[5:37] Good evening. This is the regular city council meeting for Tuesday, September 1st, 2026. If you'll please rise and join me in the pledge.

[6:11] Can I have a roll call by the clerk, please? Michael Barriacco here, Ed Yuleberry, Dave Frank,

[6:19] Jay David Reed, Adam Wooden, all city councillors are present. Excellent. Mayor Pro Tem, any changes to the agenda?

[6:30] at

[6:35] this time is a call for public comment on non-agenda items. At this time, when concerned

[6:42] members of the community may publicly voice their concerns and discuss items of interest,

[6:48] please note that no formal action will be taken on the matters raised during this time.

[6:54] Comments made during this time should be addressed to the Council and pertain to matters

[6:58] at least of general importance to the city and its operations.

[7:03] Please be aware that neither the city council nor the city staff are expected to respond

[7:09] or engage in discussion or debate.

[7:11] Please refrain from any personal attacks and disagreements, personnel and employment matters,

[7:18] and use of profanity or ethnic, racial or gender-oriented slurs as they may be considered disorderly conduct,

[7:25] which violates state or local law.

[7:35] Please introduce yourself, and the city clerk will let you know when you hit 30 seconds,

[7:44] and then let you know also when your time is up due to just technical limitations.

[7:52] Thank you, that sounds good.

[7:53] Beth McCorkle and Montrose, good evening, Mayor and Council.

[7:57] Council.

[7:58] What happened on the August 26 meeting was deeply troubling.

[8:02] Not because of any uncovered issues about the April election, but because of how the

[8:08] mayor and Chancellor Yuleberry treated the professional staff who served the city.

[8:13] The mayor pushed to exclude the city council or the city mayor and other staff members from

[8:18] the discussion involving their own work and conduct.

[8:21] Chancellor Yuleberry challenged the city attorney as he attempted to explain his legal and ethical responsibilities.

[8:29] The meaning became combative, disrespectful, and frankly, embarrassing.

[8:34] Our city employees should never be placed in a position where they must defend their basic rights, integrity, and professional responsibilities against the very elected officials they serve.

[8:45] The mayor demanded an independent investigation based largely upon the series of articles written

[8:51] by David White.

[8:52] Yet after an executive session, the council acknowledged that the April elective section

[8:59] was conductive properly and the results were accurate and there would be no investigation.

[9:05] In other words, after all the accusations, distrust and turmoil, no evidence was identified

[9:11] showing the election results were compromised.

[9:13] The mayor later said the resolution was necessary so that it would not rip this community apart.

[9:20] But the community did not create this controversy, staff did not create it.

[9:27] The mayor and those who promoted the unsupported suspicious suspicions created it.

[9:33] The mayor has turned a minor issue resolved,

[9:36] concerned into a full-blown controversy to justify the changes Montrose neither needs

[9:42] nor requests, while unfairly casting doubt on the integrity and reputation of our dedicated

[9:48] service employees, city employees.

[9:51] Even after agreeing to the election was sound, the mayor continues to suggest that something

[9:56] might still quote unquote pop up that does not restore public confidence.

[10:01] It keeps suspicions alive without evidence and leaves our employees defending themselves

[10:06] against an accusation that is never fully stated and therefore can never be fully answered.

[10:12] If the election process can be improved, then review it through normal transparent process.

[10:19] Ask questions respectfully, listen to professionals, identify specific concerns and propose specific

[10:26] solutions, but do not use speculation, inflammatory articles, or public confrontation to manufacture a crisis and then claim credit for resolving it.

[10:37] Mayor Mike and Chancellor Yuleberry, UO manager, city manager Bill Bell, city attorney Chris Dowsie, city clerk Lisa de Piccolo, and other employees involved a public apology on how they retreated.

[10:53] Leadership is not demonstrated by creating conflict.

[10:58] Leadership means lowering our temperature.

[11:00] I'm sorry, your time is up.

[11:02] Okay, I apologize.

[11:04] Montrose deserves better from its elected officials.

[11:18] My name is Cliff Farr, I live here in Montrose.

[11:21] Thanks for the new roundabout.

[11:23] Ed Oak Grove in Rio Grande.

[11:24] It's beautiful.

[11:25] Done early.

[11:26] Thanks very much.

[11:28] Our city posted a statement yesterday that all five of you agreed to regarding our 2026

[11:33] general municipal election. Part of the statement included the following. The city clerk,

[11:38] the city's chief election officer administered the 2026 general municipal election with rigorous

[11:44] neutrality to ensure a fair, unbiased and accurate outcome. The city council is confident in

[11:51] the accuracy of the final election results. Thank you, Mr. Piccolo. I expected nothing less

[11:57] from you and your colleagues. Well done. Let's review what led you to put out that statement.

[12:05] In the August 10th Mayor David White wrote, the facts are the facts. The 2026 mantra was municipal

[12:12] election was compromised. City leadership was steering the proverbial ship, i.e. the election.

[12:19] In some respects, what Tina Peters, former Mesa County clerk and recorder did and went to prison

[12:24] and for is child's play, compared to the documented election interference

[12:29] voiced upon us by our city leadership and investigation by powers higher

[12:34] than them is in order. In his August 17th writing, he quotes Russian dictator

[12:40] Joseph Stalin. I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote

[12:45] or how, but what is extraordinarily important is this. Who will count the

[12:51] votes and how. Mr. White says one is inclined to give credence to this quote as it seems

[12:57] to describe what has been happening in local municipal elections in Montrose for a number

[13:02] of years. And in his third writing of August 24th, David White stated, this municipal election

[13:09] was spoiled and violations of state law were made. There's more vitriol on various topics from

[13:17] Several writers in the August 31st mirror about the 2026 election, 9-11, Socialists, Communists,

[13:25] no Kings rallies, something about the King, Queen, and Joker, the inmates in charge of

[13:31] the asylum, and a surprising part four of David White's disinformation campaign.

[13:37] You were baited by this vitriol.

[13:39] You took action based on David White's disinformation.

[13:43] You, Councilman Wooden, Councilman Yuleberry, and Mayor Badiaco, the elected representatives

[13:49] for all the residents of Montrose attempted, without evidence but on hearsay, to start

[13:56] an independent third party investigation into a 2026 Montrose Municipal Election.

[14:03] But you didn't, once you heard the facts.

[14:06] You've earned a bit of trust with that statement you posted yesterday that all five of you

[14:11] agree to. Thank you, but it's not enough. We want to trust that you will honestly

[14:18] represent the concerns of all the residents of Montrose. Thank you. So we will

[14:22] continue to participate in these meetings and hold you accountable. Thank you.

[14:35] Holly speaks Montrose. I'm really disappointed by the lack of transparency and

[14:40] the lack of integrity shown by you guys. The Montrose City Council by the

[14:44] Montrose City staff and by the Montrose County Elections Office. Please make

[14:49] make sure that there are no personal attacks in this.

[14:52] For months now almost all of you have known what on the Dias have known what happened on

[14:57] the Elebral Election night and you've kept it from the voters.

[15:00] Members of Montrose. We kept asking you why they're rushed for these charter amendments. We kept asking you why do you want to move control of the city elections to the county? And in August 3rd, Mr. Wooden and Ms. Dopiccolo let the public in on what the rest of you already knew. She didn't have faith in the impartiality of the people who work at the county elections office. Could she mean Ms. Terry Stradley who's sitting in the back right now who works in the elections office at the Montrose County clerk's office and is good friends with councilman Wooden's wife who's sitting over here tonight.

[15:29] And now you don't want to investigate in an election that you won.

[15:33] Why? Why the sudden abrupt change? Are you afraid to what we might find out?

[15:38] It appears you're only using it as a convenient example to further your own agenda.

[15:43] Not to do what's right for the voters of Montrose.

[15:46] You know, those constituents, those pesky constituents, us, the people you're supposed to serve.

[15:52] President Trump has been pushing his big light to undermine the elections in November.

[15:56] He's desperately trying to block free and fair elections, democratic elections.

[16:01] He's going to end mail-in voting, target voter registration drives, and block vote counting.

[16:06] Just to name a few things.

[16:08] The way the city of Montrose, the county of Montrose, have conducted themselves so far regarding

[16:12] the April 2026 election is disgraceful.

[16:15] You all have shown a lack of integrity.

[16:18] You as the elected leaders and the city staff have failed the integrity test with a big fat

[16:23] F, you chose comfort over courage.

[16:27] You should have told the voters by at least May of this year, one month after your election

[16:33] what happened.

[16:35] You should have told us that you were there that night of the election.

[16:39] You should have told us that David White was there.

[16:42] You should have told us that your wife and you were sitting out in the hallway.

[16:45] Instead, you allowed David White to tell our community what happened.

[16:49] A trusted, not trusted, member of our community.

[16:53] You chose not what was right, which was to be transparent with all voters.

[16:57] You didn't choose the practice to practice the values that we ask of you, honesty.

[17:03] You are teaching the citizens about it.

[17:05] It's your not honest.

[17:07] You are expecting us to trust you.

[17:10] How can we trust you now?

[17:11] How can I rely on you now?

[17:13] So in conclusion, although my heart's broken, I want to thank you very much.

[17:17] I want to thank you very much for alerting me to the possibility that there's a person who works in the elections office who might tamper with the midterm elections.

[17:25] Thank you very, very much.

[17:31] Please.

[17:32] Please.

[17:35] Thank you.

[17:45] Kim Spangrid, Montrose.

[17:47] I just have a quick question.

[17:49] I was wondering if you got that information that you were going to give me about your job that you had in 2006,

[17:56] where you denied that you were fired and that you denied that the claim was that you were CEO and founder, and I'm not interested in you.

[18:08] You said you were going to bring the information, that's all I'm saying.

[18:11] I will email that over to you.

[18:13] You'll email it, okay.

[18:15] I will email it too.

[18:16] I'm wondering if you could provide it to the public.

[18:19] That's not something that I'm going to provide to the public, no.

[18:23] That was from 24 years ago.

[18:25] But your campaign ran on the fact that you were a CEO and founder.

[18:32] No, it didn't.

[18:32] It did not.

[18:33] Yeah, it did.

[18:34] I did not say that I was a CEO of wireless outputs, but I'm not going to get into that.

[18:38] Okay.

[18:38] At this point, but thank you.

[18:40] Okay.

[18:40] And then also I wanted to revisit something that came up on July 29, 2026 at the public comments of that meeting.

[18:53] on the audio transcript at 101-50-101-58 on the archived video of that city council meetings public comment period.

[19:08] Mr. Wooden told me publicly that he had not communicated with any county official.

[19:16] This is not an accusation. He just did tell me that when I asked.

[19:19] However, through a core request of emails, I discovered that he had in fact communicated

[19:26] with the county clerk, Tresa Guines, on May 7th, 2026 at 8.24 a.m. In that email, he

[19:34] wrote, and I am reading this directly, hi, Tresa, I heard that not all of the recent city

[19:39] election ballots have been run through the county counting machine.

[19:43] I am curious about this, not reading right or wrong, but regarding best practice.

[19:48] I wanted some more info before asking Lisa Delpick a little about it.

[19:53] Feel free to call myself if that is easier than emailing, he signed it with his phone number.

[19:59] I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm only trying to open the door to transparency.

[20:03] So I'm just asking, did you realize that you had commented, you had discussed elections with accounting official when I asked you and you said you hadn't, did you later just asking for transparency?

[20:16] We all make mistakes.

[20:17] 30 seconds. I have no idea. I would have to look at that tape and let you know

[20:23] it was going through my thoughts. But if you could email me the date, the time,

[20:29] and the time so they didn't write that part down. Okay. I can take a look at it.

[20:34] Probably not this week, but maybe next week. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you.

[20:38] Thank you.

[20:48] I want to make a comment and it's an opinion on a single point. And that

[20:52] That is the movement of the time of the elections.

[20:56] What I am hearing against it is that it will make it a more partisan election.

[21:06] The positives are what it will save us and the positives are the number of people who

[21:10] will vote.

[21:13] Our current election.

[21:14] This is going to be an agenda item.

[21:17] Pardon me?

[21:17] And this is going to be an agenda item, so if you could wait for the agenda item to come up, appreciate it.

[21:25] Thank you.

[21:27] It's actually the first agenda item.

[21:31] I'm going to talk about process, not personal stuff.

[21:36] The, by the way, Lisa has got a handout for you because I'm sorry.

[21:40] Well, I'm not going to sit.

[21:42] Thank you.

[21:46] 941, Black Canyon way, Lisa's got a handout for you because what I have to say, what's

[21:52] there, take me about five or six minutes and I want to keep the time.

[21:57] Comprehensive Plan 2, 008, created high-density lots, creating high-density lots adjacent to

[22:06] very low-density lots should be avoided.

[22:08] It included two concepts to facilitate that, feathering, which is the gradual transition

[22:15] of different residential densities and buffering such as landscaping to help ensure harmony

[22:21] between different types of residential developments.

[22:26] But they weren't carried over in the current comprehensive plan, and were also eliminated from

[22:32] the binding municipal code.

[22:33] when combined with a major loophole with the current minor subdivision

[22:40] regulations, adjacent land owners are vulnerable to lifestyle and property

[22:45] value deterioration. An example is the plan single building 160 unit hub

[22:52] apartments substituted for 500 apartments, the planning commission determined two

[22:59] density. However, its density is the same in five times that of adjacent spruce point

[23:06] in ten times cobble creeks. By the way, spruce point has the same zoning, but was restricted

[23:13] to one fourth of the density that that zoning allows. Where's the equity? I'm actually

[23:20] pro-development, but only if the interests of developers and citizens are in reasonable

[23:26] balance. The situations I had described are one-sided, so I asked that the council

[23:31] considered these corrective actions. Minor subdivision regulation change.

[23:38] Minor subdivisions were perhaps appropriate for the city years ago, but

[23:42] aren't justified today. Going forward, remove minor subdivisions from the

[23:47] municipal code. Alternatively, alternatively, limit minor subdivision size and

[23:53] require planning commission and city council approval regardless of size or type.

[23:59] Second, reinstate buffering and feathering into the municipal code.

[24:05] In addition to do these two consider, the current comprehensive plan doesn't include a comprehensive

[24:12] plan 2008 notion that the general public strongly supported growing growth playing its own way.

