] From that say, hey, we're going to be talking about this issue.

[1:21:20] Let's invite somebody in to have part of that.

[1:21:23] Let's have those people in the conversation

[1:21:26] so we can consult with them.

[1:21:29] I just I'm not going to.

[1:21:33] Yeah so I think that the concern I have

[1:21:35] is that the planning commission also had requested

[1:21:38] to add an additional or have an additional representative there,

[1:21:42] but they were told by council that we decided

[1:21:46] to stick with the people who went through the application

[1:21:48] process.

[1:21:50] And then it was the decision that at any point,

[1:21:55] first of all, people are more than welcome to either attend

[1:21:58] or to watch it and provide comment, but they can also

[1:22:04] we can also discuss that as an invitation to have them be part

[1:22:09] of that conversation, because we literally spent,

[1:22:12] I think, 45 minutes talking about the two points of contact

[1:22:16] for.

[1:22:17] Oh yes, it was.

[1:22:19] Scott, did you have some response in that.

[1:22:22] I do see Scott.

[1:22:23] No, I was just going to say that I'm supportive of that kind

[1:22:27] of bringing them in because yeah, I mean,

[1:22:29] there's enough that the task force is looking at that

[1:22:32] doesn't really have access to.

[1:22:34] And the UTC is looking at that.

[1:22:37] But I do think that would provide valuable perspective

[1:22:40] on those specific areas.

[1:22:43] So, so there is a pathway for outside input into this for the.

[1:22:52] Yeah Yeah and they've been doing that all along.

[1:22:56] Nobody's really asked.

[1:22:57] Well I mean it's a public meeting that attendance

[1:23:01] is open to anyone.

[1:23:03] Anyone can watch it.

[1:23:04] The signs are posted and so has anybody come in.

[1:23:10] Well They've had guests come in to discuss certain things,

[1:23:14] like we talked about the Roaring Fork irrigation issue.

[1:23:19] So we had an attorney come in and discuss what that looks how

[1:23:24] that could impact development.

[1:23:27] And so I mean, so it's appropriate.

[1:23:29] Yeah and that was the suggestion from the task force as well.

[1:23:33] Yeah Another example was the CEO of an irrigation company in town

[1:23:42] that ended up meeting requesting how do I share some feedback.

[1:23:46] And so we connected her with the chairs,

[1:23:49] and the chairs met with them.

[1:23:51] I think one thing to keep in mind, kind of in general

[1:23:54] with all boards and commissions and policy decisions

[1:23:58] that council ends up making, is that as you.

[1:24:04] This group will make recommendations to the council.

[1:24:08] And before council makes final decisions,

[1:24:10] you also have the ability to call in other perspectives

[1:24:15] if you need that at that level.

[1:24:18] But the group I mean, it is a public meeting

[1:24:22] so people can attend.

[1:24:23] They can't necessarily they can attend and listen.

[1:24:26] They're not necessarily involved in trying to give us a workshop.

[1:24:32] But I know members of the committee

[1:24:34] are willing to sit down and listen as well.

[1:24:38] Those are the only things I can think of off the top of my head

[1:24:41] here.

[1:24:43] So I have some.

[1:24:45] OK go ahead, Mr. mayor.

[1:24:48] Thank you.

[1:24:51] I guess I view this whole thing like on the forestry board.

[1:24:59] I know that there's members of the forestry board

[1:25:01] that would like to have a talking

[1:25:04] point with this task force.

[1:25:07] I'm sure that there's other boards as well

[1:25:09] that would like to have, a say in what

[1:25:12] this task force is doing.

[1:25:14] And let's take this task force out of it.

[1:25:16] I mean, there's times that the forestry board would like

[1:25:20] to have a conversation with the UTC about certain things

[1:25:24] that they're recommending and pushing forward as well.

[1:25:27] I mean, the thing is these are all different committees

[1:25:31] and boards that are specifically designed to advise us.

[1:25:35] And, if the UTC has an issue with something that the task

[1:25:41] force is pushing forward, then they

[1:25:43] can advise us, just like the UTC or just like the task force can.

[1:25:48] And I don't really I don't want to beat around the bush

[1:25:52] too much, but it seems like this is the second time that we've

[1:25:54] brought up the UTC in the context of I mean, frankly, them

[1:26:01] overtly opposing some of the strategies

[1:26:05] that our council is trying to go for.

[1:26:10] And, I understand its purpose.

[1:26:14] I understand that they've got a task to do,

[1:26:17] but it doesn't feel increasingly,

[1:26:21] it feels as though this committee, the UTC,

[1:26:26] is working more and more against the council body

[1:26:30] than they are trying to advise us.

[1:26:32] And maybe that's wrong, but I mean.

[1:26:36] At least from where we're sitting,

[1:26:39] it appears as though that that's what's happening.

[1:26:44] Before if I can just insert this now.

[1:26:46] And if it makes sense to council,

[1:26:48] this isn't me saying we have to do it this way.

[1:26:49] I think it might make sense for us

[1:26:51] as a group to decide if we agree to.

[1:26:58] UTC representing a representation on a CDF,

[1:27:02] or if we can just say, hey, our meetings are open.

[1:27:05] They can attend and that should suffice because we're not going

[1:27:08] to give them a seat and then we can

[1:27:10] speak specifically after that.

[1:27:13] So we don't conflate the issues.

[1:27:16] I think we should just out of respect for the letter itself,

[1:27:19] if that makes sense to everybody, just deal with that

[1:27:22] and then we can talk about the other things.

[1:27:24] And did you have something.

[1:27:26] Yeah Robert kind of hit it square

[1:27:27] on the head in my opinion.

[1:27:29] I look at historic preservation.

[1:27:31] How many of them would like to have

[1:27:34] a seat on planning commission.

[1:27:36] That's frankly the majority of boards

[1:27:40] and would like to have a seat on planning commission and going

[1:27:44] off what Robert had to say a little bit is these boards are

[1:27:47] meant to be supportive and they're experts

[1:27:50] within their industry, within their department to support,

[1:27:54] to give us their expertise.

[1:27:56] So I do truly, when we do get a letter to council talking

[1:27:59] about a housing affordability task force recommendation,

[1:28:03] in my opinion, that's the best way that should be handled,

[1:28:06] because we are getting that input from the task force

[1:28:09] or not from the task force, but from the urban trails,

[1:28:12] from the committee itself.

[1:28:13] But instead of it being.

[1:28:15]

[1:28:20] More advocating, it's more just a supportive role.

[1:28:23] I look at these boards and these commissions,

[1:28:25] they're designed to be supported and designed

[1:28:27] to support the city council and the direction

[1:28:29] city council goes in.

[1:28:31] I think sometimes having a little bit of a reset

[1:28:34] within these boards to have a conversation about what

[1:28:37] our goals are and where we're trying to head as a community

[1:28:41] can be really important.

[1:28:42] Because at the end of the day, we are the elected officials

[1:28:45] and we do get a sense of direction in the community.

[1:28:48] But we are very, very lucky to have these experts

[1:28:52] as well to help guide us.

[1:28:53] So I do want to come back to that, but just

[1:28:56] and I didn't ask council member Ballard this specifically,

[1:28:59] but I guess I'll come back to him.

[1:29:02] I'm taking it that you are not in favor of giving the UTC

[1:29:06] a position on the housing.

[1:29:09] I'm not.

[1:29:10] I think that's a really dangerous

[1:29:11] precedent to set just across all of our boards and commissions.

[1:29:15] We're just opening the door at that point for everyone

[1:29:18] to be asking for having seats on everybody else's, and it

[1:29:21] just can get really sloppy.

[1:29:23] And just so I'm not assuming your position,

[1:29:25] council member Ballard.

[1:29:26] You're also opposed to the UTC having a seat on the housing

[1:29:34] affordability task forces.

[1:29:37] Yeah that's correct if they want.

[1:29:38] I mean I'm open to any concerns that they have.

[1:29:41] I know that they sent us a letter about their concerns

[1:29:46] with some decisions recently, but I

[1:29:48] think that's the appropriate channel,

[1:29:50] not putting them in that committee.

[1:29:53] OK I don't 10 months.

[1:29:58] I think I made my statement, but just to add on,

[1:30:03] I do think that it's OK for other boards and commissions

[1:30:08] to communicate with other boards and commissions.

[1:30:10] And if forestry wants to talk to UTC

[1:30:14] or to the housing affordability task force, those are options.

[1:30:18] All they can do is just send that email requesting,

[1:30:22] the chair of that group, and they're all pointed out.

[1:30:25] You can attend.

[1:30:26] Everybody can attend anybody's meeting and speak publicly.

[1:30:29] But even if they wanted to try to come as a guest speaker

[1:30:32] when with visit Grand Junction, every single meeting,

[1:30:36] we have a guest speaker from somewhere that's coming

[1:30:39] and talking and giving updates.

[1:30:41] And so that's something that can just be a collaborative approach

[1:30:46] to some of these as well.

[1:30:48] Yeah, I'm fine with that.

[1:30:50] I think the one thing I would maybe mention,

[1:30:54] though, is that I think knowing when

[1:30:59] and this will probably just be on the agendas and agendas,

[1:31:03] knowing when is a meeting that is like a good time to engage

[1:31:07] or maybe that could be just agendize

[1:31:10] like, hey, this is a meeting.

[1:31:12] We're going to talk about a bunch of stuff like that.

[1:31:17] That would be helpful.

[1:31:17] I think then just kind of relying on people's availability

[1:31:22] happening to line up when they can eat.

[1:31:26] I like that idea, and it could easily

[1:31:28] be a request from one chair to another

[1:31:29] to say, hey, I'd love you to attend.

[1:31:32] Could you get us on your agenda.

[1:31:33] But put us on there because we'd like to talk specifically

[1:31:36] about long term parking and what those costs

[1:31:38] are versus the benefits.

