[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]