[24:20] Basically what I'm going to say here is low income housing I think deserves it, subsidies, but for profit don't, full profit projects don't.

[24:35] Secondly, in vision, I got a whole time left.

[24:40] Well, you can read it, but I'm just going to talk about just adhering to the comprehensive plan, even though it's not binding.

[24:47] Okay.

[24:58] Bob Nicholson, may your bad, I'm really disappointed in your behavior in specific.

[25:05] You know, leadership is not demonstrated by creating conflict.

[25:09] I saw your piece in the, or I heard your piece in the radio this morning.

[25:15] And it's just serving to create more conflict over an issue that's already dead.

[25:20] I don't know why you continue to stir the pot.

[25:24] I hate to wake you up, but you're back on the wrong horse, and you need to pay attention

[25:31] to that.

[25:32] This is the time to get off that track.

[25:37] Yeah, please do not attack.

[25:39] I agree.

[25:41] Excuse me.

[25:42] Please, personal attacks, please do not.

[25:46] That was an impersonal attack.

[25:47] It was a recommendation.

[25:49] All right.

[25:50] All right, please, please, please, people, let the gentleman talk.

[25:56] Yeah, how about that?

[25:58] Maybe we could add 30 seconds to the clock.

[26:00] I could finish.

[26:02] Okay, since I've been interrupted, I don't really have a whole lot to say,

[26:06] except I find this amazingly depressing.

[26:09] You can do better than this.

[26:10] You have to do better than this.

[26:13] And if you don't, it's going to be a serious problem, sir.

[26:17] Thank you.

[26:20] Please, people please, please,

[26:26] good evening, John Brown here.

[26:30] A lot of negativity this evening, I'd like to change that a little bit.

[26:37] Last public meeting that we had, we had a gentleman that resided up on Miami, he said that

[26:45] But the traffic that was going by was making so much noise and being so fast that he doubted

[26:51] that those residents on the north side of Miami were being disturbed.

[26:57] But I'm happy to see that the city has installed a speed indicator on Miami.

[27:05] That's very, very good.

[27:07] That's the quickest action I think of a very seeing the city come through and accomplish.

[27:14] The other thing I would like to bring up is that September 11th, which is going to be the 25th

[27:21] year of the World Trade Center. It's called Patriots Day. It is a day that we, as one nation,

[27:31] stood up together and against an enemy that attacked this country. And on that day,

[27:42] There's going to be a flag rally down at Townsend in Maine at the park down there.

[27:50] And then we're going to have a moment of silence at 6.46 a.m. when the north tower was

[27:58] struck by flight 11 at 703 when the south tower was struck by flight 175 at 7.37 when the

[28:10] Pentagon was struck by flight 77 in 803 when the flight 93 was brought down by

[28:20] the occupants of the airplane trying to fight this suppression that was coming

[28:25] on. Please come help us to remember help us to celebrate our country. This

[28:35] will not be a time as so many people here are concerned about to be

[28:40] partisan, but to be Americans. Bring your American flag only and support America on this

[28:51] particular day. This is almost as great as we celebrate 250 years of our nation and

[29:02] 150 years of Colorado. We still have the ability to do things, but we need to stand together

[29:09] as one unity because God bless America, God bless the USA.

[29:15] Thank you.

[29:15] May I say something?

[29:22] Mr. Brown.

[29:25] Thank you for your comments and for bringing that to our attention.

[29:30] I can assure you that as one matter that you and I can agree upon all of the time.

[29:38] and I really do appreciate your words and your comments and I do think it's a

[29:43] moment for all of us to remember who we are and what we all stand for despite

[29:47] our differences so thank you.

[29:52] During that, right after that period of time, we in America, we the people,

[30:00] We, the residents and citizens of this country stood for something and we stood up and we went

[30:07] to fight for it for those beliefs. How quickly, just like the Israelites did after, through

[30:16] the book of judges, that they forgot what they were doing. So that's what we've done.

[30:23] We need to come back to that beginning.

[30:24] Thank you, John.

[30:25] John, can I ask a question?

[30:28] Is those activities put to some place on the Internet?

[30:32] Speak up please.

[30:33] I'm having difficulty.

[30:35] Are those activities posted on the Internet somewhere so we could all keep track of it?

[30:42] I pick the information up from the mirror.

[30:45] I'm going to try to put it out as much as I can.

[30:48] And I'm sure that Lacey Sanchez, she's the one that has put pretty much put this together

[30:56] and that we'll try to get out to as many avenues as we can to let people know.

[31:01] Because like I say, this is not, we're all so concerned about partisanship.

[31:06] This is not about partisanship.

[31:08] This is about America and Americans and citizens of America.

[31:13] What about the, welcome home on trust?

[31:17] I'm sorry?

[31:17] Welcome home Montrose the welcome home alliance. Oh, that's I could yeah

[31:24] I need to tell them to I've got to get ahold of Amy with that

[31:28] Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thanks Sean

[31:41] Jim Anderson Matros. Can you hear me on that? Mm-hmm. I

[31:46] Watched the city council meeting last week and to say the least I was

[31:51] concerned

[31:54] It is my opinion that we have a

[31:56] a representative government and there's only five elected representatives.

[32:02] Those who work for the city are functional employees.

[32:05] They don't run the city.

[32:08] They're not accountable to us.

[32:10] Make sure that we do not talk about personnel.

[32:15] This is not personal, this is all process.

[32:20] Our five elected representatives, and we've had a lot of them over the years with various

[32:25] backgrounds and opinions and I just like to say if we have truly have a

[32:31] representative government we only have five representatives we're not

[32:36] elected by we did an elect staff staff does not work for us the county attorney

[32:41] does not work for us the city manager does not work for us they were for counsel

[32:46] and they're under your guidance and policies and you represent the city as far as

[32:52] election goes. I've been involved in elections over the years with both the county and the city,

[32:58] and I can tell you that I have very real concerns as to the process of the last election.

[33:07] And it is not all right with me just to say, oh, well, that was in the past. We may have some

[33:12] Title 31s, we have split votes, we have processes, we don't know who else influenced that election,

[33:18] did not inform us that election. So I as one individual in this town have real

[33:24] concerns as to the process in the manner of that way that election was handled.

[33:29] And we won't know the results. Now from a political Democrat or Republican or

[33:34] independent standpoint, but only facts. So I urge you to go forward, look into this and take the

[33:42] corrective actions that are necessary so we can again have or I can again have trust

[33:47] because having been involved I can tell you I see the possibility of numerous

[33:53] evaluations so I am concerned about our government and the voting process and

[33:59] how they were tabulated that's not to say anybody did anything wrong but we do

[34:03] need to investigate it and take a look at it and again we only have five

[34:08] elected representatives you representatives were you're accountable to the

[34:12] people and only you the city manager in the county attorney are not accountable to

[34:17] the people that are accountable to you. So thank you very much and appreciate all your efforts.

[34:24] People are going to have different opinions, but I hope you move forward and remember you're our

[34:29] only elected representatives and if we're going to have an elected representative government,

[34:34] you're yet. Staff is not yet. Thank you. Thank you.

[34:44] At this time do we have a motion to approve the

[34:47] minutes of the last two.

[34:52] I make a motion to approve the minutes of August 17, 2026.

[34:56] Special City Council meeting and the August 18, 2026 regular City Council meeting has presented.

[35:02] Second.

[35:03] I have a motion and a second please vote.

[35:39] Motion passes.

[35:42] Next is the ordinance 2727 second reading.

[35:46] City Council consideration of ordinance 2727 on the second reading.

[35:50] in ordinance of the city of Montrose, Colorado, submitting to a vote of the registered electors of the city of Montrose proposed amendments to the charter of the city of Montrose, Article 1, Section 8, and Article 3, Section 1 and 2 to change the dates of the general municipal election from April of even numbered years to November of even numbered years and setting the ballot question for November 3, 2026.

[36:26] I believe that Councillor Frank actually has a comment.

[36:35] I just wanted to make, yes, I thank you, Mr. Mayor, and excuse me, Chris.

[36:41] Members of the public, I just have some, actually, for me brief comments that I'd like to

[36:46] make that prefaces the consideration of the next few agenda items, which are the four

[36:53] amendments that are on second reading having passed at the last city council meeting.

[37:00] And if voted on and passed tonight will appear on the ballot.

[37:06] These are general comments.

[37:08] I will not speak tonight to each of the amendments.

[37:11] I think it's pretty clear where I stand and why I stand where I stand.

[37:15] but I do want to offer these comments primarily for the record of these proceedings and I understand

[37:25] that a communication recently went out encouraging members of a political party to attend tonight's meeting

[37:35] and characterizing those of us who oppose these charter amendments as part of the liberal left.

[37:42] I find that characterization quite unfortunate.

[37:48] More importantly, I believe it illustrates one of the concerns that I have expressed throughout this process.

[37:55] For those of you who may not know my history, I want served as the chairman of the local Republican Party here in Montrose County.

[38:07] Today, I am an unaffiliated voter.

[38:10] But neither fact has anything to do with why I oppose these amendments.

[38:18] There is nothing liberal or conservative about asking whether a proposed charter amendment

[38:25] is necessary.

[38:27] There is nothing Republican or Democrat about insisting upon a fair and delivered deep process.

[38:36] And there should be nothing partisan, nothing partisan, about serving the citizens of Machos.

[38:45] Unfortunately,

[38:49] unfortunately, I believe there is a growing effort to inject partisan politics

[38:56] into a municipal government that our charter deliberately makes nonpartisan.

[39:03] Montrose has a proud tradition of neighbors governing alongside neighbors, not Republicans

[39:14] governing Democrats, not conservatives governing liberals, but citizens serving citizens.

[39:26] I believe that tradition is worth preserving and protecting.

[39:34] We live in a country that is already deeply divided in partisan politics.

[39:39] I do not believe we should invite those divisions into our city hall.

[39:46] I do not want a mantras where every municipal issue is eventually viewed through a red

[39:56] lens or a blue lens.

[39:59] I want a mantras where we can disagree vigorously, vote differently, and still recognize that

[40:07] the person on the other side of an issue loves this community every bit as much as we all

[40:15] So, if these amendments are placed on the ballot tonight, which they will be, the debate

[40:24] will move from this council chambers to the citizens of Montrose.

[40:30] And I trust them.

[40:31] I trust them to look beyond labels.

[40:35] I trust them to ask whether these changes are truly necessary.

[40:41] I trust them to consider the motivation behind these proposed changes.

[40:50] And I trust them to hold the five of us accountable to our obligation to leave Montrose

[40:59] stronger, more united, and more worthy of extraordinary of the extraordinary community we have been

[41:10] privileged to serve. And I fear that the path that we are about to embark upon is contrary

[41:19] to that obligation, and I call upon all of our citizens to let that be known at the ballot box.

[41:27] Thank you.

[41:36] I'd like to make a comment that's contrary to Mr. Reed's comment about partisan.

[41:44] and it

[41:48] turned out to be my guess.

[41:49] Several people that got up to speak against the charter

[41:55] changes to begin with at the very instant

[41:59] that they were even initiated.

[42:03] Received calls from their particular political party

[42:09] to come and speak against this.

[42:12] I know for a fact, and I will not mention names,

[42:15] because they contacted me and said, we don't want to offend you, but we received

[42:21] this call from our local people to come over and protest. So, sir, the partisan

[42:30] politics started way before your comment tonight about adding whatever in the

[42:38] Facebook. So that's all I can say. Part, partisan politics was already here. Thank

[42:49] you.

[42:55] Mr. Downsons. Thank you, Council.

[42:59] Four Council is a second reading of four potential charter amendments that may be submitted

[43:04] to the voters of the city of Montrose. First reading occurred at regular city council meeting

[43:09] held on August 18th, where there was a robust discussion. Generally, on second

[43:14] readings, I have a much shorter presentation, but due to the importance of

[43:17] charter amendments, I again will go through all potential amendments in detail.

[43:22] As I did for first reading, I'm going to go do one presentation for all of the

[43:25] amendments, but since these are four separate ordinances, we are required to have four separate hearings.

[43:31] I will discuss these in two groupings again, so first two were discussed on July 29th at a special meeting held to discuss these and allow for public comment on these items.

[43:45] And then they were also discussed at the August 3rd work session.

[43:49] If passed one amendment would move the city elections from April of even numbered years to November of even numbered years.

[43:55] and the other will establish lifetime term limits of 8 years on council while allowing

[44:00] any council member to sit for 8 years consecutively regardless of what seat they possess.

[44:07] The second pair of amendments were discussed in open meetings at August 3rd, work session

[44:11] August 4th regular meeting. If pass one amendment would give council approval rights of the appointment

[44:17] or discharge of the police chief, the second would give the same rights as to the city clerk.

[44:23] to the election dates and term limits. There are red lines in the packet showing any changes

[44:28] that would be made to the voters. If the voters chose to adopt these amendments, but

[44:33] I will go through each change as I have them on the screen. Please know that these had

[44:38] to be written in harmony. So if one passes, it still makes sense within the charter. If

[44:43] they both pass, again, it makes sense for the charter. So with that, the first potential

[44:51] Again, is for moving the election date from April of even

[44:56] number years to November of even number years.

[44:59] This is going to affect

[45:00] Section 8, Article 1, Section 8. This is going to be for clarification. It's really as to any sitting member right now, if in fact this passes, that their four year or two year term is going to be extended for seven months.

[45:18] Term of office, this is really just going to be changing the dates of elections, so this would be the year moving from April of the even number years to November of even number years.

[45:30] and

[45:33] then in section two again this is going to be just changing the month.

[45:40] The

[45:40] question you will see on the ballot if this passes is shall article one and

[45:44] three of the charter of the City of Montrose, Colorado be amended to move the

[45:48] general municipal election from April of even numbered years to November of even

[45:53] numbered years. A yes vote will in fact change the date of the elections, a no vote,

[45:59] So then keeps the elections the same.

[46:07] The next potential charter amendment is for term limits.

[46:11] So this will be your lifetime term limits as well as it stands right now.

[46:17] The at-large seat, the seat with no district, the two year seat.

[46:22] They can only have three consecutive terms.

[46:25] This would change that so that they could have a fourth consecutive term.