[1:31:41] Yeah easy.

[1:31:42] Yeah Scott.

[1:31:44] Sorry, Councilwoman.

[1:31:45] This is your last name.

[1:31:48] Oh, good.

[1:31:49] As long as I mean, my comments were addressed so well.

[1:31:57] Thank you.

[1:31:58] I do have some direction on that.

[1:32:01] Yes thank you.

[1:32:02] Great actually, sorry.

[1:32:04] Sorry to interrupt, but can we.

[1:32:07] How do we communicate back to them.

[1:32:09] Is that through.

[1:32:10] Through the council liaison.

[1:32:12] Is that just.

[1:32:14] Do you want to deliver that.

[1:32:16] Yeah, I think that would be well received.

[1:32:19] Jason Jesus.

[1:32:22] So, OK, the other part of this and less one part of this,

[1:32:26] just this letter really, really concerned me

[1:32:31] where they're signing the US census data, claiming

[1:32:33] that 20% of Grand Junction useful workforce

[1:32:36] doesn't use a personal vehicle, which might be true.

[1:32:40] They had argued to say, to try to make it 29 or 30

[1:32:45] and then but they end up admitting that this is regarding

[1:32:52] it's regarding bike parking.

[1:32:53] And there's only two he says 2 and 1/2, I think.

[1:32:55] Census Genesis two.

[1:32:58] So in a town of 70,000, what are we talking, 1,400 people.

[1:33:02] But it's like that 2% disguising itself as 29% was my concern.

[1:33:09] And that's what got my attention.

[1:33:10] That's why I spent so much time in this

[1:33:14] and going through and listening to one of our former city

[1:33:17] employees talk about basically pushing

[1:33:20] back right against council.

[1:33:21] Actually, two of our former employees

[1:33:23] talking about pushing back against council

[1:33:25] and resisting them.

[1:33:27] And so it wasn't just that the letter was written,

[1:33:32] in my opinion, with the intent to mislead council,

[1:33:36] both that and the other one, they

[1:33:40] were talking about hearing from local community members

[1:33:43] about the committee has heard from local community members

[1:33:46] by bicycle theft is a major issue.

[1:33:49] I was a detective in the police department.

[1:33:51] You might recall seeing my picture on the front page

[1:33:53] of the police department, of the local paper, on a chop shop

[1:33:57] that we uncovered and worked.

[1:34:01] And that was we were using bikes because there

[1:34:03] was a problem like this.

[1:34:04] I will tell you that all the bike thefts were coming

[1:34:06] from mostly on campus and from bikes

[1:34:10] and securities were locked, because that's where they go.

[1:34:13] They have a selection of bikes to choose from.

[1:34:16] Then they cut or break those locks,

[1:34:19] and they start breaking those bikes down right away

[1:34:21] and selling my parts generally.

[1:34:22] That's why you see pictures sometimes of lots

[1:34:25] of my girls and my parts, because they're broken down

[1:34:28] and parts are sold.

[1:34:30] So when I listened to when that obviously got my attention,

[1:34:34] I listened specifically and then made the transcript.

[1:34:39] So you can go through and keyword search.

[1:34:41] And there was nobody visited the committee talking about bicycle

[1:34:44] theft being any issue.

[1:34:47] There was the only discussion was, I think, in April 8

[1:34:50] meeting where they actually talked about adding it

[1:34:53] into the letter.

[1:34:54] So obviously concerning there, I know that they were trying

[1:34:58] to accomplish something, but it worries me about how

[1:35:01] they were trying to do it.

[1:35:03] And then again, about policy specifically,

[1:35:10] they claim that they have authority.

[1:35:13] It was in their letter, basically directing council

[1:35:16] on policy and much, much different

[1:35:20] direction than just what our resolution says

[1:35:24] and what their bylaws say.

[1:35:26] Because they're basically as a former employee

[1:35:29] told them to continue leading staff

[1:35:31] to focus beyond infrastructure and really learning

[1:35:34] being into that policy area.

[1:35:36] And I get their advisory, I have this conversation with John

[1:35:39] Schaefer back in July.

[1:35:40] I had a conversation with Jeremiah regarding.

[1:35:46] But they are advisory and we can take or leave their advice,

[1:35:50] but it's when they couple their advice with information

[1:35:54] that's not accurate.

[1:35:55] That's a problem for me.

[1:35:56] So that's what I wanted to talk about here in context of this.

[1:36:01] And just to tell you where I'm going is that I'm concerned

[1:36:03] about that resolution and wanting to close the loopholes

[1:36:08] that Henry, that Henry Brown former employee

[1:36:10] was leaning into to say anything in the comprehensive plan.

[1:36:15] Anything in the plan.

[1:36:16] Is the utc's business versus saying, hey UTC,

[1:36:20] you are super important to us.

[1:36:21] We really want to have safe, multimodal infrastructure

[1:36:24] within our community.

[1:36:25] We want you to do great work in that area as they do.

[1:36:28] No question they do.

[1:36:31] But it's that small percentage.

[1:36:33] That's a problem.

[1:36:35] And all the commentary that comes along when they don't like

[1:36:38] a decision that council makes and talking

[1:36:41] about reinstating mobility director's position,

[1:36:44] we just have to wait them out.

[1:36:45] We just have to wait this council out.

[1:36:47] We'll make this change.

[1:36:49] We're going to do the safe street.

[1:36:50] We're going to do all these things.

[1:36:52] That's concerning to me.

[1:36:53] So that's why I wrote this letter to council just

[1:36:58] to provide additional documentation,

[1:37:02] again, based on my background.

[1:37:03] That's how I work.

[1:37:05] And I wanted to just lay it out and make that case.

[1:37:09] Yeah so I think a couple things.

[1:37:11] First first thing is, I think you're kind

[1:37:15] of conflating two things here.

[1:37:17] You're complaining kind of discussion

[1:37:19] that's happened in the meeting and sometimes from just purely

[1:37:23] members of the public, even though they

[1:37:24] are former city employees and the actions

[1:37:28] that the board has taken.

[1:37:30] And I think you're raising concerns

[1:37:34] about a lot of the discussion.

[1:37:36] And I would that's almost like saying like some

[1:37:39] of these public comment in the council meeting,

[1:37:42] like us taking ownership of that because they're

[1:37:45] just purely members of the public

[1:37:47] has to have experience with the city.

[1:37:48] But Jenny and Henry have no standing beyond just being

[1:37:54] members of the public that way.

[1:37:55] So a lot of those concerns about what they're saying, like, yeah,

[1:38:00] we can be concerned about it, but they're

[1:38:02] not impacting anything that the board is fundamentally doing.

[1:38:07] So I think that that's one point I'd

[1:38:09] I make the second point I make is, yeah,

[1:38:13] they're purely advisory.

[1:38:15] And at the end of the day, counsel

[1:38:17] is the one making policy.

[1:38:19] It feels like a lot of the concerns

[1:38:21] are around discussions and some criticisms

[1:38:26] that the board is not formally written a letter saying like.

[1:38:34] We don't like what you did on fourth and 5 Street.

[1:38:36] Like, change it back.

[1:38:38] I think that's what I was like.

[1:38:39] I think we're kind of like you're taking little snippets

[1:38:45] of things that have been said by one board member

[1:38:49] and using that as the basis for broadly,

[1:38:55] I don't know what you're kind of hoping for,

[1:38:59] but it feels like you're using that to broadly

[1:39:01] rein in, punish whatever.

[1:39:06] China with this board work on the Minecraft example.

[1:39:09] I think that your experience is actually

[1:39:14] super relevant to what raised this concern for the committee.

[1:39:19] All those examples, I think, are what would be considered

[1:39:21] short term bike parking.

[1:39:24] The idea of long term bike parking

[1:39:26] is just another layer of security.

[1:39:28] And that's why it's important is because short term isn't secure.

[1:39:32] Like the general rule of thumb is like short term

[1:39:35] somewhere where you're OK leaving

[1:39:36] it for one to three hours.

[1:39:38] Long term day, three to eight kind of thing.

[1:39:41] And so the threshold and that's super relevant like and so

[1:39:47] that's why I think the committee was concerned is that it seemed

[1:39:57] like the task force was proposing to admit,

[1:40:00] like to remove this really important

[1:40:04] piece of infrastructure.

[1:40:07] And yes, it's not.

[1:40:08] Maybe it's 2% We don't look at the small number

[1:40:13] of disabled people.

[1:40:15] We have in the community and say, oh, they're just 5%

[1:40:18] So we don't need 80 spaces like it.

[1:40:21] I think there's a comparable parallel there

[1:40:27] that is worth considering.

[1:40:28] So yeah, those are just some thoughts I had.

[1:40:33] Thank you.

[1:40:34] Thanks Robert.

[1:40:39] Thank you mayor.

[1:40:42] So I guess this is a question for council member Nguyen.

[1:40:46] Would you say that the UTC is generally supportive.

[1:40:52] I guess that's not even the correct term.

[1:40:55] Would you say that the UTC is in any way, shape, or form

[1:41:01] in opposition to the general direction

[1:41:04] that city council is focusing on with the strategic plan.

[1:41:08] I'm not talking about politics.

[1:41:10] I'm talking about us like we are trying to go for a goal right

[1:41:14] now, specifically with this task force

[1:41:16] to make housing generally across the board,

[1:41:20] more affordable in our community.

[1:41:24] We're trying to make our infrastructure work

[1:41:28] for everyone, which includes multimodal,

[1:41:31] but it's not a bike centric infrastructure like it.

[1:41:36] Do you get a sense that the UTC, when they have their meetings,

[1:41:41] are just overtly opposed to the city council

[1:41:48] and are just waiting this out.

[1:41:50]

[1:41:54] I can't speak for each individual on that board.

[1:42:00] I think in any board you're going to have

[1:42:01] a mix of opinions on any issue.

