I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the Good evening. Call the order city council study session for Tuesday, March 26, 2024. I'm going to ask councilmember Snier to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. All right. Thanks for leading us in that. We're going to kick off our study session with social media policy for city council City manager Martinez introduce our presenters please. Thank you mayor good evening mayor mayor pro ten and members of council for this item We will have our director of communications and engagement Christian Trinowski and Michael Davis assistant city attorney Present and I'll turn the mic over to them. Good evening, council members. How's everyone doing today? Good. So we're gonna talk about essentially a social media policy for council members. social media policy for council members. I can see. All right, I'm going to go over the roadmap for presentation. We're going to talk about, as you know, there's many different social media sites. I'm sure all of you are on at least one. This person to my left is unknown somehow. But just looking at some statistics, Facebook has over three billion users, YouTube 2.4 billion, Instagram 2 billion billion, TikTok, 1.5 billion. So obviously a lot of people using it, getting their information, getting their news from social media. So great tool to communicate with the public. We use it a ton here at the city, as you know. So we're going to talk about official accounts, the difference between personal accounts and official accounts, and public forum and restrictions. All right, so one of the first things that the policy addresses is the prohibition on camp painting and official accounts. Okay, so if you have an official account, the Fair Campaign Practice Act prohibits city resources for being used for political purposes. That's everyone's probably pretty aware of that. So what that means is members shall not use official accounts as a tool for re-election or for any other election or campaign purpose. Something the policy will spell out. Members who wish to use social media for campaigning must establish essentially separate personal accounts and may not use city resources such as emails to create or work on personal accounts. Okay, so personal accounts versus official accounts in the draft policy, you have the definitions of what defines a personal account versus an official account. But just some things to know, personal accounts and official accounts should be distinct and maintained separately. Personal accounts must not be created using city provided email or using city resources. Personal accounts can be deemed official accounts by courts of competent jurisdiction, regardless of when such personal accounts were established and for what purpose. Michael's going to talk a little bit about a recent Supreme Court decision. They issued unanimous decisions on the topic of when do public officials elected or unelected violate First Amendment by blocking critics from their personal social media accounts. This was based on two cases, one at California, one out of Michigan, one school board members, one is city manager, both blocked and deleted comments. So we'll talk about that in a little bit, but something for you to be aware of. All right, so communicating on personal accounts. Post on personal accounts, this is spelled out in the policy that essentially violate the law, city policy, which includes but not limited to, you know, discriminatory remarks, sexual harassment, threats of violence, those would be prohibited, even on personal accounts. And we do recognize though that while you are all public officials and you act on behalf of the city, you're also private citizens with your own constitutional rights. You don't lose those, okay? However, as an I'll talk about if a member has authority to speak on the city's behalf and purports to use that authority on personal accounts, it will likely be deemed an official account by a court. So I'll get into that now. The Supreme Court. We have a clarification. Yeah, since we just approved an update to our rules last week, I'm trying to figure out circumstances under which a council member would be acting on behalf, speaking on behalf of the city, because I thought our rules pretty well precluded us from speaking on behalf of the city. So I guess I'm not sure whether that's necessary or if the, maybe there's not a conflict, it's just a double statement. Well, so, and that sort of gets into how they could speak. I can't speak to the policy, but so for example, you make a post and you say something along the lines of, I'm going to vote for an ordinance. If an ordinance is brought in front of me, I'm going to vote a certain way on that. Well, you have the authority as that person to act, speak that way, and then you're purporting to use your authority. The authority that you have is that you would be able to vote a certain way to either strike down an ordinance or a vote for in favor, right? And then when you poached that, you're now reporting to use that authority and that would then be considered speech attributable to the government. Yes, City Attorney Cullero. Here's the other answer to your question. We can have policies. We don't dictate what a judge will later find and might consider to be official action or an official account based on what you write. So that this policy is written to try to keep you within the bounds of what we know at this point. But ultimately, if you haven't ever heard me say it, you will. Anytime we go into court, it's a gamble and judges do what they want. So these are the guidelines and they may or may not agree with them. So it may feel a little bit like double, but it is, this policy isn't saying you're speaking on behalf of City Council. It's saying it could be attributed to you as if you were. Yes, one more. One other in the same vein, I'm trying to determine, granted, the city doesn't provide us resources. I don't have a city councilman, Peter Padilla, account. I actually have a political page associated with my personal account where I speak as a candidate and as a political person who then has this role is that distinct from a city issued office of Peter Padilla City Councilman page that would be generated by the city. Yeah, because I think you also have a personal page as well where you share personal information. I have a Peter Padilla and then I have a candidate Padilla. Yeah. and then I have a candidate, Padilla. But I don't have a councilman, Padilla, with city, email, city, logo, city, everything else. Right, but you're using it as your council member. Right, as a person in that role. Okay. I mean, mine says like mayor, brighten or whatever, but it doesn't associate my email. My city is. You don't have your city phone number, you're saying email on it. Oh, you bet. I hope you're on the Johnston. Thank you, Mayor. Just to be very clear, the social media organizations, especially meta, judges whether your page is official when you're setting it up or if you change it to official. They actually go through, get a hold of the government agency and ask, is this official or not? And then they judge and say if they count it as official and in these court rulings that have come down, that's where the court has ended up ruling is if the social media company counted it as an official page multiple times. So it says if you are an official page as a city council member on your page on in meta. Yeah, but that's a criterion. It's not the only because the Thornton mayor lost such a case and that one hadn't been designated official. It was more personal. Well, yes, but if you did make it official or if your page is official, you went through that way to do it and it's instantly official as a page is what I mean to say. I think the slide that's up if you let them go through it is going to explain what you're talking about. Let's see what else we have. Right. So, the Supreme Court just ruled a couple of weeks ago and they gave a very, I mean, it's a two-element test to determine whether essentially speech is attributable to the government. It no longer looks at substances, not labels anymore. It turns on the substance, not labels. So even if it says this is an official account, you can still have posts underneath that account that would be deemed potentially private, okay? You could also have a private one that you could call, this is my private page, but based on the posts that you have, and it's what the test is, is one, you have to possess the actual authority to speak on the government's behalf. And that turns on statues, ordinance, regulations, as well as custom or usage. Okay, so that's where the government, I mean where the court could come in and find a custom or a usage that would then give you that authority. And then the second part of it, the test is, you have to report to exercise that authority when you speak on that social media. Okay, and exercising authority is essentially speaking in official capacity or when species use to fulfill the responsibilities if pursuant to those laws. Okay, and those are two element tests that you have to do. It's a very fact intensive inquiry. And it doesn't just turn on whether it's one label. Facebook could deem your page in a official account, but what you post underneath it is really what turns on the substance to make it official or a private page. Okay. Status of a city employee is again not alone enough. A public official who, but then who fails the key post in a clearly distinguishable manner, exposes himself to greater risk of liability of having that post on that account be deemed speech attributable to the government. Did you turn it on? And essentially, I think Council Member Padilla, what we passed in the rules last week is very much protective of the city and the Council members because it is specifically saying, right, unless the Council has passed it by a majority, you're not going to speak individually unless you've already approved that authority. So you are protected. And again, this is a draft policy for you all to decide what you want to have in here, how much you want to have in here, how much you want to get rid of. And what I will say is there are presumptions that the Supreme Court has said will help, right? You could have disclaimers on something that's saying this is a personal page of John Smith. The views expressed are strictly my own that gives a presumption that their posts are private and personal and not official. Right? Something that says, at City of Brighton City Manager, as I think that would be an Instagram account if it uses the app, that would be a presumption that it could be official. Okay? that would be a presumption that it could be official. Okay. The other thing that you need to know is linking to city accounts doesn't necessarily always mean that it becomes an official post. And just to mention the Supreme Court case, one of the ones that they heard, it was a city manager in Michigan who had an account that he established, I think, in college. Well, before he was city manager, and mostly contained personal pictures, family, kids. But during COVID, was sharing stuff from the city about COVID-related issues of residents commented over and over city manager, deleted blocked the resident, the resident sued. So it's this fine line of it's a personal page that was established well before city manager but sharing city information. This argument was that information was available other places it was available on the city Facebook page on city accounts but it's a fine line once it's shared on the personal account. Most troubling city managers. Council member Green, so even sharing a recap of actions that were already taken by the City Council at a previous meeting could be deemed an official account by just saying that this past Tuesday we took action on this, this, and this could be deemed an official account, but it's just sharing information. Yes, it could be. If you have the authority to speak on that and you're reporting to use that, it would be. And the implications of that are important because on those official accounts or official posts, right, they have to be set to public. They have to be, you can't block individuals from being having that type of access. And why? First Amendment through the 14th Amendment, no member of the public may be banned or blocked from it of assessing an official account. Now what you can do, even on official account, is you can turn off all comments, right? That's neutral. You're now turning it off for everyone. No one can comment on it, but you're not banning individual specific people. If the comments are turned on, no member can be, you know, blocked, except for very limited circumstances. They're laid out in the policy, for example, if the comment is eliciting obscenity, illegal discrimination, violence, illegal activity, those type of things. But isn't a reaction to a comment? A comment? Whether they like or dislike it or... So you can, from my understanding, you can turn off whether you can comment like anything like that. If you're turning it