[46:29] So any combination of eight years would then be available to any council member.

[46:36] So the only addition here in Article 1 is going to be in Section 7 and 8, I believe.

[46:43] So Section 8 says notwithstanding the aforementioned, no person shall be eligible to be a candidate

[46:49] for the Office of Counselor for the City of Montrose if such person has previously served

[46:55] eight years of elected service.

[46:56] So with this, as we sit right now, we have two council members that will go beyond eight years.

[47:06] Mr. Yuleberry has been on council for 15 years at this point.

[47:10] And if this were to pass, and we were to say that no one on council can be on for more than eight years,

[47:17] This would effectively have Mr. Yuleberry have to resign from Council.

[47:27] Now just putting it as to the candidates, he does not have to resign.

[47:32] Mr. Reed would hit eight years, I believe, some time either this year or next year, likewise.

[47:37] So it's written so that they would not have to resign.

[47:41] In terms of office, any council member may be elected to any combination of terms which

[47:48] total a years of elected service without a requirement of a waiting period as required

[47:52] by the Colorado Constitution.

[47:55] This again is for our district list seat, the at-large seat, so that there is not a waiting

[48:03] period for the six-year terms or two-year terms.

[48:08] And then vacancies, the addition is going to be no person who has served eight years of

[48:14] elected service in the Office of Counselors shall be eligible to fill a vacancy, whether

[48:19] by appointment, or election.

[48:21] If in fact there is a vacancy for any such reason, if someone has served for eight years, they're

[48:28] not going to be able to serve again.

[48:32] Moving to elections, term of office, this is going to have a new section added, or not

[48:39] a new section, but a new paragraph, no person shall be elected to serve more than eight years

[48:44] of elected service in that person's lifetime.

[48:47] After November 3, 2026, that is election date, such years in service may occur consecutively

[48:54] through any combination of four or two year terms without a requirement of the waiting

[48:59] period as required by the Colorado Constitution. Appointments through the vacancy procedure as

[49:04] defined by the section I just spoke to above shall not be counted for purposes of years

[49:12] elected service. So if there is in fact a vacancy someone is appointed as vacancy those years

[49:19] are not going to count as elected service. Additionally I used elected service if in fact the charter

[49:26] amendment, both of these charter amendments pass, the sitting council members who have

[49:32] the extra seven months, they were elected to four and two year terms. It's only going

[49:39] to be as to that, those extra seven months will not count because they were elected for

[49:43] four and two year terms. They weren't elected for four year and seven month terms or two

[49:48] year and seven month term.

[49:52] The question, the ballot question you will see if this passes

[49:55] is shall article one and three of the Charter of City of Montrose, Colorado, be amended to restrict council members to serve eight years of elected service in that person's lifetime with such eight years occurring through any combination of consecutive or non consecutive terms of office and shall this requirement apply to any candidate after November 3, 2026.

[50:18] I'm going to open it to questions on those two. Any questions from any council members?

[50:25] Perfect. I'll move right along.

[50:31] So the third potential charter amendment would allow for city council to

[50:41] have approval rights of the appointment or discharge of the police chief. Your red line is right here.

[50:47] So this will state if in fact it passes, the city manager shall be responsible for the

[50:54] appointment and discharge of the police chief subject to the approval of city council.

[51:00] The city manager shall have sole authority and responsibility for the supervision, management,

[51:05] administration and operation of the Montrose Police Department and for the direction and evaluation

[51:09] of the police chief.

[51:11] The city council's authority under this section shall be expressly limited to approval or

[51:16] or disapproval of the city manager's appointment

[51:18] or discharge of the police chief.

[51:20] Nothing in this section shall be construed

[51:22] to authorize the city council

[51:23] or any individual council member

[51:24] to direct supervised manager interfere

[51:27] with the police chief

[51:28] or the day-to-day operations

[51:30] of the Montrose police department.

[51:33] The question that will show up on the ballot

[51:35] if this passes is shall article eight

[51:37] of the charter of the city of Montrose, Colorado,

[51:40] be amended to allow city council the right

[51:42] to approve or disapprove the city manager's decision

[51:45] to appoint or discharge and discharge the police chief of the Montrose Police Department.

[51:50] Again, a yes vote will give council these approval or denial rights and then a no vote

[51:58] would keep the charter the same.

[52:05] This is for the same rights for the city clerk so this would be amended as follows.

[52:11] The city manager shall be responsible for the appointment and discharge of the city clerk

[52:16] subject to the approval of the city council.

[52:18] the city clerk shall be custodian of the city seal. The city manager shall have sole authority and

[52:24] responsibility for the supervision management administration and operation of the city clerk's

[52:28] office and for the direction and evaluation of the city clerk. The city council's authority under

[52:33] this section shall be expressly limited to the approval or disapproval of the city manager's

[52:37] appointment or discharge of the city clerk. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the

[52:42] city council or any individual council member to direct supervised manage or interfere with the

[52:48] city clerk or the day-to-day operations of the city clerk's office. This was

[52:52] slightly modified from the original version that showed up in the packet of

[52:57] August 18th. It was modified during the meeting and that was the the

[53:05] version that was approved by council so it's still it hasn't been amended

[53:13] in the ordinance, so it doesn't show as an amended ordinance, it just shows the new

[53:19] language in the ordinance.

[53:24] And then the question shall be, shall Article 8 of the Charter of the City of Montrose

[53:29] Colorado be amended to allow City Council the right to approve or disprove the manager's

[53:34] decision to appoint and discharge the city clerk?

[53:37] I will open it to questions from Council.

[53:41] Okay?

[53:42] So all I'll state here is again, we will need to open a hearing for each individual ordinance and I leave it to you all.

[53:52] At this time we will open up for hearing for the voter or for to move the elections.

[54:02] That's what we'll be talking about now,

[54:06] accepting public comment on that, excuse me.

[54:12] I hope each of you will vote yes to adopt ordinance 27-27, changing the city

[54:24] charter. Aside from a reduction in the cost of the election, there are other

[54:30] important facts for you to consider. Right now, the county processes federal,

[54:37] state and county ballots for November elections. The county has cameras in

[54:44] every room where ballots are handled including the counting room but the city

[54:51] has no cameras used for election purposes. The county uses electronic

[54:57] equipment to tabulate ballots but the city hand counts ballots. The county's

[55:06] Election Judges are barred by partisan teams from the public who are eligible electors.

[55:13] But the city employs, city employs as election judges and has done so for many elections.

[55:21] The county invites the public to the logic and accuracy testing of the electronic equipment system before an election.

[55:32] But the people relies on the city relies on people to do the counting.

[55:39] How do you test them?

[55:41] There are significant differences in how elections can be handled.

[55:47] Ordinance 2727, if adopted tonight, will give voters in the city of Montrose an opportunity to vote in November

[55:57] on changing the month of the election from April to November.

[56:02] In reality, the date change will give the city voters an opportunity to determine who

[56:10] will handle the elections for the city of Montrose in the future.

[56:15] If voters in November vote yes to move the date, the Montrose County Elections Office,

[56:21] this office, acting under an intergovernmental agency agreement, will conduct coordinated

[56:29] elections for the city of Montrose in the future. If voters vote no to moving the date,

[56:36] then the city will remain, the elections will remain with the city clerk in April as

[56:42] it is now. Tonight's vote is about giving the voters a choice. It's about letting the

[56:50] voters make a decision. This is your first step in letting the voters have a vote. Give

[57:00] us the opportunity and all of you please vote yes to place this ordinance on the November

[57:07] ballot. I don't know what's going to happen. Maybe all the Huha. You don't know what's

[57:12] going to happen among all the Huha. The voters should decide. Thank you. Thank you.

[57:18] My

[57:25] name is Cliff Farr. I live in Montrose. Mayor Badiaco, you need to see

[57:29] synthesis in your use of the City of Montrose Colorado logo logo on your

[57:34] Mayor's Minute page in the Montrose Mirror. It is at least unethical and likely

[57:40] illegal for you to use your public office to sanction these amendments that you

[57:44] yourself have brought forth and are stampeding to get out to the electrode of

[57:47] Montrose. Mr. Mayor in the August 24th Mayor you sanctioned this proposed

[57:52] was amendment in the mayor's minute by stating moving city elections from April to November

[57:57] will increase voter participation from 25 to 30 percent up to 60 to 87 percent and that

[58:04] will save up to $25,000 per election. Please provide the sources you use that will

[58:09] substantiate these claims. While participation may increase by volume if the election is

[58:15] moved from April to November, critics and some researchers point out downsides regarding

[58:20] starting the quality of engagement.

[58:22] Roll-off ballot fatigue.

[58:23] Longfall ballots mean voters must

[58:25] trudge through federal, state, and county races

[58:28] before hitting municipal questions.

[58:30] This cognitive load causes some voters to randomly gas

[58:34] or leave the bottom of the ballot blank.

[58:36] Information crowding.

[58:37] In the spring, local issues take center stage

[58:40] in commuting media and debates.

[58:42] In the fall, local measures are completely drowned out

[58:45] by multi-million dollar presidential senatorial

[58:48] or gubernatorial campaigns.

[58:51] Well, voters actually have enough quality information

[58:53] to make informed decisions on complex municipal issues

[58:57] when they are buried at the bottom of a massive fall ballot.

[59:00] What plans have you made to mitigate this risk?

[59:03] How will you ensure that enough quality information

[59:05] will be made available to voters

[59:08] so they can make informed decisions on municipal issues?

[59:12] You seem to have another motivation

[59:14] for pushing our non-partisan municipal elections

[59:17] to November. You've been quoted as saying, the coordinated elections are different, pointing

[59:22] out that if this amendment passes, the election process will shift entirely to the county.

[59:28] Why would the city of Montrose give up responsibility and accountability for municipal elections?

[59:35] That sounds dangerous and irresponsible, especially in light of the David White lead witch hunt,

[59:41] that you are a party too. A vote for this ordinance will lead to nationalized

[59:45] and partisan county run elections.

[59:48] A vote against this ordinance will keep our elections and non-partisan and local to our city.

[59:54] Vote no, our local issues deserve non-partisan elections.

[59:58] Thank you.

[59:59] Thank you.

[1:00:08] Kim Span-Grewd, Montrose. I want to address something that surfaced this week, and this doesn't really address whether I think that the amendments should pass or not, does have to do with the amendments. I want to address that a post from the Montrose County Republican Central Committee urging people to come to this meeting specifically to support what they called a conservative city council members, and framing tonight's agenda.

[1:00:38] specifically the charter amendments that address ballot measures on police chief and city clerk accountability election timing and term limits as partisan issues where the left quote unquote is resisting quote unquote.

[1:00:53] I have a question if I were a nurse practitioner in the health department and you came and you were having a life threatening illness.

[1:01:03] would you not want to see me because I'm not a Republican?

[1:01:15] And I'm serious.

[1:01:19] This body is not a partisan body. Article 3, Section 5 of our own city charter

[1:01:24] states plainly all special and general municipal elections for elective

[1:01:28] office of the city shall be nonpartisan. That's not my opinion. That's the

[1:01:31] governing document of this city. That's the legal document. Candidates do not

[1:01:37] run with the D or an R next to their name. Voters choose them based on their

[1:01:41] their judgment, their record, and their vision for this city, not for their party registration.

[1:01:45] When 80 group outside this chamber starts assigning party labels to sitting council members and

[1:01:51] asking the public to rally behind them on that basis.

[1:01:54] It is asking this council to abandon the very structure of our charter that our charter requires.

[1:02:00] My point here is simple.

[1:02:02] If being labeled conservative as opposed to signal honesty and accountability, why would a council member publicly deny communicating with the county official when

[1:02:11] the written record shows otherwise as I spoke earlier.

[1:02:15] The non-partisan structure exists for a reason.

[1:02:18] It was a deliberate choice by the people who wrote our charter

[1:02:21] to keep local governance potholes, water rates,

[1:02:25] police oversight, how we run our elections,

[1:02:27] nurse practitioners in the health department,

[1:02:30] insulated from the partisan fights that dominate state

[1:02:34] and federal politics.

[1:02:36] When a political party's county committee

[1:02:38] We start publicly branding, sitting council members as our conservative city council members as framing city business through left versus right that directly contradicts the charter.

[1:02:49] This council is sworn to uphold.

[1:02:52] How would you feel if a Republican governor changed the name of the Blue Mesa Reservoir to the Red Mesa Reservoir?

[1:02:59] come

[1:03:12] on Michael we got a laugh at that one. That was good.

[1:03:17] Good evening

[1:03:18] Councillors I'm Dave Stockton I live in District 4. Two weeks ago former

[1:03:23] Councillors spoke to why elections were moved from November. Per rationale was to

[1:03:28] take politics out of the elections and to meet the non-partisan language in the

[1:03:33] charter. That changed the place in 1994 and a service city well for nearly three

[1:03:39] in a half decades.

[1:03:42] Moving municipal elections from April to November may have unforeseen consequences.

[1:03:47] Whether it be one ballot or two ballots issued to the electorate, if two, what's the point?

[1:03:54] Will those receiving two ballots take the time to fill both out, or will they toss one or

[1:03:59] the other resulting in a diminished turnout versus the desired increase in participation

[1:04:04] you hope for?

[1:04:07] If municipal municipality issues appear on the general election ballot, they now become

[1:04:13] part of a coordinated election.

[1:04:16] Coordinated elections remove the city clerk from her role as election judge.

[1:04:21] Election process now falls entirely on the county clerk.

[1:04:25] We lose any oversight on the management of city issues presented to the electorate.

[1:04:31] Also has been argued numerous times over the previous months, voters will lose focus

[1:04:37] on local issues if bundled with November's general election.

[1:04:42] Here's what is at stake.

[1:04:44] In November, voters will make a decision regarding who will represent us in the U.S. Senate.

[1:04:49] We will make a decision on who represents us in the U.S. House of Representatives.

[1:04:54] There will be a valid issue regarding the state, amended in the state constitution.

[1:05:15] I ask that you delay any decision regarding moving the date of our elections until the municipal

[1:05:20] election in April of 2028. At that time, local voters will be focused on local issues.

[1:05:28] City Council, excuse me, will be focused on local issues, City Council candidates and

[1:05:34] critical issues such as proposed charter amendments.