[1:42:05] But I would say broadly, the board would

[1:42:08] be supportive of those efforts.

[1:42:11] And that's why I think they raised this concern, is

[1:42:15] because the initial task force recommendation was eliminating

[1:42:20] long term bike parking, for example, in multifamily housing,

[1:42:24] that's a use case where I think personally,

[1:42:30] I think it's bad policy to just wholesale eliminate it.

[1:42:34] I think that lack of nuance from the task force

[1:42:40] is what got UTC concerned, instead of tweaking,

[1:42:46] what can we count towards this.

[1:42:48] We have these kind of standards of a minimum number of bike

[1:42:51] parking spaces, instead of tweaking, OK,

[1:42:55] do we need 0.1 spaces per x number of residents or do we.

[1:43:02] Can we get by with something less or.

[1:43:04] We're like, what can count towards that goal was just

[1:43:06] like, nope, we don't need it.

[1:43:08] We're eliminating it.

[1:43:09] And that's kind of I think what really ultimately spurred

[1:43:13] the concern from the community.

[1:43:18] So I think and I understand that,

[1:43:22] and we've had some conversation on it,

[1:43:26] I think from the housing affordability task force

[1:43:31] perspective, it's not about we don't want to support bike

[1:43:35] infrastructure, but it's more about removing

[1:43:38] unnecessary regulation.

[1:43:42] And so in their minds, that doesn't

[1:43:44] mean they won't build it.

[1:43:45] And this is the conversation they've had.

[1:43:47] It's just because it's not required doesn't

[1:43:48] mean they won't build it.

[1:43:49] However, if they don't build it, it's not used.

[1:43:53] And then if there's and we've talked about that,

[1:43:55] where if you build it then it will be used

[1:43:58] and then it'll be something that's in demand.

[1:44:01] But if it's not built, how do you get to that point.

[1:44:03] So just to clarify from and I'm not advocating either way.

[1:44:08] It's more of just a perspective, because I think that I've heard

[1:44:12] conversations in our community where it's

[1:44:16] been so-and-so doesn't want bikes or so-and-so does

[1:44:22] only wants bikes.

[1:44:23] And I don't think that's the case.

[1:44:25] And I think that there are ways to provide

[1:44:28] that infrastructure without necessarily making

[1:44:31] it be a part of the code.

[1:44:33] But I do understand at the same time, if it's not,

[1:44:36] how do we get there.

[1:44:37] So if I can pull that back just a little bit,

[1:44:40] just so we're on because I don't want to get into talking

[1:44:43] necessarily about the code.

[1:44:46] But I do want to talk about because this isn't just about

[1:44:49] a couple former employees.

[1:44:51] This is about current UTC members

[1:44:54] saying some pretty creating derogatory things,

[1:44:59] but I see it as derogatory.

[1:45:01] I know the current council, city council and the climate

[1:45:04] and we're not on board with that just

[1:45:06] because of all the backlash.

[1:45:07] I don't think it's a good idea to totally be shut down

[1:45:10] through the Be thrown out with the bath water,

[1:45:13] and then it goes on to when the time is right.

[1:45:15] In five years, we're going to make sure that position

[1:45:18] gets back in February.

[1:45:21] And then so this is speaking about the UTC members.

[1:45:26] Sorry, this is UTC speaking about the housing

[1:45:28] affordability task force.

[1:45:30] And when they were talking about them being industry

[1:45:33] so so they're rich people.

[1:45:35] Yeah they're rich people period.

[1:45:37] They're not actually living in houses

[1:45:39] that might need to get on their bike

[1:45:40] to get to a construction job.

[1:45:43] It is entirely driven by industry.

[1:45:45] So guess what's going to happen.

[1:45:47] We all know that this is more of a backlash

[1:45:51] against the COVID requirements from 22 and 23.

[1:45:54] Not in not for the guise eyes of affordability.

[1:45:58] The name sounds really great, but they want to Nerf the code

[1:46:02] and could have backlash on it.

[1:46:05] And then again in March.

[1:46:07] I really don't want to go Rogan.

[1:46:09] But yeah, we're here to advise counsel.

[1:46:13] And in April Eric with the data he

[1:46:15] was able to justify 20% number.

[1:46:18] That's like 2.5% of used bikes.

[1:46:22] And yeah, this is a good place for us to stamp all over there.

[1:46:26] 29% of people, people in transportation

[1:46:30] get the people or transportation to work

[1:46:34] in something other than a car.

[1:46:35] And some of these quotes my audio wasn't totally clear on,

[1:46:38] but that's obviously we have the gist.

[1:46:40] And then of course, in the letter saying the committee is

[1:46:44] tasked with guiding elected officials and city

[1:46:47] staff on programming, policy, physical infrastructure

[1:46:51] and to ensure our community has access

[1:46:53] to safe, comfortable, and right size transportation

[1:46:55] to meet their daily needs.

[1:46:57] And you ask, why would I want to accomplish tonight specifically

[1:47:00] that quote that's in the letter that says this committee

[1:47:03] is tasked with guiding the elected

[1:47:05] officials and city staff on program policy

[1:47:07] and physical obstruction.

[1:47:08] That is not in the resolution, that is not in their bylaws.

[1:47:12] That is something that they made up.

[1:47:15] But there are some holes in the bylaws that maybe

[1:47:21] could be construed that way.

[1:47:23] And I talked with our city attorney about that,

[1:47:26] and I'm going to come back to him in just a minute

[1:47:28] and have him comment on that.

[1:47:30] But that is what I'm proposing is that we close

[1:47:33] those loopholes so we can say, UTC,

[1:47:36] you serve a valuable service.

[1:47:37] We value you.

[1:47:38] We want safe, multimodal transportation.

[1:47:41] We want forward thinking people.

[1:47:43] We want investment in that.

[1:47:45] But we don't want is the subversive.

[1:47:47] It's not just oh, this is an offhand comment

[1:47:49] by somebody that's not even a city employee anymore.

[1:47:51] This is kind of that continual thing that's

[1:47:54] coming through these meetings and it's like that that's

[1:47:58] not supportive of council.

[1:48:00] That's the people that are opposing council.

[1:48:02] And then they give us a letter that has misleading information

[1:48:05] in it to get to achieve a certain action

[1:48:09] or to try to get council to take a certain action.

[1:48:12] So that's why.

[1:48:15] But Jeremiah, if you would just share

[1:48:17] that just a little bit of context

[1:48:19] about the resolution section.

[1:48:23] Yeah, certainly.

[1:48:24] So the UTC itself is a creature of council.

[1:48:28] And so you have options as to how

[1:48:31] you may want to address either revamping the resolution itself.

[1:48:36] There's been several revamps of the bylaws

[1:48:39] that council has done over the years.

[1:48:42] Most recently a couple of years ago, there was

[1:48:45] a minor tweak to the bylaws.

[1:48:47] So whatever council feels like they want

[1:48:50] to do in this particular disappearance instance

[1:48:52] because like I said, UTC is a creature.

[1:48:54] It's only created by council.

[1:48:56] And so whatever council's direction is

[1:48:58] and how to deal with this.

[1:49:01] Certainly within the resolution to your point,

[1:49:05] Eric, if you wanted to narrow the scope of what they were

[1:49:09] undertaking, that could be done within resolution,

[1:49:13] also typing the bylaws and putting those things more

[1:49:18] into order, if that's the direction council goes,

[1:49:20] that's also.

[1:49:22] Yeah so I guess I don't.

[1:49:26] I value your perspective and always have.

[1:49:29] And I am thankful you're on council.

[1:49:31] We disagree on some things often enough.

[1:49:36] But in this case, it seems so adversarial

[1:49:40] and it shouldn't be I'm not against multimodal

[1:49:45] transportation, but when I feel that somebody

[1:49:48] is trying to May be deceptive.

[1:49:51] It really gets my attention and I lean into that hard.

[1:49:55] Which is why I spent 20 plus hours on this.

[1:49:59] I'm hoping that as a body, we will at the very least

[1:50:03] go back to what I was trying to do in last in last year

[1:50:08] when I ended up having to go to UTC by myself.

[1:50:11] I missed the meeting on October, but then went in

[1:50:14] and talked to them.

[1:50:15] And if you go back and look at that recording,

[1:50:17] I was extremely polite and appreciative

[1:50:20] of the work they're doing.

[1:50:22] I talked with them a little bit about my concerns,

[1:50:25] but I try to be very, very respectful.

[1:50:28] But when this letter came to me, I was ready to say, well,

[1:50:32] I guess we close out that resolution,

[1:50:37] we form a new resolution with tighten guidelines.

[1:50:40] We have a re-interview process.

[1:50:42] And then if anybody that's on the current UTC

[1:50:45] wants to apply for the UTC, then we can.

[1:50:49] That is one option.

[1:50:51] If council is more in line of saying that corrective action

[1:50:56] could be taken at this point and we could just write a letter

[1:50:59] to say, here's where we need to course

[1:51:03] correct and see if that see if that suffices.

[1:51:07] Like I said, I feel like I tried that before and I try to do it

[1:51:12] and I mean you were there I tried to be as polite

[1:51:18] and engaging as possible and not in any way

[1:51:22] demeaning of their work.

[1:51:23] But this is what we get right.

[1:51:26] This is where we're at.

[1:51:27] So I'd love to hear from some other council members

[1:51:31] if I'm totally off base here, I'm willing to hear that too.

[1:51:34] But this is what I'm seeing and this.

[1:51:38] And I think it's important to governance,

[1:51:40] to us doing a job as council and making sure that we have

[1:51:43] committees that are supporting direction

[1:51:45] that we're going in and helping us do that good work.

[1:51:48]

[1:51:52] So much of this feels like the politicization,

[1:51:55] politicizing politicization.

[1:51:56] I can't talk tonight of the fourth and 5 Street

[1:51:59] pilot project that's just kind of

[1:52:02] carried with us throughout US.