completely off, that is completely fine. You can't then just block individual people from having a comment or delete a comment or delete a like or a sub-comment. Mr. Davis really has no social media accounts. So, and he has a phone from, I don't know, the 80s or something. Like it's not even a smartphone. It's older? Okay, maybe it's from 2001 or something. Well, I was just gonna, I mean, I think key is, if it's a personal account that you've kept private that you are only letting like you're only approving certain people, that account is much less at risk, right? That's your private personal account. It's not public. Even if you did share something from the city, you're sharing it only with your friends and family in theory. Okay, that clarifies that. Mayor put them. Yeah, but having a candidate, one where you want to say as a candidate, hey, look what we accomplished while I was a member, is not the official statement of here are the decisions that were made by the City Council, but is here's what I have participated in representing and therefore I am a value to vote for me in the future. So I'm not comfortable restricting our use of social media to the point that you lose the ability to have a candidate communication with the public. So that would be a worry to me. I also don't think this last bullet point is true. So Woodland Park lost a case where somebody did not comply with the rules of engagement and expressed a fair amount of profanity that was in violation of their terms of engagement and they still lost the case because they deleted the profanity from the comment section. So I once it's on. You can't take anything out, even if you think it's offensive, the only exceptions I'm aware of are if it directly insights violence. Yeah, and I think in the draft policy outlines the things that can be removed, of course, checking with the city attorney. insights violence. Yeah and I think in the draft policy outlines the things that can be removed. Of course, checking with the city attorney's office first before so hate speech is the one that comes up a lot that it's offensive but is protected by a first amendment. So often we get comments that are pretty awful but we can't remove that. But they are protected. So I think I don't know much of any. Negrance, this was a Colorado case. It wasn't at the Supreme Court. So I don't know if this Supreme Court ruling changed that one, but Woodland Park was not able to remove things for violations of their terms and for using profanity. move things for violations of their terms and for using profanity? Correct. It is rather limited. Page three of the draft policy has the basis that's being proposed and those are consistent with the court cases. So like you were saying, if you're directly advocating for violence or something illegal, you can block and remove that if it contains obscenity. If it's promoting illegal discrimination, you can remove things that have links like to malware or to viruses, right? You don't have to allow them to promote corrupting other people's computers if yours got corrupted, yeah, you can remember. The profanity is the one that I question because it's the one on which Woodland Park explicitly lost. We don't have profanity alone as a basis. OK. OK. Continue. OK, unlawful meetings. Under open meetings law, public business has to be conducted in public. Because of the nature of social media, there's often tons of comments. As a council member, you might comment on something a resident posts or ask a question. Where we can get in trouble is if more than two members comment, then that could be considered an open meeting and that has to be noticed to the public. So that's tricky if there's tons of comments and you haven't gone in to see if two of your fellow council members have already commented. So just something to be aware of that social media can be considered electronic meeting. Council member, did you? Thank you. Does a like or a dislike count is a comment? No. So it's only if you write something. So if two council members have written something and I go in and like it, I'm good. All right. So now a couple of things the policy also lays out as confidentiality, preservation of public records, insecurity. So should be pretty obvious, no member, made disclose on social media, confidential or proprietary information. But again, policy just lays that out. Content published on social media is not a record of the city. And therefore not subject to the retention of the city. Okay. So the entire post, for example, could be deleted, including all of the comments, if that is how that specific social media site works. And then members should use necessary care to maintain the security and integrity of official accounts in order to prevent unauthorized access or posting of content, and that just sort of seems pretty intuitive. You want to keep your accounts safe. And just lastly, the city attorney's office is always here to answer your questions. So if there's anything you're unsure about before removing, deleting, hiding, let them look at it and see so we don't get ourselves in trouble. And if we are open to any discussion or questions. Mayor Boothton. Not to be as smart I look about this, but at what point is using the city attorney for advice on the political account suddenly become the use of a city resource on an account that becomes official. Campaign advisor. Right. We, um, the city attorney's office cannot advise you on campaigning, but in terms of commenting and social media posts, we would because those are first amendment questions and our job is to try to protect you from being sued. Protect the city from being sued too. And protect the city from being sued. So yeah, we would not answer campaign finance or funding questions. So, I'll remember Green. Thank you, Mayor. I am still not sure where to go on this one because I think there's still a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes an official account versus a personal account, especially when we're talking about a campaign page. So I don't even know where to go with this one because I think there's a fundamental problem with this classification of what we're defining as what an official account. I agree. I remember today. I'm gonna be the devil's advocate on that. So if if you call it a cow, but it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck, right? So, you know, if you have say you have an unofficial account, but you, you know, again, it's the content is what I got out of it. It's not what you call it or what you label it. It's what goes on there. So I think it's clear in that regard. I'm concerned that if we, as elected officials, have official accounts and people that are running against us have unofficial accounts, they can comment into all these other things and we don't have to, the opportunity to respond or even correct a misstep or a misstatement or whatever. So that's what I'm saying. This is my real fundamental problem here is what we're calling official accounts actually hamstrings us and opens up the door for everyone else. Yep. That's a number, Johnston. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I agree. This is a good conversation, but we need to be really aware of what can happen. So let's say none of us, this council's good, and this won't happen here, but remember, we're creating rules for future councils and people. And in a past council, what could have happened and can happen in the future is if five council members don't like what one of the other four are saying. Then if we create any policy regarding this, then that council can now censure or take action against the council member because we have made it a policy. So what this provides is a political avenue for more divisive behavior, in my opinion, by creating our own policy. When I've gone through a lot, I've gone through every word of this, but as I keep going through, I have a question on every single part of this. And I mean, I can go into all of that, but the whole idea of us creating a social media policy is so that we can enforce ourselves. So I wanna be be really clear if we don't like something that a council member says, two council members can call a special meeting. Then at that special meeting, they can actually start to take action against the council member based on the words. And it's out of legal hands at that point. It's back into political hands. So we should be really careful not for us, but for future councils because of the politics of this. Councilmember Green brings up the main part of this is that you are now taking away a voice if we put this policy in. My third and last point for right now is the courts have not made full decisions on this. This is still gone through the process at such it keeps going through the process. I say why are we making a policy? Why don't we let the courts un supposedly should be unbiased avenue for any problem that comes up on social media? Because a certain city attorney might say yeah you, you can do this, not our city attorney, but a future one. You can do this, then all of a sudden you're in court defending it saying a city attorney said, well, that doesn't matter. If the city attorney is liable, but that doesn't matter. And I'm really apprehensive for drafting any kind of policy about social media until we know the real law and rules behind the social media. And then are we going to have each of our social media pages checked by the city attorney's office before this gets enacted? Because we don't know. I don't even know if any of my accounts are deemed official. I have no idea. And I don't think many of you do. So I think there's way too many questions to keep going forward with this. And if there's a problem with social media, let the courts decide. That's just a council. Mayor Brudgeon. As always, I'm in agreement and disagreement with pieces of what I last heard. But what I think is important for social media policy. I don't have a problem with the words that are in here. I think that having a social media policy is the first line of defense for the city. So I think that it's important have one. But I think that the most important statement on such a policy would be a declarative statement that we as the city of writing do not provide anything called an official account for city council members, which at least gives us a distinction so that it would be up to a court to decide if my political and campaign account cross some line into being official. But at least the city's opinion would be that it was never an official account. We don't have official accounts for elected officials. In fact, I think, and we have official, our police department has one hour city has one, and I'm afraid one of our city one is because I think next door requires that it be a named account. So we have somebody in a role that has a named account out of our communications department. Those are the only things that the city would call official accounts and that it would be the city's opinion that any personal and political accounts held by numbers are personal. That would be to me the best guideline for doing it because I all of this I look at and say well I believe that my use of my campaign account is entirely from this viewpoint personal. Well also at times even I'm just like sharing something that the city might have posted or the police might have posted. Now is that official? That's really a question I don't understand from from this. Nobody else? It's a very unclear direction where we're going on this council member greeners. the new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new We should we could say we don't allow our We don't provide official accounts and we don't want them to be posting hate speech Discrimination those kind of those kind of yeah broader categories once you are elected even on your personal campaign page When you are an elected official versus a candidate to be an elected official You're still held to the things that you can't block people and you can't remove the posts. That doesn't require it being official from that standpoint. That's as an elected official, you can't block that on that thing. Well, even just a general candidate, we have a couple of past candidates here in the audience, they couldn't block anybody either. You can get control of what you can still defend. Yeah, and and we've been saying your personal accounts, you can't do discriminatory remarks, sexual harassment, threats of violence, those kind of things. So I think that's a general rule for all these accounts, but I think we get into the weeds when we start trying to define what's personal, what's official. We do. All right. It's very unclear. I was going to say let me see if I can summarize. So what I'm hearing sure if that's right. All right. So I was going to say let me see if I can summarize. So what I'm hearing is perhaps a simplified policy that maybe removes the definitions and removes some of the specificity that sort of creates an assumption that there are personal accounts and instead add the disclaimer and the clarity that we the city doesn't provide any. But if an account were to be deemed public, these would be the basis for which someone could block. Okay. Make it very basic like that. All right. Never. Yeah. Is there any more to the presentation? Oh, look at that. That's tiny. It still works. I still drive an O1 CRV. Getting the times. So I think this is good discussion you all are having. I mean, it's stuff that has risen to the Supreme Court. And I think they began discussions in October and just made a decision in March. So it keeps popping up over and over. So nothing. Keeps you going. They have Facebook. Many of them may not have social media. That's my point. Yeah. Counts a member, Snider. Let's hear from you. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation. I'm confused. I need to go back a minute because I thought you stated that it doesn't matter what the city labels the account or what I label the account. What matters is the content I'm putting in the account. So we can say, well, these aren't official accounts. Doesn't protect us if we're putting content in that's official business. So I don't know why making this declaration of these are official and these aren't protects anybody in any way. And Mr. Davis, I'd just like to say you and me were a little different in age but were of the same I do not have a social media account and I'm not going to. So I'm protected. Thank you. I can't. He would never know. I would respond that the part of the policy that is is protective is the part that talks about not blocking people and when you can. Because without a policy, folks may want to block someone or may feel like it meets criteria for blocking someone. So what it's trying to do is just tell you in these circumstances if you feel the need, these are the only times that you can. So although this whole distinction of, is it official, is it not official account, the key part of this policy that protects you is the guidance around blocking and when you could delete a post. Council member, today. I have a question. So events, at some point point in time I'm not going to be on council. And I do have a campaign page. Can I delete it? Or is that considered deleting posts? You can delete your... You can just delete it because then you're taking everybody's off and it falls into that category. Okay. You can just make it inactive. Oh yeah. I'm going to ask Kristen to say that again into the mics everyone can hear. Yes you can delete any social media account that you no longer want to use. Yeah you're not deleting you're not banning individual people you're just removing it. Okay. That's it. All right thank you. Thank you. Just to remind her say the city is tomorrow at it. All right. Thank you. Just a reminder say the city is tomorrow at 11.30. So hope to see everyone there. Please be there. All right. Next. Yeah, tweet about that. We're put on X. Adoption of the revised transportation master plan. City manager, Martinez. Thank you mayor for this next item our assistant director of public works Christopher Montoya will be presenting Good evening mayor mayor pro tem members of city council and any members of the community that may be watching Tonight we're going to be presenting the transportation master plan update We're going to be presenting the transportation master plan update. Before I do get started, I want to announce that we did just receive a grant from Dr. Cog for the core circulation plan in the downtown area. It's fully funded by Dr. Cog. If you didn't notice too, we're just finishing up the Main Street Grant funded improvements as well. They're just about done. So those appeared to be some pretty nice enhancements in that area. Elevated crosswalks I help assist in speed mitigation. So go through just background details and then our final recommendation. For some of you, the original Transportation Master Plan, which was a very intense well-thought-out plan was adopted in 2016, since then a number of different things have happened. Land use code amendments, which did impact our transportation criteria. We implemented the Vision Zero Program and we've been performing those improvements. Just recently the Brighton bicycle pad and multi-modal plan focusing around the trails, connections and those multi-modal uses has been being developed and I want to say it's been almost completed. Also prioritization of our capital planning so we're strategically putting together with budget and also our capital plans from the original transportation plan. As well as we conducted open house public engagement, including obtaining information for the last three years at the city barbecues. And then we also launched an interactive map and website through this phase of the TMP updates to get additional information. What was the scope of work? Well, 2016's been a while ago. There's been things that impacted our transportation plan. So we wanted to do basically a facelift and make those integrations and revise some standards essentially. From some of the community inputs that we received, this is a word graphic just showing the words that they shared across and then the bigger the word, From some of the community inputs that we received, this is a word graphic just showing the words that they shared across and then the bigger the word, the more times that was input. You can see words like traffic improvements, buckly, say, well, certain streets in here, 120th. You will also notice some of the other multi-modal ones as well too. We went through a typical review process, so in order to give feedback from all our stakeholders or the community members, we did our typical internal review and that allows external reviews. So the different agencies, a buddy NUS, RTD, the counties, 27J was was referral as well. And then further we saw input from the community. So that's where we've been collecting information for the last few years as well as with this process we integrated the open house and correct collected additional information. Finally, staff actually did a number of different reviews internally using their expertise to provide input. So as I had mentioned, like the land use amendment codes and how they impacted how subdivisions would be designed. And then internally we evaluated all the different corridors and the plan and such and used our expertise to make some modifications. Timeline surprisingly, this takes as long as a capital project. So we started back in early 2022. That was getting RFP, getting the consultant on board and then taking that draft plan submitting it for internal reviews. From there we ended up hosting the public open house and I believe a few, at least one member too, were from City Council were able to attend. That's when the map was launched and then a number of comments were put in and all that information was taken into the plan And then we went through a extensive review process there after and including additional reviews Like I had mentioned internal with staff and then other expertise staff members sharing with management and everybody else And finally we're here tonight to share this with you and get any input. So we're at the last step. We're really changed. The 2016 plan was a really good foundational plan. It was really extensively thought through. And this one was to make modifications. So we emphasize certain transportation goals that we have. The strategic objectives were defined in our priority way. We had a five-year upgraded updated integrated capital project list, which is associated with our five-year capital planning through budget with the city, which allows us to focus on those key capital projects. Since vision zero came after the 2016 plan, we took those elements and integrated them into the plan. We wrote came after the 2016 plan, we took those elements and integrated them into the plan. We did add traffic, uh, calming requirements, traffic calming requirements into the standard requirements for subdivisions. And then also we have provided additional alternatives for primarily what would be your local subdivisions. So inside of those subdivisions. However, your normal transportation grid generally remain the same. These are the goals. You'll see safety, connectivity, obtaining all modes of transportation, complete neighborhoods, and then the transportation system adaptably transforming as, let's say, development or different components influence where that transportation might be needed. The key one that drives a lot of our decisions was gonna be the safety first, the network approach, which is more connectivity for the city. We have a lot of missing links. The modal balance, ensuring we get the bike lanes, the trails, and all the other components, not just automotive driven. Growth management, so as the demand comes, or there's need for capacity, we focus on those. So an intersection may need additional turn pockets added, or bridge street right now is a great example of growth management and expansion. Technology is a pretty cool one, so getting more and more technology components such as, let's say in the future, more AI type detection at intersections, which also improves safety as well. And finally, the major capital projects. Here's our transportation grid is laid out, not a lot changed. Generally, we had a few modifications. We really have a multitude of type of roads, so depending where it lays on the grid, you'll have your major arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and really everything after that's gonna be generally local roads contained within that grid. These were those classes in the intent and purpose of each one of those classifications. The major arterials are the ones that move a lot of the traffic all the way down to local streets which is just to access in to get to the collector to get to the major grid. Here's some key elements. Here's one of the new cross sections at your top left. It essentially made a narrower road which is less for us to maintain. And then it slows speeds. These are really short blocks that got added. And also a few other alternatives are available again, really, into the local subdivisions. Speed feedback signs, as well as other traffic calming features, like many roundabouts, or there's a slew of other features including getting the multi-model of the bike lanes. So this was an existing project on the top right where we took an existing roadway and just modified it to include all those components and we gained the benefit of having the existing space already. However, new development, new roadways should look in this configuration more. And then as well as the bike lane options that we have available. Right now we're actually almost approaching about a billion dollars of transportation assets to manage and going through our overall plan of what we need to build is kind of scary because it's like adding additional more than a billion dollars as well. That we're working with our asset management and conjunction with this to make sure we're doing the maintenance as well as guiding for all the new and then as we to approve and adopt the most current revised transportation plan. But first, we wanted to gain some input tonight and see if you had any questions that we can answer. And assist in any guidance with the document. This was really intended to be a formal process just so that we were informing you. And then we do use this a lot with our capital planning. And as we do development review to set forth what the expectations are Question is cut some of the green. Thank you, Mary. This is just a pet peeve But why don't we call it the 2024 transportation master plan? It got done at the end of 2023 We're gonna prove it this year. So we might as well change it the 2024. I already thought about that one It just seems to know it's already outdated then true I already thought about that one. It just seems to, no, it's already outdated then. True. Anybody else? Mayor put them. Yep. Okay. So, I mean, the first thing to me really is trying to read 158 page documents and figure out what changed from the prior one. If you want me to vote on approving the changes to the plan, I've got to have an idea of what actually changed I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want to say, I want I can do a side by side comparison and I can mark for myself every place that there was a change. When the city attorney gives us an ordinance for a change, eventually when the system permits her to do so, she gives me a red line that tells me what actually changed that I can see. These things were removed, these things were added, these things were modified. I don't have enough information to be able to do that on community. And I think that's the thing we have to do with the community. I don't have enough information to be able to do that on this plan as it stands with what got shared. And the slide deck you shared with us tonight is significantly changed from the slide deck that was sent out to me on Friday. And I realized that that's a never ever ever get an update and we don't get to see the final version as presented except actually I don't even think on the city website do we get to see