[1:05:38] Keep it local, Montrose, and vote no.

[1:05:40] Thank you.

[1:05:41] Thank you.

[1:05:47] Holly speaks, Montrose.

[1:05:50] I just want to address a couple things.

[1:05:52] First thing is decorum.

[1:05:54] There's been name calling going on.

[1:05:56] It's not been me, but maybe you might want to address that.

[1:05:59] I am going to disagree with some people and I think this issue could have been fleshed

[1:06:04] out if we would have had the Citizens Commission, but here we are.

[1:06:09] Some may know I'm part of Indivisible and no Kings and also that she sure I have on

[1:06:14] is part of Common Cause and Common Cause has sued a lot of cities and also individual elected

[1:06:22] officials for their poor actions and common cause right now is suing the City of Colorado

[1:06:28] Springs to move their elections to November, their municipal elections.

[1:06:33] And so I'm going to say tonight that what we believe in is an representative government

[1:06:40] of the people by the people and for the people.

[1:06:42] So I'm going to keep an open mind and hope that your proposal, if it does pass, does bring

[1:06:52] a more diverse electorate into the municipal elections.

[1:06:57] I will say that I have concerns and worries about this election, this midterms.

[1:07:04] I will say as indivisible, I have worries and concerns that voters will be intimidated.

[1:07:10] So when I talk about my worries and concerns, they say that this will bring in more black,

[1:07:16] Hispanic voters, people of color, Asian people, into voting because we have

[1:07:22] more voter voters in November. Well if they're intimidated to go to the polls

[1:07:27] because they have the Trump train or Confederate flags across from our county

[1:07:33] election clerk are they going to be likely to vote? So I think we need some more

[1:07:38] data on that this year. So I really do hope that what you're proposing does happen

[1:07:43] this year, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:07:51] Bob Nicholson. Well, I'm having a little bit of

[1:07:56] trouble with the words coordinated partisan election. It seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me,

[1:08:03] Mayor Badiaco.

[1:08:06] The reality is there is too much stuff in the November election to make it possible

[1:08:15] for the citizens of the city to really go through all the issues and make

[1:08:20] proper choices. I am a firm believer in the kiss principle, which is keep it

[1:08:26] simple, stupid. That's and that's not a direct meaning to anybody. It's just the

[1:08:32] principle. But the reality is a separate election that is only on city issues

[1:08:40] focuses the people's attention on those issues and not on all this partisan nonsense that

[1:08:45] we have to vote for and accordinated and again it's an oxymoron to me because I don't

[1:08:51] see any coordination between the two parties at all. And so I'm against this and I'd like

[1:08:59] to see you folks vote no on it. Thank you. I

[1:09:12] apologize for not correctly reading what

[1:09:15] What was handed to him?

[1:09:16] No worries.

[1:09:16] Thank you.

[1:09:18] I want to pick up on what Ed said.

[1:09:21] He made the point, which I was about to do, that much though we try to keep it nonpartisan

[1:09:29] at the moment, if you look at our last few nonpartisan elections, they become very partisan.

[1:09:36] And so the argument that putting this election with a partisan election is going to make

[1:09:45] it partisan, I think is spacious.

[1:09:49] We are partisan, put it together with the rest of it, save us the money, get the votes out,

[1:09:56] have the city do what the city needs to do to educate its people, and please make it happen.

[1:10:03] But there are people who say that we have a problem with democracy at the moment.

[1:10:09] And this is how you do democracy.

[1:10:13] You don't do it by having a small group.

[1:10:15] You do it by putting it on a election that gets to the most possible people.

[1:10:20] I strongly support what you're doing.

[1:10:23] Thank you.

[1:10:28] Leigh of Anderson, loose mantros.

[1:10:31] Talk about ballot weariness.

[1:10:34] I think the people of Montros aren't real excited about having another ballot in the spring.

[1:10:41] And to have it all on one ballot, it makes a lot more sense.

[1:10:46] And again, the participation goes up.

[1:10:48] I wouldn't discredit Montrosians of being able to not get through the whole ballot because of these issues.

[1:10:56] Plus, in the past, we've had library issues on the November ballot and they were nonpartisan.

[1:11:01] And so, you know, there's no difference.

[1:11:04] So I support this.

[1:11:05] Thank you.

[1:11:11] John Brown, Montrose.

[1:11:13] What an unusual night for me.

[1:11:16] Twice now, I've had an opportunity

[1:11:19] to agree with Mr. Reed.

[1:11:24] We have agreed that we're all Americans,

[1:11:27] and we should recognize Patriots Day.

[1:11:31] But I also agree with Mr. Reed when he says,

[1:11:35] let the voters decide.

[1:11:37] This is not what this is all about.

[1:11:40] We should let the voters decide when we want our elections, when what kind of term limits

[1:11:47] we have for the city, because we have term limits everywhere for elected officials.

[1:11:54] Given the opportunity to let the people be involved, and I do agree with Mr. Yuleberry when

[1:12:02] And he says that this has already been a partisan situation.

[1:12:08] Long before it became the election that we had in April, it's always been more one direction

[1:12:17] or the other.

[1:12:19] And anybody that comes in here who has an opinion, has a belief core, belief in something, can't

[1:12:30] tell me that they're not partisan of something. Some people call it Republican, some call it

[1:12:37] Democrat, some call it the no kings.

[1:12:44] But the bottom line is that we all have core values

[1:12:48] that we're bringing into this situation. Some of us have God in our life and that's our

[1:12:55] core value and we look into that. That wouldn't make any difference to me concerning any of this

[1:13:04] if it wasn't something that I believed in through my core values of my God and letting the

[1:13:11] people decide because God did tell us as citizens to go out and be citizens and participate in our

[1:13:20] government. That means vote. 5% governing this panel, this board over the last since 94.

[1:13:31] With 5% of the population of Montrose saying we want this or we want that. Instead of

[1:13:38] allowing 65, 85% to make that decision. Bring it back to the people. And I don't know what

[1:13:46] But anybody else is afraid of if you're against the ordinances, then fine, vote your opinion

[1:13:56] in November.

[1:13:58] If you're in favor of it, vote your opinion.

[1:14:01] That's why we're doing this so that we can give the City Council our direction.

[1:14:07] Thank you.

[1:14:08] Thank you.

[1:14:14] Mr. Mayor, Council people.

[1:14:16] Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

[1:14:18] Janet Eckert, Montreal's native, I just want to make a comment that was said

[1:14:24] earlier that you trust the voters. So I trust the voters too. And I just would

[1:14:31] encourage you on on four of these amendments to bring it to a vote and let the

[1:14:35] voters have their say. And especially on this issue of bringing the voting into

[1:14:42] November, I'm a proponent of a bigger pool of voters. More people get to have

[1:14:47] input and so especially this first amendment I am in support of because I believe

[1:14:55] that we can trust people they will take the time to look over what's on the ballot.

[1:15:00] And this is a wonderful opportunity that you're giving the citizens to vote on things, and I thank you for it. Thank you.

[1:15:12] Aaron Renstrom, here are Monteros. Apologies for the fragmented thoughts that I have. I didn't plan this, prepare it or anything of that nature. Just along the way, I don't know if it was misunderstanding, misrepresentation or misinformation that attending these meetings, watching the online recordings, the cost statements about

[1:15:34] it's saving us money to be in November.

[1:15:37] There was a prior discussion with Clerk Lisa about there's no true known cost and it changes year to year because of sliding scale and how different components add.

[1:15:49] So to know the exact savings is a little difficult for me to reconcile the shift.

[1:15:56] I think that the I agree with other statements made that keeping the election in April.

[1:16:02] It gives our citizens or local residents to focus on issues and not be blurred lines with

[1:16:11] national and state level options, votes, ballot items.

[1:16:21] Question when the discussion was, what are the benefits of moving it to November,

[1:16:30] Mr.

[1:16:31] the election, 31 versus one.

[1:16:34] What are those underlying details?

[1:16:36] And again, it could be me because I'm not really

[1:16:37] big into politics.

[1:16:39] Just listen, try to do my part as a citizen.

[1:16:43] But what are those differences?

[1:16:44] And does it inadvertently cause some of our residents

[1:16:48] to not be able to vote comments tonight of fear of showing up

[1:16:56] because of a partisan interactions

[1:17:00] of the ballot, or is there a limitation of receiving the mail to provide a mail-in ballot?

[1:17:08] And I also thought that previously, during our discussions, it was stated that even though the mechanics of who counts what,

[1:17:16] the statement may have been made, may have heard it incorrectly,

[1:17:20] is that the same people still do the inside whether it's done by the county or by local city.

[1:17:27] And I could have totally misunderstood that discussion, but I, too, am with the crowd

[1:17:34] and support, keep it, like it was changed in 1994, keep it in April, keep it separate,

[1:17:40] let us focus on the important stuff for our city, and keep it separate from the national

[1:17:45] problems.

[1:17:46] Thank you.

[1:17:47] Thank you.

[1:17:54] Lacey Sanchez.

[1:17:56] I just want to thank each of you for being up here.

[1:18:00] you guys had a lot of attacks and that is super unfortunate.

[1:18:04] You would think that as a group of grown-ups,

[1:18:07] we could act like grown-ups and not like adolescent children,

[1:18:12] so I'm sorry for that.

[1:18:13] But I want to say I am unashamedly conservative,

[1:18:17] a mantra is resident and a proud American.

[1:18:20] So when I vote, I most definitely vote for people who have my values

[1:18:25] and who share my values.

[1:18:28] And I'm not ashamed of that.

[1:18:29] That's that's what our country was built on

[1:18:33] The the people who voted for you were both conservative and liberals

[1:18:39] so and independence and libertarian and all the other

[1:18:44] Multiple kinds of voters that are out there. I just want to say when it comes to

[1:18:50] My I live here in the city obviously, but my taxpayer dollars. I've got a young family

[1:18:56] I know how much because I have done my own investigative work with the county clerk in recorders knowing how much it costs for ballots to go out.

[1:19:08] I don't want to fork over that money for another ballot in the spring as well as another ballot for DMEA.

[1:19:18] I have multiple ballots that come in my mail every single year.

[1:19:23] If we are acting as voters like this is such an inconvenience to have multiple people on the ballot, that is your civic duty.

[1:19:38] My goodness gracious, we had people die for this nation so that you could vote who is representing you.

[1:19:45] And if you don't like it then don't vote.

[1:19:47] And if it takes you an extra five minutes, my goodness, get a drink of water or a sip of coffee.

[1:19:51] good gracious sakes like that is just ridiculous but what I would say is it is our

[1:19:58] liberty to vote it is our privilege to vote and gosh darn it it is our job to

[1:20:05] vote and so putting it all on one ballot and saving me some extra money yes

[1:20:11] please thank you that would be fantastic I would appreciate it thank you and

[1:20:18] And thank you for your hard work.

[1:20:19] I appreciate it.

[1:20:20] And I am so sorry for the disrespect

[1:20:22] that you get from these people.

[1:20:33] Please, thank you.

[1:20:38] My name is Norma Marstonic.

[1:20:41] And I have two comments in response to previous comments.

[1:20:46] So I was coming to a conversation the other day

[1:20:50] with a friend about the elections in April.

[1:20:55] And she said, what election totally

[1:21:03] missed it? She lives in Montrose. So yeah,

[1:21:09] November will be, will bring more people to vote. Number two,

[1:21:18] also as a response of a comment,

[1:21:21] I am Hispanic and nothing will intimidate me to come to vote.

[1:21:32] Do we

[1:21:49] have a motion?

[1:21:51] I make a motion to adopt ordinance 2727 on second reading as presented.

[1:21:56] Second.

[1:21:57] We have a motion and a second please vote.

[1:22:50] Motion passes.

[1:22:51] Next

[1:22:57] is ordinance 2728, which is, we will open up for public comment at this time for the consideration of motion or of ordinance 2728, which is the moving, excuse me, of the term limits that were discussed earlier.

[1:23:20] Cliff

[1:23:26] Farr live here in Montrose, Mr. Mayor and the August 24th Mayor, you sanctioned

[1:23:32] this proposed amendment in the mayor's minute by stating term limits for City Council

[1:23:36] will ensure regular turnover of ideas and prevent the advantages of long and

[1:23:41] come and see from limiting other voices. How to term limits ensure the regular

[1:23:46] turnover of ideas. Ideas come from people, not term limits. Why would you want

[1:23:52] to prevent the advantages of long and come and see. How does having experienced and knowledgeable

[1:23:57] citizens serving on the council limit other voices? Don't we have elections where voters choose

[1:24:02] who they want to represent them on council? Won't you just elect it in April to serve the residents

[1:24:08] of Montrose? You are an other voice and you don't provide the advantages of long and come and see

[1:24:15] to your role as mayor.

[1:24:17] Did you know that we already have term limits?

[1:24:20] The Colorado Constitution sets term limits for City Council members in Article 18, Section

[1:24:26] 11.

[1:24:27] In 2025, last year, the Montreal City Council put proposed charter amendments to the voters

[1:24:33] with ordinance 2690.

[1:24:36] That effort to modify term limits was rejected by the electorate.

[1:24:40] Why are you again trying to modify and restrict the term limit language from the Colorado

[1:24:44] the Colorado Constitution. The Colorado Constitution sets an eight-year term limit for district seats and a six-year term limit for the at-large seat.

[1:24:53] It allows resetting the term limit clock after four-year hiatus. These term limit rules have served the city of mantra as well.

[1:25:01] The proposed 2025 change to the mantra of city charter would have extended the term limit for an at-large seat from six years to eight years.

[1:25:10] why? It would have retained the term limits from the Colorado Constitution, but brought that

[1:25:16] language into the Montrose City Charter. Why? Those changes were not approved by the Montrose

[1:25:22] voters. The proposed 2026 ordinance 2728 amendment two would change the Montrose City Charter

[1:25:29] to also extend the term limit for an at-large seat from six years to eight years and at a lifetime

[1:25:35] time term limit of eight years. Again, why? What is the logic behind the proposed changes

[1:25:40] to the mantra of city charter regarding term limits? Why is the Colorado Constitution

[1:25:46] rule regarding term limits not good enough for the residents of Montrose? A vote for will

[1:25:52] restrict voter choice. It's trying to fix a non-existent problem as we already have term

[1:25:57] limits. A vote against recognizes that we have working limits now. There is no need to fix

[1:26:04] a non-existent problem. Vote no and retain the term limits in place today from the Colorado

[1:26:09] Constitution, eight-year term limit for district seats, six years for ad-large seat, and allow

[1:26:15] resetting the term limit clock after four-year hiatus. Thank you.