[1:52:05] And so much of it has become pro bike, anti bike.

[1:52:10] And I think so many people in our community

[1:52:13] are somewhere in the middle there

[1:52:15] to look at it that way is just completely totally wrong.

[1:52:19] It's one thing to have a failed pilot project and say,

[1:52:22] that may have not worked, but we also

[1:52:24] have lots of options to work together moving forward.

[1:52:28] The concern I have with the UTC is

[1:52:31] that seemed to be the Hill to die on with the fourth and 5

[1:52:37] Street pilot project, and it became so polarizing

[1:52:41] that it's clouded their ability to look at the Council

[1:52:45] decision moving forward.

[1:52:46] Clear clearly, I'm concerned that there is a bias built

[1:52:51] in at this point that the UTC can't be supportive of council

[1:52:55] because they don't believe in the direction council's moving.

[1:53:00] With that being said, I also it's like I said earlier,

[1:53:04] these are supportive role.

[1:53:06] These are advisory positions.

[1:53:09] And at the end of the day, we have to take them as advice Q&A

[1:53:16] with a grain of salt in some situations.

[1:53:19] And there's going to be some situations

[1:53:21] where that advice is going to weigh much heavier than others.

[1:53:25] But I do have some real concern about the adversarial

[1:53:29] relationship between the UTC board and council,

[1:53:33] and just the difference of opinions in the direction

[1:53:39] that we should be going with policy for.

[1:53:42]

[1:53:50] So I want to ask Jason are you aware of what

[1:53:56] orientation process did or do new UTC members get.

[1:54:01] Yeah, usually once a year.

[1:54:03] I think the members are seated in June.

[1:54:06] They have a workshop kind of thing where they walk

[1:54:08] through the bylaws, walk through this calendar of every year

[1:54:15] we do a couple walk audits.

[1:54:17] We do infrastructure prioritization process.

[1:54:23] We do an accounting, I think this month that type of stuff.

[1:54:30] And as part of that, do you review

[1:54:33] like the roles and responsibilities

[1:54:36] of the UTC council.

[1:54:39] Yeah, I think so.

[1:54:40] It's been a while.

[1:54:41] I don't attend them anymore, but when I did

[1:54:45] I think that happened.

[1:54:48] I will say that I think it was maybe done at the staff level.

[1:54:52] I don't know if I don't definitely

[1:54:57] don't remember John being there, but he remembered him.

[1:54:59] But like, yeah, there's not much of their level of engagement

[1:55:03] on that kind of stuff.

[1:55:07] Yeah the reason I'm asking is because I'm out of I'm on 3

[1:55:11] and they vary in different how the orientations

[1:55:15] are, what the expectations are.

[1:55:18] So I think that this is a potential symptom of a bigger

[1:55:26] issue, because I think that we may have some other boards

[1:55:31] and commissions that may not clearly understand what

[1:55:36] their role is, or we need to give direction

[1:55:41] on what we expect that to be.

[1:55:43] And I think that is done through resolution

[1:55:46] or so that we're saying that we're updating the bylaws.

[1:55:50] And so I think that I don't think that UTC is alone in this,

[1:55:55] I think there's other boards and commissions that we've

[1:55:58] had to go through some growing pains with or

[1:56:04] and does happen is over time, there's

[1:56:06] that veering away from what the original intent

[1:56:10] of that committee or board was.

[1:56:12] And so for us as a council to be able to review those and that's

[1:56:16] I think a different conversation.

[1:56:17] And a deeper conversation on how we want to approach that.

[1:56:20] But maybe having a standardized type of orientation, because I

[1:56:26] know that in those boards or commissions

[1:56:30] where Jeremiah did come in and review Cora and open Meeting

[1:56:34] law, that there's a different expectation

[1:56:37] Asian and it's viewed as a very serious issue.

[1:56:41] And they go out of their way to avoid it,

[1:56:42] whereas not all of them may.

[1:56:46] But I think also, as I think it would

[1:56:49] help for us to review the council liaison

[1:56:51] responsibilities as well.

[1:56:54] And this is not about you, Jason.

[1:56:56] This is about all of us.

[1:56:58] But for us to know that when we see a border commission

[1:57:02] going off the rails, that it's our job

[1:57:04] to step in and bring that back to where they need to be.

[1:57:08] If staff are doing that.

[1:57:10] I had to do it a couple of times with one of the boards

[1:57:15] and commissions that I'm on and making sure that then we're

[1:57:18] communicating that, here with each other as well so that we

[1:57:23] understand because we do switch boards and commissions, I guess.

[1:57:26] I guess I would push back a little bit on one thing

[1:57:29] you said there, and that's specifically is that this

[1:57:32] isn't about you, Jason.

[1:57:34] And I'm going to say it is because you're

[1:57:36] in all those meetings.

[1:57:38] You were there.

[1:57:39] And I will say that I was in a housing affordability task force

[1:57:44] the other day, and city manager, assistant deputy city manager

[1:57:47] were there as well.

[1:57:48] And I was like, whoa, hold up, hold up.

[1:57:50] And literally pulled out like the resolution thing,

[1:57:54] we had it like that.

[1:57:56] But I just because I thought we had strayed away from what

[1:58:00] is under the purview that we should be talking about,

[1:58:03] literally stop the meeting.

[1:58:04] I was wrong, they were right.

[1:58:07] They were within it actually fit within what the.

[1:58:10] But that is my concern to say, wait a minute.

[1:58:13] And not that I'm running their meeting.

[1:58:15] I'm not waking up.

[1:58:17] But that is.

[1:58:19] That's right.

[1:58:20] So my concern I would just like to echo,

[1:58:23] I think what for 10 months just said about having a standard,

[1:58:30] I'm not honestly having this time a good excuse or anything,

[1:58:35] but I haven't spent a lot of time on boards and commission

[1:58:39] processes I started, but it never hurts to I think just

[1:58:43] across the board, we had a standardized orientation

[1:58:48] because there's some things that apply to all,

[1:58:49] and then there's diving into their own focus.

[1:58:54] And you had mentioned reviewing council liaison,

[1:58:58] I think including reviewing staff liaison.

[1:59:01] I think we should just we should definitely have clarity

[1:59:04] around those for each group.

[1:59:06] So I just wanted to echo that.

[1:59:09] I think that would be a worthwhile thing across.

[1:59:13] I do want to throw this out there

[1:59:15] and I am absolutely willing to say if they're

[1:59:19] willing to course correct, we don't need

[1:59:20] to go the full nuclear option.

[1:59:23] I value the work they do.

[1:59:24] I'm willing to come back, although we'll

[1:59:26] definitely talk about that.

[1:59:29] I'm willing to come back, and I'm

[1:59:30] willing to look them in the eye and express my concerns,

[1:59:33] but also say that I appreciate it.

[1:59:34] Thank you.

[1:59:36] Because I want them to be I want them to do what they do.

[1:59:40] And like I said in 90% of what they do is absolutely

[1:59:44] what they need to do.

[1:59:45] Walk audits, talking about activity,

[1:59:48] engaging with staff in planning and the way things work

[1:59:52] like that.

[1:59:53] The right direction that's coming online and all

[1:59:56] the connections to that.

[1:59:57] And that's what we should be doing.

[1:59:59] But it's just a matter of it's not my

[2:00:01] this isn't Cody's opinion.

[2:00:02] Cody says it needs to be done this way.

[2:00:04] I want it to be like, hey, can we just

[2:00:06] mutually agree that this is what the bylaws are

[2:00:10] and this is what the resolution says.

[2:00:12] Let's do that.

[2:00:13] Do a really good job at it.

[2:00:14] So I want to clarify, my comment was not

[2:00:18] specific to this situation, but I think all of us,

[2:00:22] in clarifying our responsibilities

[2:00:24] and really recognizing just like the staff need

[2:00:28] to recognize when they need to step

[2:00:29] in or be like, hey, that's a violation of open Meeting Law.

[2:00:32] It's the same thing for us to have that guidance because it's

[2:00:37] a group of volunteers that are passionate about whatever

[2:00:41] board or commission they're on.

[2:00:43] So they're not necessarily going to know all the ins and outs

[2:00:48] of how everything else works.

[2:00:49] And so we have to be those ones to temper that and encourage

[2:00:54] those positive interactions.

[2:00:55] And if they do want to communicate

[2:00:57] how we can liaise on that.

[2:00:58] I was on one where they were like,

[2:01:00] we're going to have to write this letter and send it.

[2:01:02] And I said, or I can just bring it up at a workshop,

[2:01:04] we could go through this whole long process,

[2:01:05] or I can just share it with and so I think instead

[2:01:08] of it being like this territorial type of approach

[2:01:12] that we move towards an approach where we work together,

[2:01:16] and that kind of goes back to my earlier comments.

[2:01:19] But in this case, I do think that having a more specific.

[2:01:27] Resolution that really outlines what the expectations are.

[2:01:30] We'll just help UTC to be able to move forward and know

[2:01:33] what the expectations are.

[2:01:34] And I'm not saying it needs to be like you did something,

[2:01:40] they did something wrong or this isn't right.

[2:01:42] But to be able to just clarify what the role is

[2:01:45] and for us to be able to agree on that as a council,

[2:01:47] and then for them to be able to move forward

[2:01:49] as in an advisory role with making sure they're doing

[2:01:53] that, we're all on the same page is really where I think,

[2:01:58] well, I'm to piggyback off what was on what's

[2:02:01] had to say there is I'd be in favor, too,

[2:02:04] for council to go through and review

[2:02:09] the bylaws for individual boards and commissions

[2:02:12] to make sure they do still stand up to what we need

[2:02:15] these boards to be doing today.

[2:02:17] There's lots of different boards that have been

[2:02:19] developed for certain reasons.