the final version as presented. This one goes out into the ether. So I don't even have that bulleted point list to refer to unless I take a copy of a picture with my phone and make that list for myself. and make that list for myself. There, so trying to figure out what strategically different from 2016 to now, we've had, at least since I've been on council, we've had two strategic planning sessions where we've talked about some specific things having to do with traffic and access to the city. And it's not until I get to appendix A and somewhere in the list, I see one of the things that was really critically important to us around access at I-76 and Bridge Street. But in the process of doing so, I also found a question somewhere that said, hey, what if we move the highway seven designation up to baseline? Really? Where was that part of our strategic vision? And in fact, it strikes me that that would be in direct conflict with our strategic vision because if I don't have the state highway designation, I don't have the ability to leverage C-DOT in getting that very exit at Bridge Street and I-76 because they can say state highway seven is already at baseline and it already has a fantastic great big roundabout in lawfully. So other than some projects that were gone there are some things that we have specifically in the last two years said were important to us. that we're working on. We're important to us. Um. And specifically that one had to do with our gateway identity. So how is this connected? I know that that we're working on gateway signage and gateway identity. There's a section in here on mass transit. And I don't think we've even spoken. I hopefully staff has spoken, but the council has certainly not had RTD in front of us in just short of two years now where they gave us a presentation and said that Brighton simply doesn't meet any of their diversity requirements to do anything else up here. So how RTD fits into this, but I don't see a reference anywhere to the Brighton to Boulder Highway 7 Mass Transit project that we bought into or at least bought into the prototype and the test for it. I see some things that well I remember last week being lectured by RTD that our bus stopped somewhere, didn't match their standards, which I found a little bit laughable. But I also see that we have bus stop standards and I don't think it includes benches sinking into the mud and cracked trash cans chained to signs. So I don't know that I'm seeing some of the things that we at least have talked about recently. Maybe it's in there and I just missed it in the 158 pages. The last thing that I'll mention on there that I think is significant and I didn't see a lot of attention was around railroad crossings and traffic and traffic and interruption. And at least now at least the Secretary of Transportation has told us that there's a portal for reporting traffic blockage at those intersections. But other than the wishful thinking of will raise the tracks or lower the tracks into the city that I don't think we have any way of getting that high enough up the priority list to work into the capital plan. I guess I want more education before we vote on this. We need to break this up into some chunks and talk about what are we doing? What have we learned since 2016? What are we changing strategically since 2016? What is simply a refresher because we've finished some things that would be great to have a review of, these are all of the things on the 2016 plan that we have checked off and are done with. But from what you have today, if you put on next week's agenda, approve the update to the Transportation Master Plan, I'd have to vote no because I didn't wouldn't have enough information to do it. So we just we need more. We need more conversation to make it happen in my opinion. Thanks. I feel similar right now too. Who else? Councilmember Johnston? Yeah, Mayor pro Tim. But he brings one major thing. I was going to say and I'll let him do that because I agree 100% when I even when I saw the other slides I Don't know why but I read all of this stuff as much as I can on page the one that was the most frustrating to me I think it's 33 let me make sure page. Yeah page 33 Local streets Local streets. Local streets are the most important part of the transportation plan. Not only is it a very small amount of information, but let me read you sidewalks. It won't take me long. Sidewalks, continuous detached six foot sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of local streets for pedestrian use. That's the end. I mean, I would like to do something much more about sidewalks, including build them where they aren't right now in Ward 1. Ask council member green or anyone that has to walk over there. I cannot still walk in Ward 1 from one side of, from my home to anywhere near where I-76 exists because there's no sidewalks now. And I think this is a little bit too far down a road of future development and not looking at the development failures that have happened in the past with our sidewalks. And it's one sentence. Am I missing somewhere where it talks about local street sidewalks? And there's strategic plans that are all munches like that. Right, right, right. No, but on local street sidewalks. I mean, I would like, and I don't want it to just be six foot. That's a big deal is saying sidewalks that are beneficial for that particular area, moment, some of those sidewalks need to be larger. Some actually could be as small as we need to make them in certain places to have it. And even just having a walking trail from one side of Brighton East Farms down towards the, well, I would say, yeah, southern half of the city into the western part of the city from it. We still can't walk there. So that's a big part of my plan. I, the bicycle, we don't have the volume of bicycle usage that we pretend to have here with this plan. I would love to, I mean, I do, but it doesn't exist right now. And a lot of this, if you go read this council, it's saying that this plan allows staff to just make what are they called share, share rows or yeah, to make them kind of anywhere where they want to demon. We need to be careful about that because what it does to traffic flow, when there are not many, there's not a large volume of bicyclists that are in those areas, because we just don't have them as much. So I agree that I'd like to go a little further into this because I will tell especially new council members, this is a big, big deal for all of your development forever. Whatever your, the past transportation plan was pretty good about us not being handcuffed to it. It was more broad about here's what we think maybe should happen. But this is a big deal for us. So I'd like to take another whack at this and get more information that is more digestible for all of Council. So everyone understands this and doesn't have to read the 180 pages or whatever it is. Well, especially in the areas that say, shall, I mean, that must do. And we don't know if we need some little room around that too. Right. And yeah, I'd like to talk about each of these and then come to us with here's what we all are thinking. And because we're here to be the voice of the city And I would love to make things more hard on RTD Maybe I can do that in the future, but here from where I say now I cannot and I don't think any of us can So I'd like to put something in that plan saying because RTD doesn't give a crap about Brighton Here's what we think because they don't So just some thought no disrespect I'm not sure if it's going to be a good idea to do that. But I'm not sure if it's going to be a good idea to do that. I'm not sure if it's going to be a good idea to do that. I'm not sure if it's going to be a good idea to do that. I'm not sure if it's going to be a good idea to do that. I'm not sure if it's going to be a good idea to do that. I'm not. RTD doesn't give a crap about writing this on page two. I'm just kidding. Council member, please. Thank you, Mayor. I guess, you know, and Council member, we talked about this. If we look at the appendix in these priorities, you say the immediate is 2020. That means it's past due. It's hard to say that it's immediate. It should be, as past due, the 2025 should be immediate. And the other one should be short term, which is barely enough time to get this stuff done. So it's hard for us to call this a current traffic plan when I already got 20 things on here that you've got immediate that we're supposed to have been done four years ago. And so I think that's where you're starting to see some of our frustration here. I wanted to be the 2024 plan. I wanted to be up to date, but we've got stuff on here that we still haven't got done yet. And that was part of the 2016 master plan. So I want the public to have faith in this that, you know, we're putting it on here because it is a priority because we do expect these things to happen. And if they're immediate, they should have happened. So that's just my thoughts. Do you want to respond? If I can, so as far as the Councilman Thompson, I would just like to talk about the sidewalk for a minute. Our cross sections in chapter five does go into a little bit more detail about placement of sidewalks with the sidewalks and things of that nature. So you can get a little more detail there chapter five and again I can yeah, maybe we can refer that in those comments so we can definitely reword that so that we can direct you where the more details are so you don't have to hunt for it. So they just wanted to make that statement and I think it Chris could correct me if I'm wrong because he has the history on, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, where we kind of talked about the five-year prioritize projects. We narrowed down to those projects that we have budgeted for, and that ultimately became our priority. That's in chapter two where we list those projects. So that's where the update is coming, but granted, that list that we provided is causing a lot of confusion. And I think we definitely need to address that. But I think that's where we were. We wanted to show you that list that was created in 2016 is a huge list. A lot of those projects haven't gone away as you pointed out, but we have on an annual basis, we get what our finance department, we talk about budgets and priorities and we come up with a priority list. And that's what you see in chapter two, where we identified a many of those projects we are currently working on and that's what you see in chapter two where we identified and many of those projects we are currently working on and that's our five year plan. So yeah, again, this is confusing and I think some of the wording could be clarified to say such and that's what we can work out for you. Yeah, I just don't want to see them lose priority because we're adding new ones every year. We're saying, okay, this is our new priority. Well, what about the old priority? I think that's why we kept the whole initial master plan so we won't forget about those. I think that's why at least that was our thinking, but we didn't realize it was gonna cost the kind of confusion that it has. And again, we have to rethink our better explain it, if you will. I'm on the page that says Park and Rides, and you have a picture of a bus that doesn't even exist in Brian. It goes a Southwest Plaza that says, so I know where that goes to. I was looking for the 520 route. That just shows that you had to use a bus from way over there to show that buses exist in the Metro. Councilmember Johnson. You know, I appreciate that. I just want to be clear. It's not the explanation. It's the words. I've read them. Let me read you another one. Continue a sidewalk network. This is on page 50. This is frustrating to me and Council Member Green. I bet you will be to you too. And many of you, I hope, sidewalks within the half mile urban center walk sheds will be developed to a higher standard than the rest of the community allowing two parapodestrians to meet and pass window shops to all linger. So while the largest part of the city with the most residents still doesn't have sidewalks, one of the main portions of this document says that within a half mile of where there are sidewalks, they're going to make them better is one of our main strategic plans. That's my point. I've read it. I've read it, and it's not that I need a better explanation, and I think Mayor Pro Tempadi is saying the same thing. I don't like a lot of it, and I don't think the people that are, that I represent, if they actually read this or would listen, not that anybody does anymore, or is. But if they were, I don't think they would like that. Oh, so now our tax money is gonna go to there, but we can't even walk there from Ward one. And it's a big deal, and it's Ward one and Ward four now because of how the split, it's not just Ward one. So it's not an explanation, it's that I think we need to have a talk and be asked questions. So what do you all want as the sidewalks, city council, and then us to kind of say what we're feeling from the community? Sidewalks is the one I'm harping on. There's