[1:26:20] Thank you.

[1:26:26] The liar, Mr. Yuleberry, I would like to thank you very much for your very, very long service to the city.

[1:26:34] I appreciate it greatly. I hope you will vote to vote yourself out of a job.

[1:26:47] I just want to say that term limits, limits corruption.

[1:26:51] And I don't like the fact that there can be a four-year hiatus

[1:26:55] according to the state statute, so I support this.

[1:27:01] Thank you.

[1:27:08] John Brown, yet again.

[1:27:12] Term limits, almost every aspect of our government,

[1:27:17] federally, state, county, all have term limits, very strict term limits.

[1:27:25] When you're through with your time, your time is up.

[1:27:28] You go back to your farm, you farm, you do whatever it is that you normally would do.

[1:27:33] In our past, our term limits have been take a four-year hiatus by being a board member

[1:27:39] or something like that, someplace else, and then come back in four years and redo everything

[1:27:44] that you did before.

[1:27:46] Isn't it all about new, even Mr. Frank had mentioned by having somebody in with new ideas?

[1:27:57] Mr. Reed, you and I are very gray-haired. We have been around for a lot of years.

[1:28:03] And we have seen the same things going over and over and over.

[1:28:06] Wouldn't it be nice to have some young ideas come in, some different ideas?

[1:28:10] is. And so I can't see restricting term limits by you not having this ballot out there.

[1:28:23] Depend on your constituency to believe that they know what's best for our county, I mean

[1:28:29] for our city. So if they want to vote for term limits, give them the opportunity. That's what this whole

[1:28:35] thing is, we're putting out ballot issues as Mr. Dozy brought up for ballot issues.

[1:28:44] And we're voting, you guys are voting on whether it should go forward to the county for

[1:28:49] the ballot issue, to be on the ballot.

[1:28:53] Why do we object to that?

[1:28:56] Are we afraid that the people are going to say, oh no, oh my gosh, we can't do that because

[1:29:02] we need to let the people do it.

[1:29:04] That's what the whole thing is about.

[1:29:06] We, the people.

[1:29:09] Thank you, Mr. Brown.

[1:29:13] We're on a roll.

[1:29:14] I'm sorry?

[1:29:15] We're on a roll together tonight.

[1:29:18] There's three things that you and I have a great upon.

[1:29:20] The two you already talked about.

[1:29:22] And the third one is the gray hair.

[1:29:26] But part I will disagree with you on is that this is, in my opinion,

[1:29:31] creating an issue where no issue exists.

[1:29:34] Our city goes back 144 years and four times in our history this has been not an issue but because I don't know that it was a problem, but it has occurred four times in 144 years.

[1:29:52] And I suggest that my math tells me that's not a problem that we need to fix and that's where you and I will disagree on that.

[1:30:00] That one, and I'm sorry we broke our record. Well, I believe that what I have seen in the 20 years I've been here. I haven't seen much change over that 20 years. I've seen the same people sitting behind the same counter and regulating and governing. Rather than bringing in new ideas. And I think that's what we need. Montrose is growing.

[1:30:27] We're a growing community.

[1:30:31] We need to get people in that have new ideas that are conforming with the new ideas that

[1:30:36] are coming about.

[1:30:38] Thank you, Mr. Brown.

[1:30:38] And we need that.

[1:30:39] Thank you.

[1:30:40] Mr. Brown, could I add to that comment, there are two young persons over there that a young

[1:30:49] lady and a young man over there that deserve an opportunity.

[1:30:55] And, like Mr. Blier said, I think that turn limits are good.

[1:31:04] It gives them the opportunity to sit over here instead of someone like myself that has

[1:31:14] donated my time to the community.

[1:31:17] Thank you.

[1:31:17] Don't you think it's time us to hear people step out of the way and young people in?

[1:31:23] Thank you, Mr. Brown.

[1:31:33] I agree with Mr. Brown about term limits, I think that that is very important.

[1:31:39] There is one point that I wanted to bring up is that if these amendments don't pass,

[1:31:45] the last time that people got something to pass last November, it was referred to as a coup.

[1:31:52] And so we need to realize that if these amendments don't pass, we all need to realize that everybody got out there and

[1:31:59] voted, and they showed their vote, and they showed their opinion.

[1:32:03] And I do hope that this community does not call it a coup.

[1:32:11] Thank you.

[1:32:17] Do we have a motion?

[1:32:18] Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to adopt ordinance 2728 on second reading as presented.

[1:32:24] Second.

[1:32:25] We have a motion to second, please vote.

[1:32:44] Next

[1:32:48] on the agenda, or next is ordinance 2729, which is for

[1:32:58] the approval of Council for the hiring and discharge of the city police chief public

[1:33:13] comment on that please.

[1:33:22] Beth McCorkle, boy, we have a tough crowd tonight, don't we?

[1:33:26] Okay, so talking about the police chief, public safety is essential to the quality of life

[1:33:33] and well-being of the Montrose residents.

[1:33:36] The current manager, Councillor Structure ensures that the city council does not overreach

[1:33:42] and that qualified, experienced city manager oversees that appointment, discharge, and the

[1:33:48] the day-to-day management of the chief of police.

[1:33:52] Changing that charter so that the City Council ultimately approves the appointment,

[1:33:57] discharge of the chief of police risk injecting special interest from council members who were not trained professionals in local government management or public safety.

[1:34:09] Thank you.

[1:34:10] Thank you.

[1:34:11] And

[1:34:18] Dave Stockton again,

[1:34:21] it appears we're at the end of the journey to get your four proposed amendments on the November 3rd ballot.

[1:34:27] I've been outspoken about all four, I've been most outspoken with respect to the city manager, having to gain approval from the city council to a point or discharge the chief of police and the city clerk.

[1:34:41] the proposed language simply adds a bureaucratic step to what should be the sole responsibility of the city manager.

[1:34:49] In fact, the proposed language is very specific in limiting city council's authority.

[1:34:55] The proposed language expressly prohibits council to interfere with day-to-day operations of either position.

[1:35:03] I fear this or a future council will find a workaround.

[1:35:08] That work around would be preemptive in nature.

[1:35:12] Council could simply disapprove of any candidate that is not aligned with their belief system.

[1:35:18] Because of that, the chief of police and city clerk now become political appointees.

[1:35:24] Another unforeseen consequence.

[1:35:27] So once again, I ask all of those in attendance, either physical or

[1:35:31] virtual to join me in voting no and no for proposals.

[1:35:42] Mr. Mayer, in the August 24th mayor, you sanctioned this proposed amendment in the mayor's

[1:35:48] minute by stating, this gives elected officials a safeguard role limited to approval or rejection.

[1:35:54] It does not allow the council to initiate either action, nor does it grant any operational

[1:35:59] control over the chief or the department.

[1:36:02] A safeguard role is a position of responsibility.

[1:36:05] A safe guard role is a position or responsibility dedicated to protecting people's health, well-being, rights, and safety, so they live free from harm, abuse, and neglect.

[1:36:17] In a council manager government, the mayor acts as a ceremonial head of the city and a voting member of the city council without administrative executive power.

[1:36:26] And a councilman manager government, a councillor, serves as an elected policymaker who represents

[1:36:32] the community and sets the strategic direction for the municipality.

[1:36:38] The mayor and councillor roles are in conflict with the safeguard role, neither the mayor

[1:36:43] or councillor and a councillor manager government has a safeguard role.

[1:36:48] There are serious concerns to be raised regarding council authority to approve or reject the

[1:36:53] police chief. Giving City Council approval to hire and fire police chief can politicize

[1:36:58] law enforcement, create gridlock during leadership crises and blur lines of accountability.

[1:37:04] Political interference. Council members may prioritize political or voter trends over

[1:37:10] public safety needs. Candidates may be chosen for their political alignment rather than

[1:37:15] professional skill. Decisions to remove a chief can become partisan battles instead of performance

[1:37:20] reviews, operational delay and gridlock, public safety can stall if a council and mayor

[1:37:26] disagree on a candidate. Vacancies in the top police job can last a long time during

[1:37:32] political arguments. Emergency changes in leadership become hard to make quickly during

[1:37:37] a crisis. Blurred accountability. Citizens may get confused about who is truly in charge

[1:37:43] of the police department. A mayor can blame the council if the police department performs poorly.

[1:37:48] The council can claim it only has a say in hiring not daily operations.

[1:37:53] A vote for will let parsing politicians police our city.

[1:37:57] A vote against will keep parsing politicians away from policing our city.

[1:38:02] Stop this government overreach and protect the rights and freedoms of all residents of Matros.

[1:38:08] Support the blue line and vote no on ordinance 2729.

[1:38:12] Here I

[1:38:18] am again, Lee of Anderson's loose.

[1:38:22] You've heard the expression two heads are better than one.

[1:38:24] Well, I think five heads are better than one, and I think that having the council being

[1:38:31] overseaers provides a safety net, so I support this.

[1:38:35] Thank you.

[1:38:38] May I just correct it, and, ma'am, ma'am, I just wanted to, with all due respect, just

[1:38:48] correct one thing. This is not about oversight as you just mentioned it's

[1:38:53] participation and approval of the hiring and firing but not the oversight and I

[1:38:58] just wanted to make that clear. Thank you.

[1:39:05] Rick Byer again. I want to start off by

[1:39:08] saying I live in Montrose. I love Montrose. It's a well-run city. Thank you city

[1:39:14] manager. The city manager in all cases runs our town. He controls the two people who are

[1:39:25] up for this discussion. He does it without any oversight. He is not elected. You people

[1:39:35] are the elected people. The way I read this, and it's not the word on the street, the way

[1:39:42] I read this. He has complete authority on how his people are run. It's only when he

[1:39:51] comes to you for a new person that you get to look at that person and say does that person

[1:39:59] agree with the way you would like the city run? I think that's a very important role for

[1:40:05] you to have, I very definitely supported.

[1:40:15] John Brown. I'm a little perplexed about this, I think. I believe the city manager and

[1:40:29] the city attorney serve at the convenience of the council and that the city manager does

[1:40:39] the selecting and hiring and firing with the approval of the council and that's what

[1:40:46] this proposal is. It's not a matter of this council governing, jumping in in the middle

[1:40:53] of Mr. Bill's program of taking care of the city. But it is, I think it is, showing that

[1:41:03] we have that the city council has oversight over Mr. Bell and that Mr. Bell needs to follow

[1:41:09] with the avenue that the City Council is going.

[1:41:16] I just see that as a, we're just identifying

[1:41:20] something and writing that says we are allowing Mr. Bell to continue to hire and fire City

[1:41:28] council, I mean, police chief and the city clerk, but it's with the idea that the city council

[1:41:42] is monitoring the city manager to make sure that he's conforming to the rules and regulations

[1:41:49] that are within the city.

[1:41:51] Thank you.

[1:41:52] Thank you.

[1:41:53] We

[1:41:59] have a motion.

[1:42:00] I make a motion to adopt ordinance 2729 on second reading as presented.

[1:42:06] Second motion in a second.

[1:42:11] These folks motion

[1:42:29] passes next

[1:42:35] is ordinance 2730 for the same issue for the city clerk.

[1:42:42] We'll now accept public comment.

[1:42:51] Cliff Farr, a mantra was Colorado.

[1:42:53] Again, Mr. Mayor in the August 24th, Mayor Euth Sanction, this proposed amendment in the

[1:42:58] mayor's minute by stating, this gives elected officials a safeguard role limited to approval

[1:43:03] of rejection.

[1:43:05] As I said before, the safeguard role is a position or responsibility dedicated protecting

[1:43:10] people's health, well-being, rights, and safety so they live free from harm, abuse, and neglect.

[1:43:16] You do not have that authority as the mayor or as a council member.

[1:43:19] The

[1:43:22] year there are serious concerns to be raised regarding council authority to

[1:43:26] prove or rejects the city clerk allowing a city council to hire and fire the

[1:43:31] city clerk can reduce administrative efficiency blur the lines between

[1:43:35] governance and daily management and create political instability within the

[1:43:39] municipal staff operational and governance concerns loss of neutrality council

[1:43:45] control may pressure clerks to align with a political majority rather than

[1:43:50] serving all residents fairly. Operational friction. Direct Council oversight can create friction

[1:43:56] between the administrative staff and elected officials. Blurred lines. Mixing legislative policy

[1:44:03] duties, your duties, with daily staff management, weekends, a traditional council manager, separation

[1:44:09] of powers. High turnover. Political shifts on the council can lead to frequent disrupted

[1:44:18] We've all seen what happens when unqualified individuals are allowed to influence our election process.

[1:44:24] The evidence in facts are clear, as stated yesterday, by all the councillors on the dius today.

[1:44:31] The city clerk, the city's chief election officer, administered the 2026 general municipal election

[1:44:39] with rigorous neutrality to ensure a fair, unbiased, and accurate outcome.

[1:44:45] The City Council is confident in the accuracy of the final election results.

[1:44:52] A vote for will let partisan politicians meddle in our election process.

[1:44:56] A vote against will keep partisan politician

[1:45:00] Questions out of our elections. Protect our elections and protect Montrose, the best-run, small city in Colorado, vote no on ordinance 2730. Thank you.

[1:45:16] Rick Blyric, and I just listen to the person in front of me. And I think that what he speaks is the feeling of the community, that what you are asking for is higher fire authority. When I read of this, you do not have higher fire authority.

[1:45:33] You do not have the ability to initiate of hiring or a firing.

[1:45:39] All you have is the ability to say when the city manager comes to you with a new recommendation

[1:45:47] that you think that that person is competent to do the job that you want done or not.

[1:45:53] It's not a case of giving you an authority to meddle within the city as is what I hear

[1:46:02] on the street. Please vote for it, give yourself the oversight so that our elected officials

[1:46:10] have the last word. Thank you.