[2:02:20] I think of even like the DDA they were developed to clear

[2:02:25] blight for economic activation, but we've

[2:02:30] seen so much activation in downtown

[2:02:32] that their actual role is kind of transitioned

[2:02:35] through the years as well.

[2:02:37] So I think reviewing all of these bylaws

[2:02:39] could be great as well.

[2:02:41] And I think as well, having these meetings to go over things

[2:02:44] like open meeting, meetings, laws

[2:02:47] have numerous times in different meetings on different boards.

[2:02:51] I've had to step in and tell different board members,

[2:02:54] I stop replying all you can't send that email to this person

[2:03:00] without having the whole group involved,

[2:03:02] all these different things.

[2:03:03] So I think just having a real clear understanding of all

[2:03:07] the boards and not even just specifically the UTC,

[2:03:11] but just so everyone knows what direction they're meant

[2:03:14] to be pulling, in what direction council is being

[2:03:17] what direction council's going in and they're all in line

[2:03:20] together.

[2:03:21] So just to make sure I don't disagree.

[2:03:23] And I think you make a great point.

[2:03:26] And it may be germane to the conversation.

[2:03:29] Just to keep this on point, I'd love to get some feedback

[2:03:34] from just so that we're not here all night, because we can

[2:03:36] have this conversation forever.

[2:03:39] But council member Ballard, do you have anything here.

[2:03:43] And I guess I'm specifically ask you

[2:03:46] and not to put you on the spot as the first one,

[2:03:48] but I kind of am to say.

[2:03:51] Do you have a specific request, whether that

[2:03:53] is no action at all on this.

[2:03:57] A letter requesting course correction,

[2:04:01] update in resolution language or something different.

[2:04:06] But I just want to bring this back

[2:04:08] to UTC so we can progress through our agenda this evening.

[2:04:12]

[2:04:14] Yeah thanks, Mayor.

[2:04:16] I think last time we addressed the UTC, I thought it was very

[2:04:25] appropriate to say what, we want to write this,

[2:04:29] letter kind of course correcting and we just kind of thought,

[2:04:34] this would we want to respect the board

[2:04:40] that is trying to advise us.

[2:04:42] And we want to make sure that we've got

[2:04:43] a good relationship with them.

[2:04:45] My concern is that I haven't again,

[2:04:49] we're here again with more information about conversations

[2:04:56] that even if it's just a one off from somebody that's just one

[2:05:00] member of the board speaking, the conversations are continuing

[2:05:03] and it's not like they're working towards an advisory

[2:05:07] like, hey, city council has this opinion about this thing.

[2:05:12] But we want to advise them this different opinion.

[2:05:17] And that it's.

[2:05:19]

[2:05:23] But council member Nguyen or other council members

[2:05:29] would be very appreciative if the members of the task force

[2:05:33] were speaking negatively about the council in other ways,

[2:05:39] saying, well, this council is industry adverse

[2:05:44] and they don't like developments and they

[2:05:46] don't our industry partners.

[2:05:52] I don't think we would be very tolerant of them openly talking

[2:05:58] about opposing council's direction in the middle

[2:06:06] of their meetings when they're supposed

[2:06:07] to be advising us on things.

[2:06:09] And so I guess the direction I'm looking for, I guess I would say

[2:06:16] would be some sort of course correction, a letter.

[2:06:21] A a soul search or something.

[2:06:24] Because I don't want to keep revisiting

[2:06:27] this every six months.

[2:06:30] Thank you Council.

[2:06:34] I would be in favor of a letter as well.

[2:06:39] Kind of with the stipulation that if this is an issue that we

[2:06:42] have to revisit again, that the next action

[2:06:46] will probably be discussing a resolution to disband the UTC.

[2:06:52] I still think there's immense benefit from having UTC.

[2:06:57] I don't think it's a lost cause by any means.

[2:06:59] I think so many of these relationships can be mended.

[2:07:04] Just meeting face to face and having conversations

[2:07:06] with these people, and realize we all have some

[2:07:09] of the general goals in common.

[2:07:13] But yeah, I don't want this to be a continued

[2:07:17] thing that we keep addressing throughout our terms

[2:07:21] on council here.

[2:07:22] My goal is that we can have some sort of course correction,

[2:07:26] and we come together, to work together,

[2:07:29] to find those common places we can win instead

[2:07:32] of tearing each other down and having

[2:07:34] this adversarial relationship.

[2:07:37] Thank you.

[2:07:39] So first, I guess I would have a question because my question

[2:07:44] would be, Jason, how comfortable are you

[2:07:48] with stepping in if you see it going off the rails and course

[2:07:52] correcting them in live time as if you do start if it is

[2:07:58] getting very negative I mean, because they're

[2:08:00] not the only ones.

[2:08:02] And so yeah, well, and sometimes we have to pull them back up.

[2:08:07] So I mean, I guess that would be my first question

[2:08:10] before I. Yeah, I mean, I guess I'm comfortable doing it.

[2:08:18] I have good relationships with the board.

[2:08:22] I guess where I do think there is a gray area sometimes too.

[2:08:26] I'm like.

[2:08:29] People have trying not to intervene too much as well,

[2:08:36] like and stifle discussion.

[2:08:38] And maybe something can start out

[2:08:40] in a really negative place but still ultimately

[2:08:43] kind move towards something positive.

[2:08:45] And so yes, but I could probably do more

[2:08:50] to intervene and be more proactive

[2:08:55] and try and steer more towards advice and direction

[2:08:58] if they are.

[2:09:00] And I think there is a difference between having

[2:09:01] a conversation and being negative

[2:09:04] like I've had to redirect and be like,

[2:09:06] we don't need to talk about that specific staff person

[2:09:09] or we're not talking about council,

[2:09:11] we're not talking about this.

[2:09:12] This is what we're talking about.

[2:09:13] And being solution oriented, so we all know we're upset.

[2:09:17] How do we get from A to Z. How do we move forward.

[2:09:21] And just keeping it with that solution oriented approach.

[2:09:24] So I mean, I think if you're feeling comfortable with that,

[2:09:30] I think a corrective action like some course

[2:09:33] correction of some kind.

[2:09:34] But the question that I have is are

[2:09:38] we course correcting something that's not in the resolution.

[2:09:42] And that's where and that's where we work with Jeremiah

[2:09:47] to say it's hard to say, hey, you need to stick

[2:09:49] with what the resolution says.

[2:09:51] But there's gaps in the resolution that

[2:09:53] have been previously intentionally

[2:09:55] exploited by a former employee.

[2:09:59] And maybe we do need to plug those.

[2:10:02] But I think if enacting a new resolution is a pretty big act,

[2:10:09] I think.

[2:10:10] And I think if we can say, hey, this is from this council.

[2:10:14] We came behind this.

[2:10:15] We didn't.

[2:10:16] We could have rescinded the resolution, cleared the bench

[2:10:20] on UTC, started a new resolution, did New interviews

[2:10:24] and gone that whole route.

[2:10:26] But instead of that, we are writing a letter

[2:10:28] saying this is our expectation.

[2:10:31] This council expects this.

[2:10:34] And if you go outside of that, then we may have

[2:10:38] to take a different action.

[2:10:40] But that I guess, and maybe Jeremiah's got a better answer.

[2:10:43] Actually, you hit the word I was actually going to say,

[2:10:47] which was expectation.

[2:10:48] And so the letter addressed more of a prospective thing that

[2:10:52] is simply saying, this is what this council expects and looks

[2:10:56] forward to from the UTC.

[2:10:59] And that way they have some guidance coming in,

[2:11:03] essentially a letter of expectation.

[2:11:05] I think that would probably be a good course to take with us.

[2:11:09] And I'll finish going around the room.

[2:11:11] But I will say just for the sake of adaptation

[2:11:14] for your question is that I would be willing to draft

[2:11:18] something that would come before council

[2:11:19] wouldn't go any further than me without council's input on it.

[2:11:25] But I think that way we could do a letter

[2:11:28] versus a new resolution, and I think I'd be OK with that.

[2:11:34] I think it's very hard to set an expectation

[2:11:36] for a group of people without it being

[2:11:39] clear what the expectation is.

[2:11:41] And we also need to remember these are volunteers like

[2:11:45] and we're all volunteers.

[2:11:46] But these are people that passionately

[2:11:48] care about multi-modal connections

[2:11:51] within our community.

[2:11:52] And then to punch them in the face like five times over.

[2:11:56] This is tough.

[2:11:57] But at the same time, for us to be productive with them,

[2:12:00] I think the clear expectations is so that's what.

[2:12:05] Yeah, no, I think letter is fine.

[2:12:08] Obviously with what that looks like on the.

[2:12:14] Yeah so.

[2:12:19] I've been to UTC meetings and I interviewed people on.

[2:12:25] A third at least third is new now.

[2:12:29] So they weren't even on this.

[2:12:32] And I'm sorry I couldn't hear you.

[2:12:35] I said the third of the people are going to be new.

[2:12:37] At least 40% so they weren't even on that.

[2:12:41] You're talking about.

[2:12:42] But having people apply to boards because they're

[2:12:46] passionate about what they're doing,

[2:12:47] and they get frustrated because if they don't get their voice

[2:12:50] heard can we bring that in.

[2:12:53] Of course I've done it.

[2:12:55] We've all done it.

[2:12:55] That's our job.

[2:12:57] So maybe we're not doing our job and we should look in the mirror

[2:13:01] and say, wait a minute.

[2:13:02] I would say, at the Affordable housing group,

[2:13:07] I've been to a bunch of those meetings.

[2:13:09] Those guys are very vocal about not liking sidewalks

[2:13:12] and bikes and all that stuff.

[2:13:14] And, I guess we don't have any trouble with that,

[2:13:17] but we seem to have trouble with I'm

[2:13:21] going to say that characterization

[2:13:24] is completely out of line and necessary and untrue.

[2:13:27] I just don't talk to two of the things the last two weeks.

[2:13:31] They were very anti people.