other road stuff. We don't need to get into it now. I think we've done it enough. I just, I'd like to have a discussion about how this is done, not an explanation of why. Thanks. Well, I have everybody in the room and be a good chance to share some of the drivers. When the land use code amendments were made, roadway cross sections were added to it, which deviated from what the 2016 plan was. So we did incorporate those into this plan. There was also under the changes, the integrated capital because it was older so we did have the five year plan as a map in there shows those specific five more strategic. I really remember the terminology adaptable transportation and that's trying to adapt to what the demand may be traffic calming became a requirement now as well as some of the vision zero elements and then just adding those alternatives which I could show the breakdown just for everybody's here I thought I'd try to like brief it in a pretty up high high level without getting into all the details specifically. With those changes the original capital plan was well thought out it really dove into a lot of the little key projects, how you modify existing infrastructure. I'd say a lot of the other plan where it's a tool for us is with new development too. So we're setting to try to match basically new development as best we can. So we do want a greater standard of six-foot minimum and you're right when we have a narrower at four is better than zero, right? So we'll do those areas as we can and some of our right-aways are limited more. And that's where the document generally guides is just as an FYI to share. Hearing some of that information like a couple of ideas I'm thinking just with that the stuff you said we could show some of those major changes on this section of that there are a number of those capital projects that we have already completed so to maybe mark some of those off and then just given the fact that we do have our integrated capital and there's this huge list we can actually maybe color code those to show these are those priority ones that have really hit the list. There's what the low fruit hanging ones are we're tackling a lot of those in our annual transportation project. So let's say a roadway you see how Jess up for instance changed cross section. He used to be just wide open road, parking parking, two drive lanes. So using the guidance of the 2016 plan, which is very similar to this guidance, we went in, re-striped that roadway, added the bike lanes, I'm created the buffer. So that's kind of what I'm thinking with information I'm hearing and if there's any other questions, we'd like to still answer those two. Mayor Putin? Yeah, just a comment on that. As soon as you have a plan and you print it, the plan's outdated the next day. And Excel spreadsheet is a terribly difficult way to maintain this. And unless you're going to go back through each line and say, oh, yeah, this was high priority by 2020. And yet it's 2024 and we haven't touched it. And you're going to highlight things in green and yellow, but I don't know what the green and yellow mean. You've got a fantastic tool for project management. What is in Monday.com? And then they stay current with you, and you can actually track them and see them, and you can identify things for priority. No, I'm not giving you that direction. That's up to the city manager to decide if that's what's really happening. But I would say that it would be a more effective communication means to tell us, hey, we really know what's high priority for you. We have mapped the things that you all as the current elected council have said are important. And we have moved them up on the list because the council from 2016 is no longer in office. And whatever they thought was important in 2016 may or may not be the thing that's important to you today, or the right use of $10 million in 2026. Updating, I mean, it's fantastic to update the cross sections, update the, the where the bus lanes are, update with the standards of traffic calming are. Those are fantastic, but probably the thing we have the most influence over is what are the things they're important to brighten in 2024 to actually build. And part of that we'll have to go back and say what was really important in 2016 didn't get done and it's still really important to somebody. And we'll have to get to those. But when you've got a billion dollars of the projects there and nowhere near a quarter of that available in the next several years for investment, we will have to figure out how to split some of that attention between the new cool stuff that we really want and the retrofit stuff that we really have to have. of you can tell us when there are opportunities to go in and do retrofit because you're gonna do work on longspeak. Therefore, you can update the sidewalks and you can update the wheelchair ramps in order to be accessible at the same time. And that'll take something that was somewhere else on the list off. But yeah, trying to read through that spreadsheet and all of the columns on it, the process is not going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going. I'll be quiet. I think we might be able to pull enough city P cars together we can get a little more done. We're gonna have to get to see financial allow that to happen But to some extent though, and I think that's what disconnect I think we'd use Monday dot com on our regular daily basis where we have these projects listed And so that's how I've been in our priority. That's where we actually focus in on. This plan help us give us guidance. And it tells us the direction we want to go. It doesn't, it doesn't necessarily tell us how to get there. And we do that in our day-to-day operations and talk about what. Right, but your introductory text says one of the main things that we did was update the capital list. And so if the main thing you did was update the capital list to 2020, then you didn't do the main thing You said you were gonna do. I understand why it's causing confusion and I'm saying I get where to disconnect is between staff and in the report and what we Presented I understand it and what I'm thinking is because we are using it to your point We just need to incorporate it into this document and take this old list out. That's what I'm hearing. Yeah, if we're gonna update for 2023-2024, give me 2024 information. Got you. Councilmember Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Rare. Thank you for your presentation. I'm not for scump, but I am new. And I hear what you're saying. I'm fortunate. I live in Ward 2. We have beautiful sidewalks, great pathways. I have no complaints. Thank you very much. Oh, I can show you some places. Well, where I live. Where in the portion where I live, it's absolutely perfect. Thank you, no complaints. But my question is, and it seems to me I may be right about this and I may be wrong, so feel free to correct me. When we're talking about new projects, future projects, new development, there's metro districts and tax incentives financing and all kinds of ways to get money to do this. I don't quite understand how easy it is to go back and do what he wants to do and retrofit something where the developers gone. There is no reason for a metro district. There's no way. So my question is I get it. I think we do need to fix that. I think we need to make those communities. Where do we get the money? How do we finance this? And I don't think it's your problem. I think it's our problem. How can how can the council help you find? The revenue to do these projects because it's really easy to set up here and say hey go put sidewalks in Matt's neighborhood Would you? By the way, we don't have any money. Well, so how can we help 1 billion tonight? So another strategy might be an option Incrementally, we're tackling them and you're right the financing bet that is my whole challenge like how do we do this? How do we fit this into a project and then we maintain it too? So being a cognitive of how much infrastructure we own we want to also be able to maintain it too because that's important to maintain what you have Yeah, it's an incremental approach and these are long long term projects. I mean the plan itself, I talk about 25 years out, but the and so it's incremental approach is working with our community economic development department, the developers, we make sure we involve with with that department and ensuring that they're doing their fair share of development and as they come in and sometimes we don't know exactly where they're I mean we don't know what's part of the that they're doing their fair share of development. And as they come in, and sometimes we don't know exactly where they're, I mean, we don't know what's part of the city they're going to develop, or it's going to grow the fastest. And we got to always be flexible to shift our priorities, if you will, to make some of those connections. But it's from an incremental approach as we take this guidance document and incorporate it into our annual plans. Okay, this is what's happening, this is what we need to do. And also, I also like to mention too, because our city manager's office, we've got a transportation consultant on board these past several months where we have enhanced our communications with C.D. Dr. Gog Gog. She attends the meetings and she's the one who has been strategically putting together proposals to receive grants, which Chris mentioned earlier where we got this grant to study the core city circulation plan. And so we as a city have, I think, really in hand, starting to focus more of trying to get funds and use all the resources available. And it's just a time consuming. And it's gonna take some time to really get and achieve it, at least by this plan, at least 25 years and beyond. So that's where we are. And this conversation's helpful for us to really engage and understand what the City Council is looking for and wants. So, it's very helpful and we appreciate the input. And we'll go back and, you know, revise, update, and do it. But also, we try to communicate higher processes work as well internally and how we make some of the decisions we made. Council Member Fiddler. Hey, you Mayor. Thanks for the presentation. God help you. So I agree it's a lot to digest, right? So I think I counted 10 or 11 spreadsheets with multiple projects. I don't have any idea what that totals. I think we say CRISPR is a billion dollars of assets you're trying to maintain. I believe that's over a billion. I have to check the math again because I was adding it up and I'm like there's no way. And I'm going to cut that in and I'm like this is getting bigger. I'm like K, this is not going to... So here's what I know. No, no, no. you will not complete that those 10 pages of projects in any of our lifetimes. So what I am curious about, I agree with Councilor Mayor for Tempidia. So figure six there, you're going to capital project list. I'm assuming those are an upgrade. They're the new list for the 23 needs to be 24 plan, I be curious what the Integrated Capital Project list was for 2016 and what, so check them off, right? And I would also say, because there's lots of questions here. I said this many times, Lloyd and Tom will shake their heads. You can do anything, you can do everything on this list. So you've got to prioritize that. So I see your prioritization if I understand things correctly for this new revised master plan and figure six, so those are things you're taking on. I'm sorry, Council Member Johnston, I'll see sidewalks in your neighborhood on that list. But that doesn't mean that couldn't be, right? But again, that would help us. So what was on the list from 2016 that's been accomplished? So we can feel good about that progress. And then just thinking about we're all living through, I'm living through bridge every day on that wedding and right front of the office. So I know there are things that are underway. Just to help us capture that's really hard to, it was dense reading. But again, I know there's been progress made on that previous master plan and just help help us quantify what you're going to be able to commit to and deliver on in the next 36 to 60 months so we can all feel good about That progress because if you tie us to that spreadsheet You're going to continue, you know, you failed us that they're not all done It's just not a fair expectation of you. So thank you, Mayor. Yeah, what's realistic that can be done? Does anybody have a chance to put your hand up? Or council member Johnston? Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate that from council member Fiddler and I totally saw that it wasn't there and why I went off on my previous rant. But to the council member Snyder, I just want to say the way that we do it is one of the main... We need to say as a council, one of the main strategic objectives. If it was my thing, if I could make it my way, it would be the first one is to connect all of the sidewalks from the east side to the west side of the city. And that should be number one master plan. And it's not. And this isn't any of your fault. You're just hearing a lot of this for the first time. And some of that is our fault for not voicing this before this moment. So that's what I, that way, then that's where the financing comes from. Because once we make it a priority at the highest of levels, we have such a good city manager. He goes to the finance department, says, hey, let's figure this out. Then he goes to these guys and they go, all right, now let's build it. And it's kind of that way. We go one strategic number one. And that's what I would like to do on this because that's always the first step because I'm not as scared about the future developments after reading this document. It feels good about what future developments will be and it's not inside my neighborhood. It's after the Metro district ends. I don't mean to go silverstein on you, but it's where that sidewalk ends is right there where here it is. It goes from here and there's no Metro district to cover it and it just ends and it's in three different locations that we all know if you live there. But, um, yes, so that's the way I would like to do it. Make it one of the strategic objectives if not the first. Thanks. Anybody else? Did you have something, City Manager Martinez, or just twirling your bin? No, I always have something, but I was twirling my bin too. I will just say this, that this plan in particular is something that's been, it's a guiding document that's been around since 2016, right? And the intention in upgrading or updating it is just to try to capture, and it was said tonight, try to capture the priorities and thoughts of councils at a certain time, but obviously as councils change and turn over so to those priorities and from year to year these change. So our goal is to really just try to capture the bigger picture items, put them in a document which happens to be very comprehensive, 136 plus pages for your consumption, right? I think one thing we need to do better as mentioned was help this to be more digestible and that's something we'll do So we'll bring this back to you all in in bite-sized chunks so that we have an opportunity to talk about some of these things more specifically Rather than trying to take on a hundred and thirty six plus pages of 10 years worth of priorities to get back into That way I think it gives you all an opportunity to have a better conversation about what your current priorities are so we can match those priorities with what the strategic plan actually should look like for this current council. So that's my thoughts. I think in legal jargon, let's see the red lines, see what was removed or added or whatever. So. What I'll do you have one. Yeah, maybe I'll put them. When we're making a decision to add a playground or upgrade a playground, we don't need 48 pages to tell us about the playground. That's when we just need one. When we're talking about our master transportation plan, we probably need more than six pages. Yep. Number worth. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this that our goal as a council is to provide guidance in general and it's our city manager's job to specify the priorities. Bring those back to us at some point. And, you know, if I'm sorry, Matt, but if your sidewalks are not there, then that's what it is. But if they are, great. I mean, certainly I would put them on the list just to get you off my case. So, but I, but that it, am I correct in that assumption that it's not our job to go through all the needy gritty details and figure out which project, which park, which playground needs to be fixed. First, let the city use their expertise and provide feedback to us is what they believe based on budget things like that is the is Chris's list of top priorities. Yep. I would say it's a mixture after all these years. It's a mixture of us understanding the priorities of those we represent and feeding that to the city. And then them saying we can or can't do this because of this, but I think it would be a mixture just. Thanks. Some member of green. And while I agree, you can't get completely across the city in the sidewalks, especially using Ward one. You can get there. It's just not a straight line. Sometimes you have to cross the street, go down four blocks this way and up three blocks that way. There are sidewalks that go across it, just they don't all would connect each other. Yeah, so that's the only thing. So that's railroad tracks. Councilmember, today, did you have your hand up? I'd start if to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to talk to us off of this part of the trailhead. For the grant, we didn't accept for that one. Let's bring it back to us in the future date. So I'd propose then we just bring back to another study session at the UVBAS. We'll go through a couple of these different topics as well. And then share the information that was discussed today. And then we can progress from there. Definitely not ready for next week. Sure you don't have a moot. All right, thanks so much. Thank you. Next, South Outfall Phase 2, Colvert's Construction Services, City Manager Martinez. Thank you, Mayor. This should be a much easier discussion than transportation master plans. 42-page doctor. Yes, it's only 42 pages. No, we want to hammer these people real hard now. and the city council. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. of our utility staff engineers and Anna Sparks are utilities engineering manager to present these two items. So I will turn it over to them. Thank you, good afternoon. This project is the South Outfall Phase 2 culverts for the construction services. This presentation will consist of the project overview and the project's location, procurement summary and staff recommendation, options for city council and questions at the end. The project overview is that the South Outfall is a master planned drainage way that carries runoff to the South Platte River. Outfall has been designated and constructed in various phases over many decades. The latest portion is to be designed, constructed, and constructed is approximately between South Fourth Avenue and South 27th Avenue. There are several roadways crossings in this portion of the outfall, including South 19th Avenue, Chambers Road and South Fourth Avenue. These culvert crossings were planned to be constructed in two phases as development occurred in the drainage basin. The first phase was constructed in 2012, and the second phase was designed in 2023. Development in the drainage basin has reached a level that the adjacent parallel co-alverts are required to convey proper flow. Sediment accumulation will also be removed from the outfall. At the end of the project, the existing and proposed culverts will be able to accommodate the future plan cross-section of South 4th Avenue, which is also sable bull lard. Construction services have been formally solicited and the results are presented in this evening. The location is shown. We have three locations. One is on South Forth Avenue. Another is at Chambers Road and another is South 19th Avenue. And for reference, this would be about where 148th Avenue would align. We received three responses from BITNet and the BITS are shown and the staff recommendation is to accept BIT2 which is submitted by Durin excavation which has been deemed the lowest and most responsive of those received. Options for City Council, none at this time. Staff is requesting City Council permission to add this item to the consent agenda at the next regular City Council meeting next week. Questions? Who's got questions or comment? May I vote them? Just a quick question. The fourth avenue one is the one that we just turned over to a. Sorry, one of the Metro districts. And they had to be able to across on on Brownlee Farm, is that that the where that that piece is? So Jamie, do you want to go back to that screen real quick? The map. So I want to just make it clear there is there's two crossings of Sable. There's one to the north of the one that is shown there on South Forth or Sable. The next one to the north is actually the one that is shown there on South Worth or Sable. The next one to the north is actually the one that the Metro District is going to be constructing that I think you're referring to. Got it. Thank you. I was not able to align the map properly man. So thank you. Absolutely. Tell some number green. Is it in the budget? Anybody did it for this? Yeah. Okay. That's all I needed here. I'll turn some number green. Is it in the budget? Anybody budget it for this? We have. OK, that's all I need to hear. Thank you. Anybody else? So the question is, is putting on a consent agenda. I know the dollar threshold might have some reservations for some people that stepped out of the room. But I don't see a problem, especially since it was in the budget. So, okay. Go fight with. Thank you. Now's your chance. All right, sounds good. Thank you. And are you here for the next part, the 10th Avenue and Midland Street storm improvements? Yes, sir. Okay, I'm like, did I miss something here? Okay. proceed. Jamie. Can I get the other project? Thank you. This project is the 10th and Midland Storm improvements change order number one. Same contents. We're going to have a project recap or we will present to the change order number one. The staff recommendation options for city councils and questions at the end. So as a reminder, this project is on 10th and Mid, and during the minor storm events, street flooding frequently occurs in the area, extending for a several hundred feet on the roadway. There's a lack of connection to a storm sewer system at the corner of Midland Street and North Tenth Avenue. Storm sewer inlets and piping was installed to capture and convey the pond in water. And City Council authorized this back in December of last year. American West Construction was authorized by City staff to utilize a portion of the nearby parking lot for storage of construction materials. The parking lot was in poor condition due to drainage issues and the existing cracking and it was also deteriorating. There was a local pavement settlement caused standing water in the parking lot. And due to the construction activity, the parking lot was damaged further. So the parking lot is in the teal oval and the storm pipe that was recently installed is in the red hashed area with the purple lines. There's a picture on the left with the damages that was occurred to the parking lot and there's an aerial view on the right showing the water ponding that was present before the project started. For change order number one, utilities and parks and recreation determined it was in the best interest of the city and residents to repay the entirety of the parking lot instead of just patching portions. American West construction parks and rec and utility will all contribute to the parking lot repayment and repair work. The drainage issue causing standing water in the parking lot will also be addressed as much as possible. A completely resurfaced parking lot will provide better drainage for the park. This is the cost breakdown of the change ordered number one and the city council for the second. The staff recommends that at the next city council meeting or future approve resolution as drafted authorizing the city manager to execute change order number one to that contract. The options for city council at this time are none. Staff is requesting council permission to add this to the consent agenda on the next city council meeting. And I will open the floor up for questions. I see no problem with the change. Anybody else? Added to consent next week? Yeah. It's absolutely mandatory. Very bad. To turn on your mic, Jim. Turn on your mic. I'm sorry. Turn on your mic Jim. Sorry. It's dangerous. So I applaud you for pursuing this right away. It absolutely has to be done. It can't stay the way it is. So thank you. For sure. All right. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you guys for your time. All right, before we go on to the next item, I'm just going to call a break because I don't know how to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going sure if you're going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going violations here and turn this over to city attorney called around. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. I know you've all been anxiously wanting to talk about our charter. I'm going to go over a little bit of history before we get into the various possible options on here. I'm going to say I want to have a caveat here. There are slides. These slides reflect ideas I have heard for the last two years from any individual. I'm not telling you there's any two people that agree on anything on any of these slides. Okay. I just want to be clear. These are just ideas that in discussions over time with various council members that have come up as possible changes that we could make. Starting with the history, before you adopt your home rule charter, you are considered what's called a statutory city and you're subject to some very specific state statutes and that's how you have to operate. Once you exercise your home rule authority by adopting a charter, your charter is your guiding document. It's the basic structure and organization. It doesn't need to spell out the details, but if we ever feel we need to exercise more local authority in some area where we can, we can always add to it and modify it. So you think of it sort of as your constitution for your local affairs. And we adopted ours in July of 2000. So we're a fairly young home rule city, even though as a city, we've been around much longer than that. In order to amend the charter, one of the ways, because the voters can also do this through a different process, but this is your process of city Council wants to do it, right? So how you do it is you adopt an ordinance where you submit a proposed amendment to a vote of the registered electors. In that ordinance, you adopt the ballot title and the substance of what you're going to change. You can call an election pretty much any time because within 30 days of adopting that ordinance, you then have to call the election. So there's a time period there, not less than 60 days, not more than 120 days. So you control it. You can time it to happen around a general election in November. You can time it for a special election at some other time of the year. So the list of items that we that are on the upcoming slides. I'm going to interrupt your click. There's a procedural question. May I put them? I'm going to interrupt your click. There's a procedural question. May I put them? We refer a ballot title for an amendment. Is that subject to single subject rules? Yes. Single subject that just means a general area, not necessarily a single topic. Right. So the slides are... Cleanups can be a single topic, even if there are three items being cleaned up. Elections can be a topic, even if there are three items in election, but you can't do cleanup and elections in the same updates to the charter. Correct. And so the slides are sort of done that way. Okay. Like each of these could be their own. That is correct. So this is the outline of what we're going to go through for those that like an outline and like to know what's coming at you. That's what this slide is for. Okay. In terms of some cleanup that could happen, the charter right now when it talks about when the mayor pro tem is selected, it doesn't say at the meeting in January, it says at the first regular meeting, which implies after the election. So that'd be sometime in November. And so it'd be nice to just add the words in January and there to make it clear that it's happening at your first January meeting, not the first meeting after the election. There are two other sections in there that talk specifically about City Council being the one that proposes altars, consolidates or abolishes administrative departments and it lists specific departments. That the city council. The city council is a councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's councilor's that we're not going to be able to do that. It doesn't need to determine which departments are because you're allowing the city manager to create and abolish and combine and do all that with your department. So these would be the ones that I would suggest if we did a cleanup that we could do. Again, it's not we don't have to. It's just like that is an option. And I don't know if you want to talk about each slide because each one is a completely different concept. You plan to hold some of this to be a... I think we should go through those one by one here. Did you have, did someone have anything mayor Pradim? Yeah, I don't have a problem with the cleanup things, but I would say is that looking at home rule city charters and referred amendments in recent past in Colorado, if you have several of them up, they fail. If you are doing something that has a specific purpose that people in the community agree with, then they tend to go forward. Now, of course, we would have to vote on each of these, I think, as a separate amendment to ordinance to refer each one. But I would recommend that if we do so, we'd do so pretty cautiously. The cleanup things seem a decent idea, but also not necessarily hampering to business today. seem a decent idea, but also not necessarily hampering to business today. Yep, I agree. Anybody else? They move on. Okay, another idea that has come up is, uh, currently, a regular municipal election is the odd numbered year. So, and note the first Tuesday of the odd numbered year. And there's a question about whether we want to change that to the even numbered year. And you're just to, this is, so your regular election is where you elect your mayor and your council members. It's also where you take any tax measures under taper. So whatever is your regular election is where you can do that. That's a member Snyder. I read that in the question that came to mind and maybe somebody can answer it for me is. What would the benefit of changing that be? I guess I don't understand the benefit of collecting and even our odd years I could tell you I noticed like when we had the special election for Council member Green on this first round and that was during an even year the governor was running at the same time there was more turnout for that than the odd years when we normally have our typical cycle. In the next election, again, correct me if I'm wrong because I'm new, I think there's five people that are going to be running. There would be four awards in the mayor. Right. So that is a right so that is a it would add a year to the term of the people that are in office now because we have to wait till the even year so would those people be willing to stay and do we have the authority to do that I guess that's a question if we add the year or subtract the year. Who's that? Would you have to subtract? Yeah, you can't extend a term. Okay. On the root of the. The advantage is an increased turnout. The disadvantage is that you align a nonpartisan municipal election with a heavily partisan general election. And I generally am opposed to making that change for that reason. And that's why the odd years were written into the charter in the first place was to separate the nonpartisan municipal election from the other. Another good point. I'm open on that too. Any other comment? I want both of them. Okay. I don't hear any other comment. Not really clear direction on where to go on that. Let's move forward. I'm going to go to the office. Let's move forward. Oh, I say leave it alone. Okay. Councilmember Snyder based on the information you all gave me and thank you very much. I asked these questions because I truly don't know but I agree. I love the nonpartisanship of the city council and I agree keeping that separated is a fantastic idea so I say leave it alone. Why do we have these discussions? Let's proceed. So another one that has come up is the question around the runoff election. Currently, the runoff occurs if no candidate receives the majority of the vote. So one candidate must have more than 50%. If they don't, then the runoff is between the top two. Another option is remove, so leave it as is, or you could remove the runoff election and just the largest number of votes wins, whether or not they get greater than 50% or you change to the instant runoff method of voting or I believe that has other names as well. So you have options here. Other cities are exploring various ones and do it different ways. And I've heard many different opinions. So I am opening the floor. I'll you, Mayor. So I have a proposal here. And four of us here have been involved in runoffs. And two of us have benefited because of the runoff that I can tell here at this table. So right now, obviously, you know, you don't hit 50%, you go to a runoff. A lot of the people that win the run or win the general election are pretty much going to win the runoff if their percentage is above a certain threshold say above I don't 678 percent whatever it is I'd say if you're percentage Above the candidate below you hits a certain threshold that you don't need to run off and that that would be my proposal Say I don't know put a number out five six seven percent. I don't know whatever it is. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I I just want to say this before this goes further is that I love that idea, but I know that multiple council members hate it. I don't think we're going to go anywhere with changing the runoff, and I just want to be really clear about that changing it to where the runoff. If there was a percentage, I would like to see some science and math behind what a percentage would be. I remember the previous mayor, Ken Kreitzer, had won at such a high level. And then he still had to have a fake runoff election during other actual runoff elections when I was very first elected. And it was frustrating to me that he had to have a fake runoff because it was almost impossible for him to lose that election. He had won so many. And it also provides, and I just want to pitch this argument one more time, is it provides for the idea of politics really playing heavy in this, because what you end up having to do is just get someone else to run. You get three people into one ward to run, and it's very hard to not have a runoff. I think Tom Green is the only person to have that happen and not have to have a runoff. Right, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, true, but I'm just saying, see what I'm actually saying is I don't, I think we all have an idea of where to go with this, but I don't think we'll ever come to a consensus because we're very hard on each of these ideas. But that's just my thoughts. Thanks. Mayor Brutten. There's a reason that we actually conduct elections and don't do statistical analysis to determine what the outcome of the election would be. 99.9% of the time, the statistical analysis is accurate and would tell you who is going to win. And yet, we get to actually cast votes. And we get to cast votes in a system that says the majority wins. And if you don't have a majority, all of the people who were in the minority who might have split their votes between two people with the same view when they get to the runoff election and have the view that they cared about versus the other could combine and vote for the candidate to help the view that they did and win the majority. There's a reason majority wins. So I am opposed to anything that takes away the opportunity to actually cast your vote and assumes that statistics would say that this person was likely to win. It's not a fake election if you're casting votes. It may be predictable, but that doesn't make it fake. But if the voters vote to approve a change, then they've already voted by majority to say to say hey this is how we agree. Excellent but I won't vote to refer something that does that so I might be in the minority and I might lose that but I'm representing the people in allowing them to vote every time there's an opportunity and a decision to be made. I don't think it's a wrong. I don't think it's a wrong. I don't think it's a wrong. I don't think it's a wrong. I don't think it's a wrong. I don't think it's a wrong. I don't think it's a wrong. I don't think it's a wrong. I don't think it's a wrong. I don't think it's a wrong. I don't think it's clear to their constituents, hey, we had a voice in this. And one of the things we talk about is transparency and clarity and government. And I think when you go, well, you know, this guy didn't get 50%, we're gonna give it to him anyway. No, no, no, we're gonna let you vote again. Is it very expensive? I mean, why would we need to change this? Is it horribly expensive to have a runoff election? Because of it's not, I would say that we are pretty amiable and we can agree and come to a consensus and just leave some things alone. Anybody else? Anybody else remember Johnston? You two have just changed my opinion. I withdraw my thoughts. Thanks. Good morning, John. All right. If nothing else proceed. It's meant to find. Okay, these are two different concepts on one slide because they are the same section. They are the section that has to do with qualifications for office. The first one that we could amend are charter prohibits anyone from being qualified to run for office who has been convicted of a felony. So we currently don't run a background check on candidates. We currently are basically not enforcing it. Part of why we're currently not enforcing it, I can't speak to the past, but a couple of years ago, and you probably saw the articles in the paper about Aurora. Basically, the city of Aurora had a lawsuit regarding this Adam's district court judge found that it was likely they would lose that this was unconstitutional to prohibit anyone who had ever been convicted of any felony for a morning for fund. The state's public fund is the state's public fund. The state's public fund is the state's public fund. The state's public fund is the state's public fund. The state's public fund is the state's public fund. The state's public fund is the state's public fund. The state's public fund is the state's public fund. list those specific felonies that are in