[1:46:22] Again, I don't know why so many people are objecting to

[1:46:26] letting the public decide what is going to be best for our community. I think we should just abandon

[1:46:34] And in all of this whole rhetoric, we should elect our own police chief.

[1:46:40] We should elect our own city council.

[1:46:44] We should even elect our own city manager.

[1:46:49] That way we don't have anybody to complain about any of this except ourselves because we

[1:46:55] elected who we did.

[1:46:58] Obviously, that's not following true with the rest of the people here.

[1:47:01] So why don't we just put the ballots out?

[1:47:03] let us vote on it in this fall. And I think the rhetoric that was said earlier was that maybe the blue wave

[1:47:12] I think oh wait a minute we can't bring in partisanship into this. Let the public decide. We'll just let that happen.

[1:47:20] Thank you.

[1:47:29] Ron Henderson, Maros Carlisle.

[1:47:32] We all are, there are a lot of things that happen tonight are entirely commendable.

[1:47:39] And we should be very proud of ourselves that we have such a gathering and there's been

[1:47:47] an expression of an awful lot of ideas and personal preferences that are the imaginative

[1:47:57] and their imagination.

[1:48:01] The fact of the matter is we're trying to set up a system where it goes ahead and takes

[1:48:07] care of the realities of what goes on in the daily goings on in Montrose Colorado. We have

[1:48:16] experienced a great lifestyle and working with very little and it's been absolutely marvelous.

[1:48:27] It's nice to see that there's so many people that are moving in here to Montrose that are going to go

[1:48:34] ahead and show us what, how things are done, and all of that, those things are necessary.

[1:48:43] But the fact of the matter is we still remain with the necessity of developing the bones,

[1:48:52] the skeleton of how this thing is going to go ahead and work, the city of tomorrow's.

[1:48:57] So, I really appreciate the results of our last election and the entrance of New

[1:49:08] Counselors and the opportunity to bring forth some changes that are necessary.

[1:49:18] The fact of the matter is if anything goes wrong, it may be a long ways away from the

[1:49:26] the real source of the problem in my roles,

[1:49:29] but as far as city's government's concern,

[1:49:32] you go ahead and fire the manager,

[1:49:35] and then you go ahead and work from there.

[1:49:38] And it takes a lot of time,

[1:49:40] and it's very unnecessary and very inefficient.

[1:49:44] I think that we have the opportunity

[1:49:46] to get things put together in such a manner

[1:49:49] that we would be able to go ahead

[1:49:51] and meet the results of realities that come forth,

[1:49:54] We're not the imaginings of the people who said it, they're computers.

[1:50:00] So I really support what you're trying to accomplish with these changes.

[1:50:07] Thank you.

[1:50:08] Thank you.

[1:50:15] Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to adopt ordinance 2730 on second reading as presented.

[1:50:22] Second motion and the second please vote.

[1:50:36] Motion passes.

[1:50:37] Next

[1:50:41] on the agenda is the Vehicle Purchase Approval City Council of consideration of the purchase of an F-150 from Silt-Telharm Motors out of Brunefield, Colorado for a total price of $63,500.

[1:51:00] $1 weeks, super-intended, Shane Brand.

[1:51:04] I'll be covering tonight, Mr. Mayor.

[1:51:06] Okay.

[1:51:06] Thank you.

[1:51:07] Mr. Schein.

[1:51:08] And actually, I'm sure this is the real reason

[1:51:10] that everybody came tonight here about this F-150

[1:51:13] that we'd like to purchase for the police department.

[1:51:16] So this is for detectives department,

[1:51:20] or division within the police department.

[1:51:22] And this is a budget item within the 2026 budget.

[1:51:26] It's a little bit unique because in this year's budget,

[1:51:30] that we planned on selling a transit van that the police department was using that was

[1:51:36] a little bit underutilized to be able to use those proceeds to purchase this F-150.

[1:51:42] So that van has been sold and along with those proceeds along with the budget amount we're

[1:51:50] able to make this purchase.

[1:51:53] That total amount is $62,000, which was collected.

[1:51:58] and the purchase of this vehicle is $63,500, so it is slightly over the amount allocated for the vehicle, but we had significant savings in our large patrol vehicle purchase earlier this year, which can cover that difference.

[1:52:12] So with that, I did receive a few questions about this item from Councillor Wooden, and I'd be happy to answer some of those here.

[1:52:23] So, one question was about why a truck versus an SUV similar to maybe similar or other

[1:52:29] police vehicles and we've done a lot of work on this actually from a fleet perspective.

[1:52:36] There's the F-150 is the lowest cost, like life cycle cost vehicle, that is available

[1:52:43] for fleet operations and so that's what we're looking at from the only from the fleet

[1:52:48] side of it is what can we get out of this vehicle when we sell it basically. The F-150 has the

[1:52:54] highest resale value out of any other option. They have a very similar upfront cost, they have a

[1:53:00] similar cost of fuel and maintenance, but the resale value is much higher on the F-150. So from

[1:53:08] the fleet perspective that's why we choose the F-150 when we can, but from the operational side on

[1:53:13] the police department there are a lot of times when they do need a pickup. So they are hauling

[1:53:18] small trailers on occasion, they're hauling equipment in the truck and there is times when

[1:53:22] the SUV just simply doesn't fit their need.

[1:53:27] What model or trim level is this F-150?

[1:53:32] So this is, it's called an XLT, but in the range of levels, that's level two of eight.

[1:53:40] So it goes all up to gold platinum level and then the bottom is the XL, the second level

[1:53:47] is XLT.

[1:53:48] So this is two of eight, which is pretty typical for a lot of our city vehicles.

[1:53:54] Again, from a fleet perspective, it's about resale.

[1:53:57] You're able to recoup that resale amount a little bit higher if you choose not the lowest option level, right?

[1:54:04] Crank windows don't sell very well.

[1:54:05] So the notable upgrades, it does have a towing package on the truck, that is something that's utilized by the police department.

[1:54:15] but also it's hard to sell a truck without a towing package on it so you can see

[1:54:20] like a lot of from the fleet time we're always looking at it from the

[1:54:23] resale portion of it because that really does calculate into our overall fleet

[1:54:28] approach and that leads into the last question which is about the serviceable life

[1:54:33] of this vehicle. We have this one set at 10 years. Ideally it's less than that we

[1:54:39] would from a resale standpoint again. It's better to sell these vehicles at a much

[1:54:44] shorter life. But that comes with a very high upfront cost to be able to turn over your

[1:54:50] fleet that much more often is the expensive. So we have to kind of balance the life of the

[1:54:57] vehicle that it can truly serve versus being able to purchase more vehicles more frequently.

[1:55:03] So this one said it 10, 10 years of life, but again, ideally we'd be more than that 8 range,

[1:55:09] 7 or 8 years would actually be better. But it just simply has an upfront cost to be able to move

[1:55:14] our fleet in that younger direction. So anyway, I think that answers the questions

[1:55:19] that Adam had for Fleet Superintendent. I'd be happy to answer any more if there are

[1:55:26] any more.

[1:55:29] Any other questions from Council? At this time, we'll open it for public comments.

[1:55:43] Lee of Anderson, I'm assuming that a lot of research was done with different car truck

[1:55:51] sellers before you made silter on your choice because I've had a very bad

[1:55:57] experience with that company. So I just wanted to make sure that you have your

[1:56:03] T's crossed and your eyes dotted. Yeah absolutely I can answer to that. So

[1:56:07] silter motors is the state bid what we're wintering Colorado this year it has been

[1:56:13] for several years and that's where we're able to take advantage of government

[1:56:17] and pricing on vehicles and so they are the state bid award for the year and so most vehicles

[1:56:25] we purchased come through Siltar at least for this year and it has been that for the

[1:56:29] last several. Siltar has been the state bid winner for several years now. I mean we've

[1:56:33] had good experience with them. Good. I'm just glad was just concerned. Thank you.

[1:56:39] Thank you. We

[1:56:44] have a motion. I just may or I move to approve the purchase of an F-150

[1:56:48] 50 from Cill, Tahar, Motors, out of Brunville, Colorado for a total purchase price of $63,500 as presented.

[1:56:56] We have a second.

[1:56:57] Second.

[1:56:59] We have a motion and a second.

[1:57:01] Please vote.

[1:57:13] Motion passes.

[1:57:15] Next up is the 2026 Montrose Permanent Fund Contribution to Colorado Mesa University.

[1:57:22] City Council consideration of the city's 2026 annual budgeted contribution to Colorado Mesa University in the total amount of $325,000 comprised of $250,000 toward the Colorado Mesa University Foundation permanent endowment fund and 75,000 toward the CMU City of Montrose Scholarship Fund, City Manager Bill Bell.

[1:57:48] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:57:51] Oh, yeah.

[1:57:53] The attorney, I sent on the advisory board for the, would it be possible for me to be in this conversation?

[1:58:02] The advisory board is fine.

[1:58:04] If you were actually on the board of directors or something like that, that would be the conflict just sitting on the advisory board.

[1:58:10] Okay.

[1:58:11] Okay.

[1:58:14] Mr. Mayor, we have, we talked about this at work session. This is the follow up

[1:58:18] to that discussion. In the council packets, you have a description of the MOU between

[1:58:23] the City of Montrose and Colorado Macy University, establishing in 2023 the permanent endowment

[1:58:32] fund, which is to build a capital fund for future improvements at the CMU Montrose campus.

[1:58:38] the goal is to have a total fund of around two million dollars by 2028 and so

[1:58:45] the city committed to matching a CMU annual commitment to put money into

[1:58:51] that fund 2026 would be city 250,000 as you mentioned and then that would go

[1:58:57] through 2028 and that's to be used for expansion of the physical campus adding new

[1:59:03] academic offerings and ticing professors to come and work here at CMU Montrose

[1:59:07] and then moving forward different types of programming that might come about it's really in perpetuity so it's to really plan for the long term expansion of the CMU Montrose campus.

[1:59:19] And then the 75,000 has been a tradition by the City of Montrose to contribute to the Montrose Scholarship Fund which helps Montrose school district students who will be attending CMU through a traditional college scholarship program.

[1:59:32] This

[1:59:36] council will have any questions on this.

[1:59:39] I just have a comment, I think this is a great program, really does a lot for the people

[1:59:45] of Montrose and the students coming up, I think it's a great program,

[1:59:59] at this time we're

[2:00:00] Opening up for public comment. Steve Muthini, I'm the director of the Montrose campus of Colorado

[2:00:06] Mace University, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I didn't realize this was going

[2:00:12] to be quite this kind of a meeting, but I'm happy to be at the tail end of the presentations.

[2:00:19] In all seriousness, super appreciative of the relationship that we have with the city and

[2:00:26] work that's been done in the past. A lot of people don't realize this, but

[2:00:31] Montrose is a college town and we have to act like a college town if we're

[2:00:35] going to grow like a college town and that brings a lot of youth and energy

[2:00:39] into our community. The other thing I'd like to say before I thank the

[2:00:45] council is I always try to use my elevator speech that I have told to the

[2:00:49] trustees. I predict about 90% of the people that live in Mesa County realize

[2:00:55] that CMU exists. Maybe 85% maybe 95% but there's a lot. I use the same statistic in

[2:01:03] Montrose that only about 30% of the people that live here actually know we

[2:01:07] have a university and probably only about 5% of that 30% realize that we

[2:01:12] actually have a trade school. So if you do the math on compounding those errors not

[2:01:17] that many people know that and so the efforts that have gone through by the city

[2:01:22] to try to make sure that our campus is available to the students here hasn't

[2:01:29] gone unnoticed. Sometime in November for Thanksgiving we try to bring the

[2:01:35] students that have been part of the Montrose Success Fund here in front of

[2:01:39] council so you can see the students that actually get to are rewarded by that.

[2:01:44] About 40% of the people two years ago that passed across Montrose high

[2:01:49] schools stage said they were just going to enter the workforce. That makes me nervous

[2:01:55] when somebody is just out of high school and they are just going to enter the workforce.

[2:01:59] So what we have done is through these programs that the city has sponsored the Montrose Success

[2:02:05] Fund, it is essentially free to attend the Montrose campus. So we have the trade school.

[2:02:12] It is not just a master's degree in anthropology that somebody may want to get. We have welding

[2:02:17] and we have machining and we have nursing and we have a police academy.

[2:02:22] We have all these trades and it's super important for the people in our community to know

[2:02:26] that that's there.

[2:02:27] That work would not be possible without the city.

[2:02:31] We have a pedestrian friendly campus thanks to us being able to close cascade and also being

[2:02:38] able to close south third street.

[2:02:40] All those things as we continue to grow our campus are super important.

[2:02:44] I'd like to personally thank Bill for his effort and all the things that we've done in our community and David Raid used to be the chair of the trustees.

[2:02:53] All of the things that we have going for us in Montrose as we continue to grow this campus is incredibly important.

[2:02:59] And then finally Dave Frank is actually on the advisory council in grand junction for culinary and that's next.

[2:03:05] So thank you for your support.

[2:03:07] Thank you.

[2:03:16] A number of years ago, I sat on the root and advisory council, and at that time we,

[2:03:24] Mesa State, had a large piece of property east of town on Highway 50, it's now a school.

[2:03:34] I advocated holding that to make it a full-size, live-in campus.

[2:03:42] We haven't done that.

[2:03:43] And we're trying to build a campus within the city which automatically limits the size

[2:03:51] of the campus.

[2:03:52] I'm wondering what thought has been given to eventually having a campus outside where

[2:03:59] you have a quadrangle and a bunch of buildings around it that looks, feels, and educates

[2:04:05] as a traditional college.

[2:04:09] Thank you.

[2:04:21] Julie Yarnell, Monchers.

[2:04:23] I just want to thank the Council for their support of the CMU campus.

[2:04:29] I know there's been a lot of mentioning of we need to bring some youth and

[2:04:33] new blood into our community and that's a very positive impact for

[2:04:38] our youth that live here to have opportunities to stay here, grow here, spread their entrepreneurial ship, create new businesses.

[2:04:48] And so I hope that you continue to support this program.

[2:04:51] Thank you.

[2:04:52] Thank you.

[2:04:52] Have

[2:04:57] a motion.

[2:04:58] Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the city's 2026 annual budget contribution to Colorado

[2:05:04] Macy University in the amount of $325,000 as presented.