[2:13:34] Well, if so might have talked to somebody outside of a meeting.

[2:13:37] I'm in those meetings.

[2:13:38] I've been in all the meetings.

[2:13:39] I've been out of town, in which case

[2:13:41] I followed up on those meetings.

[2:13:43] And I will say what you're saying is patently untrue.

[2:13:47] So if you had a conversation with somebody else, go ahead.

[2:13:51] I would just add that it's the regulation,

[2:13:54] not the sidewalk or the bike.

[2:13:56] And again, it's when we make that what at the same time.

[2:14:01] But they're not.

[2:14:02] Because if somebody like if there's

[2:14:04] a demand for a 20 foot sidewalk, they'll

[2:14:07] build a 20 foot sidewalk.

[2:14:08] That's not the question.

[2:14:10] The question isn't are we pro or against sidewalks.

[2:14:14] They're saying removing the regulation because right now

[2:14:16] it's requiring 6 foot sidewalks in neighborhoods

[2:14:19] that don't need 6 foot.

[2:14:20] So having that ability.

[2:14:23] So if just to call this back to where

[2:14:26] are you in favor of whether or not and what is the letter.

[2:14:30] So the letter I would draft a letter.

[2:14:33] I'll bring it back to council.

[2:14:34] We'll have an opportunity to have some input on it.

[2:14:36] But the point of the letter is just

[2:14:39] to set expectations for the UTC regarding their role

[2:14:43] and what they think.

[2:14:44] We should go just after the UTC, we

[2:14:46] just talked that all the board should be for goodness sake.

[2:14:50] And so that's the answer the question.

[2:14:53] So I think we have on that as far as not voting,

[2:14:58] but as far as the letter goes, I just

[2:15:03] want to say that there's clear majority on that,

[2:15:06] and I especially want to express my thanks

[2:15:08] to council member Nguyen for being so

[2:15:11] open minded on a conversation.

[2:15:12] It's hard.

[2:15:13] This is a fun read in front of us.

[2:15:15] But thank you mayor.

[2:15:18] I just like to reemphasize Jeremiah's suggestion

[2:15:24] or interim city attorney's suggestion,

[2:15:28] their letter of expectation that prospective approach.

[2:15:31] And I think council member Nguyen made a good point.

[2:15:34] I was putting myself in years in the past of being

[2:15:37] like a staff liaison and it trying to decide

[2:15:42] when to jump in or not.

[2:15:44] I think when the group as a whole

[2:15:48] is maybe heading down the road, that's not for the bylaws

[2:15:53] and the direction.

[2:15:54] I think that's when council and staff liaisons need to jump in.

[2:15:59] I think at one point you made that I think does occur

[2:16:02] and is probably going to occur with almost every group

[2:16:05] over some given time.

[2:16:07] If one person is making a statement

[2:16:09] versus the action of the group.

[2:16:12] I think you guys have had some good discussion

[2:16:17] tonight about some of those differences.

[2:16:20] One one off comments versus some concerns in a letter of maybe

[2:16:25] accuracy of a data point.

[2:16:27] Those are two different things in my mind.

[2:16:29] I just want to make sure I just I feel

[2:16:32] that's important to clarify because if I'm asking

[2:16:34] in the future staff liaisons to jump in, if one person is just

[2:16:39] making a comment that is negative or not,

[2:16:42] unless the group starts heading down,

[2:16:44] that I'm probably not going to have

[2:16:45] them, jump in and say, hey, your opinion,

[2:16:49] you can't say that opinion.

[2:16:50] So I don't think anybody's saying that,

[2:16:52] but I think that distinguishment distinguishing that in the way

[2:16:55] this letter goes to the group or any group in this situation

[2:17:00] is important.

[2:17:02] Fantastic OK.

[2:17:04] Anything else on item C before we move on to city

[2:17:08] council communications.

[2:17:11] OK moving on.

[2:17:12] City council communications.

[2:17:13] Unstructured time for council members.

[2:17:15] Discuss current matters, share ideas for possible consideration

[2:17:18] by council, and provide information from boards

[2:17:21] and commission participation.

[2:17:23] Council excuse me, gentlemen.

[2:17:26] So on Saturday, I judged the civic speed for the chamber,

[2:17:30] and it kind of started me thinking on some ways

[2:17:34] that we as city council might be able to partner

[2:17:39] with him to work with the kids so that they

[2:17:42] really understand civics.

[2:17:44] They just have this youth component.

[2:17:49] First of all, I did want to just check to see

[2:17:53] if everyone was all right.

[2:17:54] I really would like to invite the top three placers

[2:17:57] from the competition to come and be

[2:18:01] able to join us behind the dais and see a council

[2:18:04] meeting from the other side.

[2:18:06] So I just wanted to see if everyone

[2:18:07] was all right with that.

[2:18:08] And then I am planning on working with the chamber to look

[2:18:12] at what next year looks like.

[2:18:13] And I just wanted to see if there was interest in council,

[2:18:17] maybe participating with the children next year.

[2:18:20]

[2:18:24] Yeah I'm interested.

[2:18:26] Is everyone OK with inviting them to the council meeting.

[2:18:32] Sure I think that'd be fine.

[2:18:34] Just yes, I just want to.

[2:18:36]

[2:18:39] Be on my best behavior that day.

[2:18:41] Have counselors available.

[2:18:42]

[2:18:45] I'm trying to write about next year.

[2:18:47] Other items for consideration.

[2:18:52] Yeah and next workshop topics.

[2:18:57] That's more Mike's next workshop topics.

[2:18:59] This is a place for us to bring forward topics as well.

[2:19:04] So one thing I'd like to discuss a little bit

[2:19:07] is around the real Estate Committee and the way

[2:19:10] that it's currently just chaired by two members of city council.

[2:19:15] These are pretty major decisions that

[2:19:17] are being made that don't necessarily have

[2:19:20] a majority backing behind them.

[2:19:23] I'd like us to have some discussion around the way

[2:19:25] that we're looking at the real Estate Committee

[2:19:27] and talk about possibly dealing with that

[2:19:30] through executive session with an entire council, as opposed

[2:19:33] to a two member board.

[2:19:37] Great yeah, I'd be open to that as well.

[2:19:41] That was actually one of the concerns

[2:19:43] I had during our last real Estate Committee.

[2:19:45] And when we discussed the back gardens

[2:19:48] and open space consideration.

[2:19:51] And I think having a few more eyes on it

[2:19:54] and having a little bit more deliberation would be helpful.

[2:19:58] I was a little bit surprised by it

[2:20:00] and had a few questions during that meeting,

[2:20:02] but I think having a broader discussion about some

[2:20:06] of those things is they're big.

[2:20:07] We're talking about making decisions.

[2:20:09] The problem is, and the reason that it's done the way it's done

[2:20:13] is that the OML right.

[2:20:16] So you have two people that you meet with,

[2:20:18] some staff that are knowledgeable

[2:20:19] on without necessarily making a vote or giving direction.

[2:20:23] You have two council members that

[2:20:25] say, yeah, that's a good idea.

[2:20:26] We should go ahead and do a little more time into that

[2:20:29] and then bring it to council with an executive session

[2:20:32] that the concern I think we might run into

[2:20:34] and Jeremiah might but help us with this,

[2:20:39] but you end up having a situation

[2:20:42] where you have all of you have a lot more executive sessions.

[2:20:47] I mean, if we're looking at considering

[2:20:50] something that might be some proprietary information

[2:20:53] or negotiation.

[2:20:54] Yeah, certainly.

[2:20:55] I think as far as the real Estate Committee goes,

[2:20:57] I believe they met at least two or three times during my tenure.

[2:21:02] And so obviously, if you're looking

[2:21:04] to replace that with an executive session,

[2:21:06] that would be two or three more executive sessions.

[2:21:09] But yeah, certainly purchase sale,

[2:21:13] lease properties all something that

[2:21:15] is contemplated in the open Meetings

[2:21:17] law or executive session.

[2:21:18] So certainly available.

[2:21:20] Do you have any concerns about that from a staff perspective.

[2:21:24] No this is the first place I've worked with such a committee.

[2:21:29] So it's new to me as well.

[2:21:32] Not saying it's wrong in any way, but just the way council

[2:21:37] member Van Dyck talked about as another option was

[2:21:42] what I've been more used to.

[2:21:44] But it's more executive sessions,

[2:21:45] I think in that discussion we could consider things

[2:21:49] as well that probably the more harmless

[2:21:53] or where we haven't run into issues

[2:21:54] or sometimes we've gone just since I've been here.

[2:21:57] There's been a few where there's a random strip of land

[2:22:01] that we can't use, and a good example that there were weeds

[2:22:07] and we weren't doing a great job of keeping up with them

[2:22:10] in the neighboring property owners,

[2:22:11] like, hey, I'd love to find that for appraised value.

[2:22:15] And yeah, put that through to the council.

[2:22:18] So still all those actions go to council ultimately.

[2:22:24] But there we can work through that.

[2:22:28] So yes I think that could be a good discussion.

[2:22:33] Interesting great.

[2:22:36] Any other items.

[2:22:38] Yeah we've chatted about this before.

[2:22:43] Cody and Diane's comment over the weekend reminded me of it,

[2:22:47] but I would be curious just in if you didn't read the piece.

[2:22:52] It's kind talks a little bit about Austin

[2:22:54] and how they've seen.

[2:22:58] Affordability increase in Austin and all the things

[2:23:01] that they did in their community.

[2:23:03] And one of the ones that I've always been intrigued

[2:23:05] with for a while is these single exit apartment buildings

[2:23:09] basically be some kind of code building code

[2:23:14] update to allow below a certain threshold of height,

[2:23:18] or units or certain types of things

[2:23:20] where you could allow a different kind of model

[2:23:24] of apartment building to exist.

[2:23:26] I'd be curious if there was.

[2:23:28] What was the name of that single stairway.

[2:23:30] Single stairway.

[2:23:31] Yeah, I would love to.

[2:23:32] Yes, we have talked about that.

[2:23:34] You sent me an email and we talked a little bit,

[2:23:36] but then maybe.

[2:23:38] Isn't that a state level.

[2:23:39] Well, there was some stuff moving through the state.

[2:23:42] I don't know if it passed like it didn't

[2:23:44] matter to us or something, but.

[2:23:46] So I'd love to look into that as well.

[2:23:48] Yeah that's a housing affordability issue.

[2:23:51] And that really impacts the cost of building

[2:23:55] and specifically density when you're looking at small lots.

[2:23:59] And yeah, it just adds a lot more flexibility for operators.

[2:24:03] Great other thoughts issues.

[2:24:07] OK, great.

[2:24:10] Upcoming workshop topics.

[2:24:12] Thank you.

[2:24:13] Just on our next meeting, we have a discussion

[2:24:17] on the update on the housing needs assessment

[2:24:19] that's been going through.

[2:24:21] So it's time to bring that back and where we're at

[2:24:23] with that process and feedback that the consultant has gathered

[2:24:27] through the various stakeholders that they've met with,

[2:24:32] including city council.

[2:24:34] And we plan to also regroup on the race x vetting

[2:24:39] and come back to council to discuss that.

[2:24:42] In fact, I need to forward this on to the city council,

[2:24:45] to the CEO of the company has reached out

[2:24:50] and would like to be in town or.

[2:24:54] Yes So I was on the email, but I thought I should come.

[2:25:01] It was directed and staff and I thought

[2:25:03] it should come from staff.

[2:25:04] But yeah, the airways ex CEO who is coming from Japan

[2:25:09] to visit Grand Junction.

[2:25:12] And I think we have a date on here,

[2:25:14] I don't remember is this month.

[2:25:16] Yeah I think it's tied to when we're

[2:25:20] planning on the next workshop.

[2:25:22] So I'll get some information out on that.

[2:25:24] But that's another item.

[2:25:25] So housing needs assessment here.

[2:25:28] And then the boards and commission liaison

[2:25:30] assignments or some for sure.

[2:25:33] Items on that.

[2:25:34] We have in addition to that looking these are tentative.

[2:25:40] Of course you see some of these move.

[2:25:42] So depending on availability of guests or readiness

[2:25:47] of the information needed for the discussion, but tentatively

[2:25:50] June 1.

[2:25:51] We're looking at we were hoping on May 18,

[2:25:55] but with some of the shifts and.

[2:25:57] Timing with these, the seventh and 9 Street concept discussion

[2:26:02] that we've kind of had.

[2:26:04] Since it's bumped a little bit along the way.

[2:26:06] But it's coming back to that, the.

[2:26:10] Direction to look at that 9 Street at one

[2:26:12] point in time alternative and then the street

[2:26:16] on North of town on 7.

[2:26:19] And just bringing that back to council

[2:26:21] and then the redevelopment area incentive.

[2:26:25] Again, that's not as timely.

[2:26:27] It's an incentive for economic development for certain types

[2:26:31] of housing as well, related to multifamily housing related

[2:26:36] to that actually is expired, but we are honoring it

[2:26:41] until we have this discussion.

[2:26:43] So for instance in two Rios with the housing that's coming there.

[2:26:48] So we need to talk about that and maybe some minor tweaks,

[2:26:52] but our recommendation is to extend it.

[2:26:56] But you can have that discussion looking a little further.

[2:26:59] June 15 we have the Grand Valley river corridor initiative.

[2:27:04] There's a discussion for that.

[2:27:06] That's a broad discussion that needs to occur.

[2:27:09] Local preference procurement potentially.

[2:27:12] And that's been asked to be on one of these in Whitman park.

[2:27:17] So those are there.

[2:27:19] There's been some other requests that we

[2:27:22] need to bring into there.

[2:27:24] At some point we'll come back with tools as well.

[2:27:27] Beyond how strategies and partnerships

[2:27:29] and possible plug-in that we thought

[2:27:32] would be tonight within the housing

[2:27:34] authority is ready to potentially discuss

[2:27:37] a how the city functions with the housing authority

[2:27:42] with deed restrictions.

[2:27:43] And so those are all pending.

[2:27:47] And then water and drought information

[2:27:49] we are going to send some information

[2:27:52] out this week to council.

[2:27:54] So you can have that broader.

[2:27:57] There's been a lot of small messages along the way.

[2:27:59] So kind of putting it all together.

[2:28:01] And, after receiving that, having that before the town

[2:28:04] Hall on Monday because there's likely questions

[2:28:08] that will come out from that.

[2:28:09] But then that leads to further discussion as well.

[2:28:13] So a lot of items, those are all kind of slightly moving.

[2:28:16] But just to give you a picture of what's coming up.

[2:28:18]

[2:28:21] And then I did have just two other items

[2:28:24] when we get to that point.

[2:28:25] OK great.

[2:28:28] Moving on to other business, I do have an item there.

[2:28:33] And this pertains to a procurements for Wednesday

[2:28:37] night.

[2:28:38] Regarding the coatings conversation

[2:28:40] is on the consent agenda.

[2:28:42] One of the things I was looking for specifically,

[2:28:44] and I'm sorry to catch you offline on this mic,

[2:28:46] but we had several questions and I

[2:28:48] don't know that those were necessarily answered

[2:28:51] in the staff report there.

[2:28:55] I know we got some information back from Jeremiah

[2:28:59] on just an opinion on that, which I'm not going to get

[2:29:03] into that here, but I've had some conversations

[2:29:05] with him on what that does and doesn't mean

[2:29:08] and the latitude it allows for us.

[2:29:10] But what my concern is specifically

[2:29:13] that the council or the sorry that the staff reports

[2:29:17] to council in the packet didn't go into any resolution

[2:29:22] around the claims from a local company

[2:29:25] that they're redoing a bunch of jobs

[2:29:27] locally from the Wyoming company,

[2:29:30] that was an email I received from one of the media

[2:29:34] working on that is significant to me

[2:29:37] in making that decision based on what

[2:29:39] I know now without having that.

[2:29:41] We come to Monday.

[2:29:42] I'm going to vote no or that.

[2:29:46] Or at least not vote for that one.

[2:29:49] Also concerns about whether or not how long

[2:29:54] do they have 80% of their employees is Colorado employees.

[2:29:58] And I mean, obviously not to talk about the issues itself,

[2:30:02] but other considerations about what's

[2:30:05] in the best interest of Grand Junction and our local economy.

[2:30:10] So I just felt like I'm a little concerned about that.

[2:30:14] Being on the consent agenda is do we have to have that on.

[2:30:18] Is there a time crunch that's saying

[2:30:21] we have to have this decided rather

[2:30:24] than just table this yet again and put it on down the road.

[2:30:27] I just feel like there's some things that weren't

[2:30:29] addressed in the packet.

[2:30:30] And I just wanted to do this in a way.

[2:30:33] So before Wednesday.

[2:30:35] Yeah, I apologize if we didn't catch all of them,

[2:30:39] but I thought we had addressed the questions with what city

[2:30:44] attorney Jeremiah sent out, and some of them

[2:30:46] are tied to legal advice.

[2:30:49] And so you're right on the question of if there's to do.

[2:30:54] And we've heard that from the company based on the email,

[2:30:58] but I'm not able to verify that necessarily.

[2:31:01] And I didn't necessarily think it was my role

[2:31:03] to go out and call those companies

[2:31:06] and say, hey, I've heard that this is going on

[2:31:09] and I'm tempted to.

[2:31:10] But that's one of those things.

[2:31:12] And I'm making this up, I don't remember the name,

[2:31:14] but let's just say it was close to the water.

[2:31:16] You water.

[2:31:16] And they say, oh yeah, we had a terrible experience with them.

[2:31:19] Well, of course, we don't want to do

[2:31:20] business with that company.

[2:31:21] Not saying that happened at all.

[2:31:22] That's just an example.

[2:31:24] We as staff can definitely reach out and see if we

[2:31:27] can get a response on those.

[2:31:28] I now remember that came through an email,

[2:31:33] not from them and not necessarily

[2:31:36] through that discussion.

[2:31:37] So we were kind of going off the nose

[2:31:39] during the meeting of what we had to address coming back

[2:31:42] and missed that one.

[2:31:44] But we can easily.

[2:31:46] I think some of those were a couple local partners

[2:31:49] to work with.

[2:31:49] We can check on that.

[2:31:51] As far as the verification, this just applies to how we always

[2:31:58] treat those with again, as a state statute,

[2:32:02] they have to prove, they have to show that they're doing it.

[2:32:05] And then we can put in the contractual terms.

[2:32:09] And so far from what we have now,

[2:32:12] just like any other group that comes from out of state,

[2:32:15] if they provide that information that they can.

[2:32:20] Then we can put it in the contract.

[2:32:22] But it's also then it gets into that tricky scenario of it's

[2:32:27] not necessarily our enforcement, it's enforcement.

[2:32:31] And there's no way to verify it.

[2:32:32] And there's no.

[2:32:34] And again, I have new ways.

[2:32:36] If I don't want to litigate this tonight.

[2:32:38] I don't want to get in a situation

[2:32:40] where I'm out of bounds.

[2:32:41] As far as the conversation goes for just another business topic

[2:32:44] here in the workshop, but I am willing to say

[2:32:48] that my preference would be that we give, that we give

[2:32:51] this enough until the following week on the coatings

[2:32:54] conversation, because I do want those questions

[2:32:57] answered regarding the claims on the botched jobs.

[2:33:02]

[2:33:08] I was just checking with our deputy city manager.

[2:33:11] I know there is a timing issue.

[2:33:13] I can't say I'm 100% that it's this meeting or not,

[2:33:18] but it is very soon.