[2:05:09] Second.

[2:05:10] We have a motion.

[2:05:11] Second.

[2:05:11] Please vote.

[2:05:14] I'm sorry.

[2:05:15] Did Mr. Frank, did you have a comment?

[2:05:21] No.

[2:05:21] I was second in the motion.

[2:05:22] Okay.

[2:05:44] Motion passes.

[2:05:45] Next

[2:05:49] is ordinance 2723, the second reading, the city council consideration of ordinance 2723 on second reading and ordinance of the city of Montrose, Colorado, vacating portions of a drainage easement within the city of Montrose, city, engineer Scott Murphy.

[2:06:05] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:06:07] Well, this is the third time we've talked about it, I'll keep it brief and no changes since

[2:06:11] the last time we've talked about it.

[2:06:13] But this is over in Sunrise Creek, but attention pond was built with the original subdivision

[2:06:18] and the plating and the actual construction were a little mismatched, the area that they

[2:06:23] reserved on that easement was quite a bit larger than the pond and unnecessary the pond is

[2:06:28] large enough to serve its needs and isn't needed for any maintenance access on the side

[2:06:32] that's looking to be vacated.

[2:06:33] So, the owner of the land there reached out to us for questioning that we vacate this.

[2:06:39] We agreed to it in concept to bring it before council and in response to that they hired

[2:06:44] the survey, did all the survey work necessary to do this so with that we prepared the ordinance.

[2:06:49] This will be the second reading here.

[2:06:51] The approved would record it just so it shows up on their title and that would be the end

[2:06:55] of the process.

[2:06:57] I'm happy to answer any questions.

[2:07:01] Any questions from council?

[2:07:06] Any public comment?

[2:07:07] I'm seeing there is none. Do we have a motion?

[2:07:15] Mr. Mayor, I move to the adopt ordinance 27-20-30 on second reading as presented.

[2:07:20] Second.

[2:07:21] We have a motion.

[2:07:22] Second, please vote.

[2:07:36] Motion passes.

[2:07:37] Next is ordinance 27-24.

[2:07:40] Second reading.

[2:07:41] City Council consideration of ordinance 27-24 on second reading.

[2:07:45] And ordinance of the City of Montrose, Colorado vacating portions of the right of way

[2:07:50] within the city of Monterey, a city engineer, Scott Murphy once again.

[2:07:55] Thank you Mayor, so a similar deal.

[2:07:58] This is the third time talking about this one in no changes since previously discussed.

[2:08:02] This is off of kind of the Nichols Way area, which is between Stone Bridge and

[2:08:06] Cirque, which are two different name streets that joined together just north of the bridges and Niagara Road.

[2:08:13] There's an old county subdivision that originally came in, was built as a county subdivision dedicated some rights of way

[2:08:18] an anticipation of a future connection to stone bridge and surf and the way

[2:08:23] that area ended up ultimately being platted in the early 2000s on that

[2:08:27] connection wasn't made and isn't really necessary and so this is kind of to

[2:08:33] clean up the obsolete tail of right-of-way and rights away are vacated they go

[2:08:38] back the adjoining landowners it's not fee simple land that we can like own and do

[2:08:42] what we wish or sell it or anything like that it's it's granted in the first

[2:08:46] place for a right of way for streets and then it goes back if not needed and so

[2:08:51] it gets split down the middle it goes to adjacent property owners and then they

[2:08:54] can work amongst themselves if they want to shift or move them around and so we

[2:09:00] prepared the this started with a landowner request it's kind of been on our long

[2:09:05] term radar but we never pulled the plug on it because there wasn't really a

[2:09:08] major driver until we were approached by the adjacent landowners looking to clean it

[2:09:12] up and so in this case because there is benefit for the city we paid for the

[2:09:16] survey the benefit being that you know it just kind of cleans up our rights of

[2:09:20] way it's it's land we won't have to maintain and perpetuity without a public

[2:09:24] benefit and so better used reverting back to the adjacent landowners and yeah

[2:09:31] happy to answer any questions. I did have one question are any of those lots on

[2:09:36] Madeline in the city are they counting? That whole subdivision is north of Stone

[2:09:43] I think the number of people in the city,

[2:09:45] I'll pull up a map just to make sure

[2:09:47] that Maddie specifically is

[2:09:52] Will's racing me to it.

[2:09:55] Yes, it is in the city.

[2:09:56] I think that annexed, it was in the county

[2:09:58] for a long time, annexed in the city,

[2:09:59] I think when Sue came through that area,

[2:10:02] that's what drove its initial annexations.

[2:10:07] Any other questions from council?

[2:10:10] This time we'll open it up for public comments.

[2:10:14] Seeing there are none.

[2:10:15] Do we have a motion?

[2:10:17] I make a motion to adopt ordinance 2724

[2:10:19] second reading as presented? Second.

[2:10:25] We have a motion and a second please vote.

[2:10:36] Motion passes. Next on the agenda is the North Park Avenue Division of

[2:10:41] Property, Official Act of the City. City Council consideration of the

[2:10:46] North Park Avenue, Official Act of the City Division of Property Plan to

[2:10:51] consolidate property lines and dedicate rights of way along North Park and

[2:10:57] San Juan Avenue. City engineers come. Thank you Mayor. So this is a plant process used for

[2:11:05] cleanup actions generally. The city owns parcels.

[2:11:10] It wasn't

[2:11:19] me.

[2:11:23] I set the intersections of North Park in San Juan. One was used for the greenway

[2:11:28] site. People might be familiar with that corner there. Right next to the east of what was the

[2:11:34] The city also acquired the south and we are the lot immediately south of that.

[2:11:38] There's some potential, a couple things going on in that area.

[2:11:42] The city is going to, are as planned, to rebuild North Park Avenue between Main Street and

[2:11:48] San Juan.

[2:11:49] This part of 2027's capital efforts, it's about a $5 million project, so a pretty large project.

[2:11:56] In this area, we don't have the full width of right-of-way, so it's dedicating the kind

[2:12:01] of additional 20-foot strip along Park Avenue to meet continuity with remainder of Park Avenue.

[2:12:07] So that right away is consistent. What that will allow in this area is the same kind of pattern

[2:12:12] of detached sidewalk and a little bit widening of the road to allow bike lanes and some

[2:12:17] on-street parking in that area. Consistent matching the rest of Park Avenue. It also has some

[2:12:22] right away dedication along San Juan Avenue. So that's similarly a sidewalk. It's part of the park

[2:12:27] project we're looking to bring a sidewalk from park all the way down to

[2:12:31] Cascade along San Juan and then similarly down north nine street to get those

[2:12:36] kind of meaningful pedestrian connections where we now have Maverick in the

[2:12:39] car wash redevelopment down there that give us connections to tie to and the

[2:12:46] because those were two lots this also removes a lot line between the two just to

[2:12:50] clean that up so that when development does come to the area which some

[2:12:54] And multi-family housing is eyeing this area, so this just kind of sets that up.

[2:12:58] There was some state involvement in some of those projects, and so there's just kind

[2:13:03] of cleaned up that property and anticipation of that project.

[2:13:06] The reason these are just kind of a council action is, again, there's no, you know, lots

[2:13:10] being created or, you know, it's not being used in the name of development, like a typical

[2:13:15] flat would be where they're making residential lots or things like that.

[2:13:18] This is just kind of cleaning up those actions.

[2:13:20] and because it includes the dedication that comes to council.

[2:13:24] With that, happy to answer any questions.

[2:13:28] Any questions from council?

[2:13:31] At this time, we'll open it for public comment.

[2:13:35] So there is none.

[2:13:37] Do we have a motion?

[2:13:39] I make a motion to approve the North Park Avenue official act

[2:13:42] of the city division of property flat as presented.

[2:13:46] Second.

[2:13:47] Second.

[2:13:48] We have a motion and a second.

[2:13:51] Please vote.

[2:14:03] The motion passes.

[2:14:05] Next on the agenda is the Valley Ranch Subdivision Filing.

[2:14:10] One final plat.

[2:14:13] City Council consideration of the Valley Ranch Subdivision Filing.

[2:14:17] One final plat, Senior Planner William Rees.

[2:14:21] Thank you and good evening, Mr. Mayor.

[2:14:23] Members of the City Council and members of the public

[2:14:26] I was trying to repair ahead of time and interrupted Scott, so I apologize.

[2:14:34] Has a consequence.

[2:14:36] I'll just need a few seconds to repair an house, okay, it's my fault.

[2:14:57] Again, apologies for that, but the-

[2:15:00] Valley Ranch Subdivision is located on a 96.03 a.k.r. site, south of British Drive. This first filing

[2:15:06] proposes 15 residential lots and will be property overall. This would advance. There we go. While

[2:15:15] the property overall is split between three different zoning districts, all 15 lots are within

[2:15:19] the R3A, medium, high-density district. The Valley Ranch Subdivision preliminary flat was approved

[2:15:24] by city council on December 3rd, 2024. All lots must meet the minimum loss size,

[2:15:29] as per the R3A zoning district, streets must be in place

[2:15:33] and approved by the city engineer

[2:15:34] and utilities must be installed.

[2:15:36] This is a three-page plat.

[2:15:38] The first page is mostly just plat notes and signature lines.

[2:15:42] And the second page shows he lost themselves, as well as

[2:15:47] rights of way, dedication, for a small continuation

[2:15:51] of British drive and a cul-de-sac that most of these lots

[2:15:54] are being accessed off of just one minor note.

[2:15:57] There will also be an easement that will be necessary on the rear side, the northern three

[2:16:04] lots.

[2:16:06] That will be included before the final plat is printed and signed and recorded.

[2:16:12] The majority of the property, which is the remaining 86.56 acres, are being reserved for future filings.

[2:16:19] Staff finds that the plat is in compliance with the subdivision regulations and the comprehensive plan.

[2:16:24] The proposal does meet the intent of the R3A's owning district.

[2:16:27] Staff recommends approval of the Valley Ranch Subhibition filing number one final

[2:16:31] plat with the standard plat condition that we recommend for all plates.

[2:16:35] And I'm happy to answer any questions.

[2:16:38] I guess the only comment I would make is I have reviewed this and I do on the merits

[2:16:43] think it's subject to approval but I would also think that the developer deserves some

[2:16:48] points for having to put up with an endure of what he, this torture, he's had to go through

[2:16:54] his night to get to his agenda item. So that accounts for something.

[2:17:01] With that, I'd be happy

[2:17:02] to make a move.

[2:17:06] At this time, we'll be accepting public comment, seeing there is none.

[2:17:12] Then I would move to approve the Brookside Meadows subdivision filing final

[2:17:16] flat expressly conditioned upon city staff and during ensuring that all policies, regulations,

[2:17:21] organizations, ordinance, and municipal code provisions are met, and that the applicant adequately addresses all the staff's concerns prior to execution of the final plat.

[2:17:31] The city staff is not authorized by this approval to execute the final plat prior to all conditions being satisfied.

[2:17:40] If I may just interrupt real quick, this item is for the Valley Ranch subdivision.

[2:17:46] The motion that was made was for the Brookside Meadows.

[2:17:48] I have my apologies, I screwed up right over that.

[2:17:52] So then I would move to approve the Valley Ranch subdivision filing one final plat expressly

[2:17:57] conditioned upon city staff ensuring that all policies, regulations, ordinance and municipal

[2:18:01] code provisions are met and that the applicant adequately addresses all of status concerns prior

[2:18:07] to execution of the final plat, the city staff is not authorized by this approval to execute

[2:18:13] the final plat prior to all conditions being satisfied.

[2:18:16] Second.

[2:18:18] I have a motion and a second, please vote.

[2:18:31] Most impasses.

[2:18:33] Next on the agenda is the Brookside Meadows subdivision filing one final plat.

[2:18:38] It's the Council consideration of the Brookside Meadows subdivision filing one final plat,

[2:18:45] senior planner William Rees, once again.

[2:18:50] Thank you again.

[2:18:51] This is a 20.49 acre site which

[2:18:58] is legally described as a lot too of the sugar pine mine or

[2:19:00] subdivision off the 6700 road and Miami road. The property is owned R2 low density district.

[2:19:07] City Council did approve the Brookside Meadows subdivision preliminary plat on October 15th,

[2:19:11] 2024. All lots must meet the minimum lot size per the R2 zoning. Again, all streets must be in

[2:19:18] place and approved as well as utilities. Once again, the first page is mainly plat notes and

[2:19:23] signature blocks as required by all final plates. And page two shows the actual subdivision itself

[2:19:29] consisting of 46 residential lots along with the right-of-way dedication and open space as well as easements as required.

[2:19:37] Staff finds that this plan is in compliance with the subdivision regulations and the comprehensive plan and the R2 zoning district.

[2:19:44] Staff recommends approval of the Brookside Meadows subdivision filing one final flat, again with the standard condition.

[2:19:50] And I'm happy to answer any questions.

[2:19:54] Any questions from council?

[2:19:58] At this time we'll open it up for public comment.

[2:19:59] Since

[2:20:08] this is at the intersection basically of 6,700 road in Miami, has there been any provision

[2:20:16] to expand Miami because that's probably going to be a lot more traffic on that?

[2:20:26] And I know that the bridge over that's on 6,700 road is going to be expanded, is that

[2:20:36] are going to be expanded to meet the Iron Horse subdivision,

[2:20:43] wrote configuration, or just the way

[2:20:46] that 6700 is on that portion.

[2:20:49] Is it going to be expanded to make that?

[2:20:51] Because there's going to be a lot more traffic on 6700

[2:20:55] and on Miami, for sure.

[2:21:04] So a couple of things in this plat that are included on that

[2:21:08] So yes, the easy, the lowest any fruit, there will be the bridge.

[2:21:12] So the bridge, the 60, 700 bridge is currently under design.

[2:21:15] It's about 80% of those are so of the way there and is in the budget to start construction

[2:21:20] in late 27 and the water goes down.

[2:21:22] So we did it this early spring, procure the box culverts through the summer and then start

[2:21:28] construction and the water goes down in the fall.

[2:21:30] So on all new bridges, we replace, we build them for their future and eventually build out.