[2:33:20] I don't Jeremiah, if but to be able to mobilize and get

[2:33:24] this done towards the end of the year.

[2:33:26] My recollection was they needed the job to start in September.

[2:33:30] And of course, that needs to be a little bit of leeway

[2:33:33] before that, in order to do the contract,

[2:33:35] and then bring everybody up to speed and start the actual work

[2:33:39] itself.

[2:33:39] So there's a time issue, but I don't know how pressing.

[2:33:44] I just can't say, especially considering the impact

[2:33:48] of this on our community.

[2:33:50] OK Anybody else on other business this evening.

[2:33:57] Yes, thanks.

[2:33:59] I said it out loud.

[2:34:00] I forget.

[2:34:03] One is we received a request, and there's not a time because

[2:34:09] it would have to go out today.

[2:34:12] And so if you don't feel comfortable, it's totally fine.

[2:34:15] But it's a request from the Colorado water Congress

[2:34:21] to sign on to a letter of support

[2:34:23] to the US House and Senate leaders, requesting 2 billion

[2:34:27] a year for the next five years for Western water systems

[2:34:30] to mitigate drought.

[2:34:31] Trial and.

[2:34:33]

[2:34:36] And this is not how we normally like to try

[2:34:39] to address something like that.

[2:34:41] I have we printed out the draft.

[2:34:43] We did not have the turnaround time to normally look at this.

[2:34:49] We got it I think over the weekend if I recall

[2:34:56] and their date was today, they're sending it

[2:35:00] and it's a short letter, I can hand it out

[2:35:04] or you can say there's not enough time,

[2:35:06] but I just want to bring it up, that is a specific piece.

[2:35:11] It's an urging them to use any forthcoming funding legislation

[2:35:14] to address the crisis directly or through emergency assistance

[2:35:17] and deliver results this year through sustained investment

[2:35:21] and modernize our water infrastructure for the decades

[2:35:24] ahead.

[2:35:26] It talks about providing emergency

[2:35:28] funding this year to finance water conservation measures.

[2:35:31] Short term water supply.

[2:35:32] Again, this is not only this is not just for an injunction.

[2:35:36] This is for.

[2:35:37] So they're asking all of the water providers to as many

[2:35:42] as they can to sign on to this.

[2:35:44] I don't like to throw these requests out last minute.

[2:35:48] It's hard enough without.

[2:35:49]

[2:35:52] Water Colorado.

[2:35:55] Sounds like a good way to pipe a dish.

[2:35:57] Yeah, and it's also hard to know without looking

[2:36:02] into them generally I would looking to say.

[2:36:03] OK, well, what other things is this particular group

[2:36:06] involved in and making sure they're not like critical.

[2:36:09] I don't think it's unfair for us to just

[2:36:13] respond that, well, this is in no way a support or non-support.

[2:36:20] We didn't have time to meet your deadline.

[2:36:22] I mean, I think that's best practice.

[2:36:26] Just so I'm not urging, I'm just bringing it up

[2:36:30] because we got that request before you tonight.

[2:36:34] Before their deadline today.

[2:36:40] Well, are we.

[2:36:42] We're not a member.

[2:36:44] Maybe sits on that.

[2:36:46] I'm not on the hours.

[2:36:48] So they're asking 2 billion per year for the next five years

[2:36:54] for immediate and long term drought needs.

[2:36:56] So our previous utilities director sat on the Affairs

[2:37:05] Committee of this group.

[2:37:08] She's now retired.

[2:37:10] I guess I don't.

[2:37:11]

[2:37:14] I mean, my opinion is I'd like more time.

[2:37:17] We don't have time.

[2:37:18]

[2:37:22] All right and then.

[2:37:25] So go ahead.

[2:37:25] This number 2 is just a heads up.

[2:37:28] Coming into Wednesdays meeting because this doesn't happen too

[2:37:32] often, being one of the first item on the agenda

[2:37:36] is to address the next appointment

[2:37:39] of Mayor and Mayor Pro tem.

[2:37:41] So just for clarity, you'll still

[2:37:44] show up out of your current seats

[2:37:46] exactly where you normally sit.

[2:37:49] We'll start the meeting off as normal,

[2:37:50] and then there will be the discussion.

[2:37:52] And then once you all make the motion

[2:37:55] and decide what the result is, we will take a brief break.

[2:37:59] We will rearrange the dais, assuming

[2:38:03] if there's a new mayor or Mayor Pro tem in the center seats,

[2:38:08] and then we will invite everybody back

[2:38:13] and then there will be a swearing in

[2:38:16] and then the meeting will continue with the agenda.

[2:38:20] So just a little bit of logistics.

[2:38:23] So it doesn't feel awkward right.

[2:38:25] Yes so help me out with that.

[2:38:27] It'll be on the agenda.

[2:38:28] So we'll come in.

[2:38:29] We'll do the typical pledge of Allegiance.

[2:38:34] Silence council reports.

[2:38:38] That is for the city manager reports,

[2:38:41] et cetera will come around all the way.

[2:38:43] We'll do public comment and we'll come to that.

[2:38:45] That first agenda item, which will be no, I think the mayor,

[2:38:49] Mayor Pro tem is it.

[2:38:51] Oh, I'm sorry.

[2:38:52] Disregard what I just said.

[2:38:53] Mayor Pro Tem, I think we just do the Pledge of Allegiance.

[2:38:57] Pledge of Allegiance.

[2:38:58] Moment of silence.

[2:38:59] OK, great, I will, as usual, just

[2:39:02] follow whatever the paper says.

[2:39:05] So I did have one more thing.

[2:39:07] I'm sorry.

[2:39:08] There is an event for the American

[2:39:10] 250 celebration on July four.

[2:39:14] Liberty on the lawn.

[2:39:15] And this is at Sherwood Park.

[2:39:18] I don't know if the city is doing anything that day or if.

[2:39:23] Do we have a 250 celebration on city store.

[2:39:29] I wish he was still here.

[2:39:31] Her department has been coordinating with Grand Junction

[2:39:34] and then the larger committee locally,

[2:39:36] and there's a number of events throughout the year.

[2:39:39] I don't recall one on July four.

[2:39:42] I know there's some going into the fall.

[2:39:45] We're also coordinating with Mesa County.

[2:39:47] They are going to be decorating their building,

[2:39:50] and they've offered some large flags if we would

[2:39:53] like to participate with them.

[2:39:55] And we don't have all the details yet.

[2:39:58] But yeah, but I would imagine it might look funny if one building

[2:40:01] and it's not.

[2:40:03] So we're coordinating our teams are coordinating that.

[2:40:05] So this is out of my head, I don't know about.

[2:40:07] So this is on July 4 from noon to 7:00 PM.

[2:40:11] And this is like Entertainment Community

[2:40:13] singing, various contests, activities,

[2:40:16] and Chautauqua reenactments.

[2:40:19] I don't know if they're working on that.

[2:40:22] But this.

[2:40:23] They want to keep the event free.

[2:40:26] And obviously they're looking for donations as well if that's

[2:40:31] possible for the city.

[2:40:33] So I forwarded this to you.

[2:40:34] But if we don't have anything else,

[2:40:36] I just think it'd be a great thing that we

[2:40:38] could just send a city mark.

[2:40:40] It's on the 4th of July after the parade.

[2:40:43] So, anyway, if we can do anything

[2:40:45] with that great other business.

[2:40:48]

[2:40:52] All right.

[2:40:53] We are adjourned.

[2:40:54] Oh, sorry.

[2:40:55] Mike, did you have something.

[2:40:56] I was just going to clarify with the item

[2:41:00] that you brought up related to the procurement

[2:41:04] that's currently on the agenda.

[2:41:07] Just clarifying is that direction from the council

[2:41:10] to remove that prior to and put it on the next meeting,

[2:41:15] or is that something you were talking

[2:41:17] about discussing at the meeting as far as pulling it

[2:41:20] and then rescheduling.

[2:41:22] I just wanted clarity so we're not guessing

[2:41:25] if we're going to change.

[2:41:26] So any issues with us getting a temperature reading on the room

[2:41:30] on that since we're not actually voting

[2:41:32] at this point towards the end of other business about this,

[2:41:37] just to give council some direction on that.

[2:41:38] Yeah if council gives us direction here tonight

[2:41:42] to pull the item that we'll pull the item

[2:41:44] is anybody is anybody against pulling

[2:41:48] item just for discussion.

[2:41:51] Well no not for discussion.

[2:41:52] Just off the agenda.

[2:41:55] Just to get just to give staff enough time

[2:41:57] to address the concerns that were

[2:41:59] brought forward about the other company

[2:42:01] with some local contracts.

[2:42:03] Just so.

[2:42:04] And whether whenever they get those figured out,

[2:42:07] they put it on the next meeting or the meeting after,

[2:42:09] it sounds like we have some time, some runway

[2:42:12] before that has to be answered.

[2:42:14] Is that OK with everybody.

[2:42:16] It shouldn't take us too long with the local groups.

[2:42:19] You might have it done tomorrow, but rather than the.

[2:42:22] I just wanted to clarify because it's rather than leave it

[2:42:27] on if the group is giving us direction to postpone it,

[2:42:30] it would be better to move it.

[2:42:32] Yeah, that would be my request.

[2:42:35] And if anybody is opposed that please God.

[2:42:38] But my request would be that we remove it for now and.

[2:42:41]

[2:42:51] Then after that, I think we're still within the window.

[2:42:55] We'll try.

[2:42:56] I think we will strive to bring it back within the two weeks,

[2:42:59] because those bids come in with a 60 day window for otherwise

[2:43:05] if we have to do that again.

[2:43:06] And it keeps it safe for companies.

[2:43:11] Great thank you.

[2:43:12] OK with that, if there's nothing else, we're adjourned.

[2:43:17]

City Council - 2026 - May 4 - Workshop

Transcript