[2:21:35] So even though the road will stay just too late for now it's built that when the road is widened it would be the full template

[2:21:41] And you wouldn't need to do any additional bridge work or widening or utility work

[2:21:45] We kind of get it all out of the way. So it's just a matter of striping when the future project comes

[2:21:50] The plot also includes provisions for dedication for some of the space needed to accommodate that bridge widening

[2:21:57] And dedication for a future roundabout at Miami and 6700

[2:22:02] Those improvements aren't warranted yet, but we want to make sure that no encroachments occur.

[2:22:06] It's in our master plans for capital, so we want to make sure that no encroachments occur,

[2:22:12] that would hinder when the need arises. As part of the subdivision process, they do traffic studies

[2:22:19] to look at all the various intersections and capacities. Although Miami is narrow, it does have the

[2:22:25] capacity to accommodate the additional traffic that does welcome from Brooks out here. We love to

[2:22:30] widen them all to the, you know, modern minor arterial standard with full detached walks

[2:22:34] and bike lanes and turn lanes and everything, but it just takes time.

[2:22:38] And so, you know, within the capital plan there's prioritization of what and where, and

[2:22:43] in this vicinity, the highest priority improvement is the widening of the bridge.

[2:22:50] It's kind of at the end of its life, and also anyone who's driven it pretty unsafe with

[2:22:54] how narrow it is.

[2:22:55] And then the signal at 6,700 in highway 50 is getting close to warrants.

[2:23:00] It has to hit a certain volume threshold before C.Dot will allow us to put in the signal

[2:23:04] within this corridor. My guess is that would probably be the next improvement to follow.

[2:23:08] I don't have exact timelines on that, but those are the two lowest hanging fruit within this area.

[2:23:14] And like any subdivision, any traffic, they all add traffic. We keep an eye on where the pressures are building.

[2:23:20] Look at all the studies to understand which areas are getting close to hitting

[2:23:24] level of service thresholds is what they're called so and when they hit those

[2:23:28] it's when we start moving up the line on the on the capital improvement plan kind

[2:23:32] of knocking those out one piece at a time. So short, short answer. Yes few of

[2:23:39] those are in the works.

[2:23:43] Any other questions? I think Mr. Mayor just so the

[2:23:49] record will accurate reflect that I did move to approve the Brookside

[2:23:53] of subdivision, I should be the one making the motion to approve that, so I will move

[2:23:58] to approve the Brickside Medal of Subdivision, filing one, filing final plat expressly condition

[2:24:03] upon CitySat, ensuring that all policies, regulations, ordinance, and municipal code revisions

[2:24:09] are met and that the applicant adequately addresses all the staff's concerns prior to the execution

[2:24:14] of the final plat. The CitySat is not authorized by this approval to execute the final plat prior

[2:24:20] to all conditions, again, satisfied.

[2:24:24] We have a second.

[2:24:26] Second.

[2:24:28] We have a motion in a second.

[2:24:30] Please vote.

[2:24:41] Motion passes.

[2:24:44] Next on the agenda is the staff reports.

[2:24:49] How many reports?

[2:24:53] City Council comments?

[2:24:56] Yeah, I have a question since Scott's here.

[2:25:01] How's the situation with my amy road going along?

[2:25:05] I was there today driving and there's still fences.

[2:25:09] There's nobody working out there.

[2:25:12] Actually, both sides of the road now have little fences.

[2:25:16] And I was just curious as to what the situation is

[2:25:20] and how it's progressing.

[2:25:23] Yeah, so you talked about along Brookside here,

[2:25:25] the at Miami in 6,700.

[2:25:29] Yeah, so there's orange construction fencing

[2:25:31] on private property on the north side and then actually

[2:25:34] within our right of way on the south side. The contractor is part of that

[2:25:38] development work was doing some water line replacement work which included AC

[2:25:42] pipe, the spest of cement. It's a non-friable pipe but the way it was

[2:25:46] handled included some fragments that were

[2:25:49] that kind of ended up in the work area. And

[2:25:53] from walking the area that generally been cleaned up was best we can tell it's kind of a private matter

[2:25:58] between them and the state. That is all regulated by CDPHE

[2:26:02] And so there was some report that went to City PHE, CDP-A-G-F, some to stop work while

[2:26:08] they worked out evaluation and cleanup, and they're still working that out.

[2:26:15] So it's between the private contractor and the state.

[2:26:20] We kind of keep an eye on it to make sure that the fencing is there and that people aren't

[2:26:24] walking through the area and things.

[2:26:26] There's no threat to the public or by any means, and that's why it's kind of delineated

[2:26:31] is to make sure that nobody goes in there and goes root

[2:26:33] around and disturbs anything.

[2:26:35] But still, we ask them about it about once a week

[2:26:39] to understand what the timeline is with the state.

[2:26:44] And the answer we kind of continually get

[2:26:46] is the lawyers are talking to the lawyers

[2:26:48] and they're trying to set up meetings and field blocks.

[2:26:51] And as you can imagine, that's fun with multiple government

[2:26:53] agencies at a state level.

[2:26:55] So don't know the exact timing on that

[2:26:58] when that will be resolved. We would love to see it resolved sooner than later, but we're

[2:27:04] kind of somewhat out of our jurisdiction. So just kind of keeping the pressure on, but

[2:27:10] that's about all we can do at this point. Thanks. Scott, I had a question too, just about

[2:27:15] the roundabout, like budget wise or next step, like what's the status of it, the one that

[2:27:21] just opened? Oh, yeah, so the roundabout opened last Friday. Budget wise, the project came

[2:27:28] in about a million under budget, which was the projection through, which was kind of

[2:27:36] our projection throughout, so we only used about 4% of the contingency or so. Still working

[2:27:43] on final closeout and everything, but generally the product is 99% done. The landscaping pieces

[2:27:49] are still pending there, all that landscaping will be done concurrent with the public work

[2:27:53] facility and so that we included you know the sleeving stuff necessary so that when they come

[2:27:58] in it's just a matter of extending that to those sprinkler systems and I think that's all being

[2:28:03] designed kind of in partnership with some public outreach and things for design themes and statues

[2:28:08] and things of that sort so I would expect that to all kind of get tuned up in the spring kind of

[2:28:15] as the public work facility works towards opening and then do you have any other questions or contracting

[2:28:22] acting status. The second contractor that we hired performed flawlessly is great.

[2:28:27] Excellent finish. We're very appreciative of them. I'm kind of stepping into that situation

[2:28:31] following the breach by the first contractor.

[2:28:37] I'm really glad that the councilman asked the

[2:28:40] question, because you weren't going to teach. You aren't your own horn, but I really appreciate

[2:28:44] it. I think we all appreciate the citizens that appreciate the hard work that you've put

[2:28:49] into making this substantially under budget.

[2:28:53] Thank you.

[2:28:54] Thank you.

[2:29:03] Any other comments?

[2:29:04] Council.

[2:29:06] OK, at this time, we're going to take a five minute break

[2:29:10] and then we will be going into executive session.

[2:31:12] . . . . . . . .

[2:33:57] I'm going to get there.

[2:34:06] I don't want to thank you.

[2:34:08] Thanks.

[2:35:59] Oh, I'm not going too far.

[2:36:01] Yeah.

[2:36:02] I'll be back.

[2:36:04] Yeah,

[2:36:07] the whole up there.

[2:36:08] You see me up.

[2:36:09] I'll be back.

[2:36:10] Yeah.

[2:36:11] Good.

[2:36:11] Thanks.

[2:36:13] Maybe you're very welcome.

[2:36:15] Thank you.

[2:36:18] You're welcome.

[2:37:56] Do

[2:37:59] we have

[2:38:08] a motion to enter executive session?

[2:38:11] On so, Dave Frank, we're initially work currently in public meeting.

[2:38:18] Thank you.

[2:38:20] Mr. Mayor, I move to go into executive session for discussion of a personal matter under CRS

[2:38:27] section 246, 4024F and for your conference with the city attorney for the purpose of

[2:38:34] receiving legal advice, pursuant to CRS section 246, 4024B and the following additional details

[2:38:42] are provided for identification purposes.

[2:38:44] is the City Manager's Employment Status and Agreement as to both reasons to enter executive

[2:38:51] session.

[2:38:51] Need

[2:38:55] a second.

[2:38:59] Second.

[2:39:00] All in favor?

[2:39:02] Aye.

[2:39:04] Aye.

[2:39:06] All opposed?

[2:39:40] We have reconvene now in open session.

[2:39:43] Coming out of an executive session where Mr. Bell presented us with a proposal to separate

[2:39:48] his employment with the City of Wantras, on an amicable basis.

[2:39:52] We have discussed Mr. Bell's proposal in executive session, but no decision on his proposal was made in executive session.

[2:40:00] We have now returned to open session to discuss Mr. Bell's proposal publicly and to take possible action.

[2:40:07] There will be no public discussion.

[2:40:11] And Mr. Mayor, I think we, as you have stated,

[2:40:20] council has had an opportunity to hear from Mr. Bell on his proposal and he has submitted it in writing.

[2:40:27] And of course, it would be a matter of public record.

[2:40:32] And I, for one, believe that based on my review of what Mr. Bell has proposed, and I don't

[2:40:43] know that we, that it necessarily needs a lot of further discussion, but it's important

[2:40:50] that we inform our citizens of, of our discussion and our feelings about the proposal.

[2:40:56] And so we're fulfilling that required duty.

[2:41:02] I believe that under the circumstances that what Mr. Bill, excuse me, Mr. Bill has proposed, is in the best interest of the city, its citizens, its elected officials, its staff, leaders.

[2:41:23] members, all people associated with the city and particularly for Mr. Bell and his family.

[2:41:31] So on that basis, I believe it is the appropriate direction for a council to accept Mr. Bell's

[2:41:44] proposal as proposed and after further council discussion, I would be prepared to make

[2:41:53] motion to accept that? Any further comments? Does the public need to see the contract before we

[2:42:02] agree to it? No, it doesn't need to be how, you know, in packets or anything like that as it was

[2:42:11] presented in the executive session in the packet.

[2:42:18] So since this motion really isn't on the agenda, it hasn't really been noticed, I will

[2:42:26] be putting the separation agreement into the meeting two weeks from now as a ratification

[2:42:31] of any decisions made right now.

[2:42:35] So it will be available to the public, it will be public record, so yes in the next meeting but we can

[2:42:44] effectuate on it today.

[2:42:48] Perfect.

[2:42:51] Anyone else?

[2:42:59] May I make a look at it?

[2:43:01] Please.

[2:43:03] There being no further council discussion.

[2:43:11] I moved

[2:43:18] to accept Mr. Bell's proposal as proposed.

[2:43:24] have effective immediately to be submitted to Council for a final ratification at the

[2:43:33] next City Council meeting two weeks from tonight.

[2:43:40] Second.

[2:43:41] I

[2:43:45] don't have my computer on, so this will be a voice vote, all in favor.

[2:43:52] Hi.

[2:43:53] Hi.

[2:43:53] That is

[2:44:00] all five, Madam Post, Ms. Spell,

[2:44:05] thank you.

[2:44:07] Thank you, Bill, everything that you've done.

[2:44:26] I think we probably, Mr. Mayor, need to discuss the next step of this process,

[2:44:35] which is the acting and potential interim city manager.

[2:44:40] and is Ms. Morgan Taylor back in the room?

[2:44:47] And could you come forward, please?

[2:44:57] So that the public is fully aware.

[2:45:00] We did discuss, if we were to take action on Mr. Bell's proposal this evening as proposed,

[2:45:13] that we would need to consider the immediate future for the city in terms of leadership.

[2:45:22] and we, having now taken official action on Mr. Bell's proposal,

[2:45:39] we have a very competent

[2:45:44] deputy city manager who would automatically assume as deputy city manager the role of

[2:45:56] the acting city manager per contract or per her employment status upon the absence of the city manager.

[2:46:07] So with Mr. Bell's

[2:46:11] resignation affecting immediately, that would necessarily make Ms.

[2:46:17] Morgan Fairler the acting city manager. We further discussed what would be

[2:46:28] appropriate in terms of acting versus interim city manager and discuss in

[2:46:37] some detail what the acting city manager is and is not and what the

[2:46:45] The interim city manager is and is not.

[2:46:52] And I am of the belief that, of course, she will assume the acting role immediately.

[2:47:02] But I believe it is in the best interest and just so you know that our constituents understand

[2:47:10] and that the acting city manager really is the acting city manager in the absence of the city manager.

[2:47:23] But with the city manager having resigned, it's really not anticipating the city manager to return having accepted his resignation.

[2:47:34] So it's important.

[2:47:34] I just just for the record it's not a raise ignition. It's a mutual separation. What did I say you said? I'm sorry

[2:47:44] You'll have to forget me tonight but the the the mutual separation

[2:47:56] But I I think that it's important for continuity purposes for the city

[2:48:03] for our staff and for this council that we have leadership for the immediate future.

[2:48:15] So I am very much in favor of not only having this Martin Thierry assume the role of acting

[2:48:25] city manager, but to immediately assume the role of interim city manager, subject to final

[2:48:34] negotiations with the council in terms of salary and benefits. And I would think it would

[2:48:42] be appropriate, and of course this is obviously helping to council discussion and motion and approval,

[2:48:49] But I would be inclined to think that it is appropriate to make the interim effective

[2:48:58] immediately subject to the final negotiations and bring it back to Council to ratify and

[2:49:10] accept that position of interim city manager at the Council meeting in two weeks and make

[2:49:18] make it, even though she would fill the interim for two weeks, to make it at that time,

[2:49:25] back to tonight, effective as of tonight, relative to her employment salary and benefits,

[2:49:33] so that we, quite frankly, don't, from a management standpoint and from a continuity standpoint

[2:49:42] point. And from a city standpoint, we don't miss a beat going forward that Ms. Margaret

[2:49:49] Taylor steps in immediately. That would be my preference in my recommendation. Do

[2:49:56] we have a motion? How would I put that into a motion? You can just say I might so move.

[2:50:03] I so move. Do we have a second? Second.

[2:50:09] All in favor?

[2:50:10] Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

[2:50:16] Aye.

[2:50:17] Is unanimous.

[2:50:28] Think with that.

[2:50:31] We're adjourned.

City Council Meeting

Transcript