the Constitution and my suggestion would be perhaps we also add felony sexual offenses. I'm not sure murder would hold up actually but I do think you know an argument could be made for the sexual offenses. So we can just not change it where we're, leave it as is and don't enforce it. The other lesson learned though by Aurora is actually the voters like it the way it is. They put it on their ballot and the ballot measure failed. So there's like ours still says any felony, it just can't be enforced. So that's the first one. I'll let you talk about that one before we talk about the second one. Council member Green, now it says elected or appointed, does it say serve? So if you're convicted of a felony after you've been elected, this is a question I'm asking here. So if you were convicted of embezzlement while you're still in office, it says that you could, we have nothing that would basically stop them. We have no mechanism to remove people except by recall or resignation. So we can't force an elected official out, even if they're convicted of one of these felonies after their in office. So that would mean that we really have no teeth in this to begin with. Right, yeah. Aurora rejected it. Fort Collins approved this change last year. this change last year. I guess my question would be, if we changed it, would our practice therefore change and would we enforce it? And how do we enforce it? The, yeah, the cities that enforce it conduct a criminal background checked on candidates. Prior to them getting on the ballot. Correct. Other than practice, is there any reason we don't enforce it today? Again, I don't know before the Aurora case. Since the Aurora case, we have not been enforcing it. In addition to the Aurora situation, we all received letters from the ACLU saying, hey guys. If you enforce this, we'll see. Great. Don't want to ask how they can cut some members' night or what's your hand up? Well, if somebody was convicted of a felony like this after they were elected, they'd be spending a little time in jail that missed three consecutive meetings and would remove them. So we do. Not necessarily. Well, we know how the court is. That's the best thing. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I forgot about the court, but most of them would. But um, they could post on their most of them would but um yeah I'm again I'm new but and I'm stunned that this is an issue why would would we have people convicted of felonies running the city government I I think we ought to do it and I think we ought to enforce it welcome to politics Jim Jim. Right. We can have buyers. City manager Martinez. I would just like to make a point of clarification in your current charter. 4.8A, which talks about vacancies, does state that vacancy in the office may or council members shall exist. If during the term of office of mayor or council member, first exclusion is is convicted of a felony. So it's already in the charter if you're convicted of a felony while sitting you are disqualified. So we have to change both to be confined with the correct minus say we would be changing both. Okay council member worth. Thank you mayor. I would have I like to think that all felons are created equally and treated equally. I would be really concerned about somebody who is convicted of a felony when they were 17 years old. Stupid thing could be something as stupid as drug possession. It could have been, you know, could have been considered a felony then and now be legal. And yet that person when they're 50 years old can't step up to serve their city. So I think there should maybe, if we decide to enforce something, I think there should be some clarification on what. I mean, obviously, if you did something in the last 10 years, yeah, that should maybe restrict you from that. And certain things should restrict you whether you're 15 or whether you're 50. I would consider everything on that list, although not too familiar with many 15-year-olds in bezeling funds. But I think there should be some restrictions on that, but I really hate to punish a person who has perhaps rehabbed him as actually a productive member of society and say, yeah, you can't step up and serve your city because of something stupid you did 25 years ago, something like that. And that is an option that Council could also do is to change it to just say who's been convicted of a felony within the last 10 years. And that could be a different way to change it. The courts, again, haven't fully decided how this will be interpreted. So, limitation of, you know, certain amount of years might also be another way to go about it. Councilmember Jocelyn. Yeah, I really appreciate the comments from Councilmember Worth there. And I think there's something to that. I guess the way that we should do it to be safe, and this is just an idea that I'm going to spit ball right here right now, is if we to put this in practice, if we make every candidate sign a document saying, once you turn in your petition packet, we will now run a criminal background check and if anything comes up on it So I don't know about this. So let me just say it will it will be publicly noticed somewhere that this was what came up on their background check In that moment and if it's within this amount of time in that moment and if it's within this amount of time, like council member Worth is saying, on certain things, then you are no longer eligible and then if the courts don't like that, let's fight them. Because that's as nice as you can be without punishing someone 30 years down the road and it also just, it enforces the practice of it without us having full legal liability towards it because they're signing, saying they will go through this. And then, I mean, on the webpage during the election, there's a lot of things shown. And I think that will deter a felony sexual predator. I would hope it would deter them for running for office, that we'll just have to list it right here because you're signing off that this candidate, background check clean, clean, then felony sexual assault on this candidate. It's a deterrence factor from having bad actors even run for council. And it also gives us, I think, some leeway in the court system. And then if they, I think, just an idea. What's the member today, oh. Thank you. I had some of the same thoughts as councilmember worth what could we say? felony of that this list of felonies no and then if it's if it's a felony, but it's not on this list Then you you propose it or we put a time limit to it. I think 10 years is not long enough personally, I think 10 years is not long enough. Personally, I think 15-ish would be better, but I mean, could you do like a melding of both of them in that regard? Because I agree. I mean, somebody who does something stupid when they're young doesn't mean that they're not, you know, okay now, you don't have to worry about it. It doesn't also mean that they're going to be all right either. I'm not sure if it's going to be a good deal. It doesn't also mean that they're going to be all right either. Anyway, yeah, that's my thoughts. Did the attorney call the room? Yeah, we can propose anything we want. Mayor Broughton. Because we're not in a rush. And there seems to be some interest in discussion on this one. I to propose assigning a committee that potentially includes council members will worth and today with the city attorney to go and figure out how to draft something like this unless we're in such a rush that we want to do a special election. We have a little bit over a year to line this with our next regular election. But I'd love to send a committee off to research those things, decide which is the way to produce it. And if this is the change that we think is the most significant to our charter outside of some cleanup things, I'd support referring it and let people make a decision. So, remember, Johnston, in what I was saying is to not refer this, to make it practice because we don't have to refer it. I don't want to have the citizens, I don't want to refer to something the citizens saying council members are okay with having felons on the council. That's what it ends up looking like, whether we like it or not. I'm saying a practice that we do it as council member today, and worth, and partly some of mine is incorporated. And then we make it our practice is my idea, instead of taking it to the ballot, because I don't want to just follow by the motion. Post the results, a deterrent factor, and then... Can we legally do that? So for a criminal background check, the person has to agree they have to sign something. So my assumption would be a candidate with a felony would just not allow us to do a criminal background check, but they would just wouldn't sign it. That can't just be part of the affidavit to run. No, so that is, or that's why you're remembering that it used to be part of the affidavit. It used to be that council members running for office checked the box saying they didn't have any, but there was no background check, we run. And that affidavit doesn't give you permission. It has to be a specific form that a release that allows us to run a background check. I mean, you can ask people to do that. You can publish it, but then you're, oh, that's true. You can publish if they refuse the sign that background check authorization. But then you're allowing people. I think if we're going to do something like that. Sorry. I think if we're going to do something like that. Sorry. I think if we're going to make a change in practice, we need to make it aligned with our requirements. I don't think we can just introduce something that's not enforceable because we don't have a requirement that permits our requirement to run for office doesn't require you to consent to a background check to run for office. That would be part of the change to the charter is to make that a requirement to run for office. understand that. If someone is elected to this council and then we find that they do have a felony, what is the recourse? Right now. Recourse. I mean, under our charter right now, it would create a vacancy. But could that individual then sue us for the reasons that the Adams County District Court judge felt were possible constitutional violations. There's a risk. Right. Okay. And those concerns that are being raised are really the ones that council member worth and council member today, I'll have brought up. By saying any felony any time you're excluding people that yes maybe rehabilitated that may have been young that right it were our net is too large right also a lot of people that may be pled to a misdemeanor, even though they were charged with the felony, it would still, it wouldn't show up or, you know, you may have been charged with the best one of the funds, but you pled to mismanagement. And so you charge. I guess I would argue that if it's in our charter, we should enforce it. We say no person who has been convicted of a felony shall be eligible, be elected or appointed. And let's enforce it. The manner of that, we can ask them to let us run a background check. And if they don't, I mean, it'll say on there that they didn't check the box. But it's in our charter, we can enforce it. What's in our charter. We can enforce it. What's in our charter? I think it's like when someone runs for president, they typically sign off for like a health exam to be made public and not everybody agrees to that. It's in that same format. We can't enforce it, but they refused if they weren't. Now it's my reflection. Thank you Mayor. Four of us were at the school district backgrounds checks their candidates. So it's all around risk management, right? So you're more concerned about someone suing us because we didn't allow them to be on council or having a convicted felon elected to council and you have a charter that prohibits that. It's trying to pick your poison. And I concur. I mean, people make poor choices in life and they can grow into better people and not meet those choices again. When I'm looking at the Constitutional, if I understand this correctly, the Constitution prohibits these felons. These types of felonies, investment of public funds, which makes sense. You don't want them on a council. A bribery, probably don't want them on council. Perjury, probably don't want them on council. So, it's a station of bribery. And that one makes sense. I don't know what subordination of perjury. This is okay. You don't want that either. Right, so that makes sense to me, but you're trying to mitigate risk. Which one do you want to mitigate? That's both ways. And in terms of running a background check right now, because it's the state constitution that contains those specific felonies and because our charter also says that we could run a background check looking for those specific ones. The question is in terms of risk, again, it's one judge in a district court that found it was too broad and had due process an equal protection, more equal protection implications. So it's a potential US Constitution issue if we leave it as broad as it is and then choose to enforce it. I think in the school district there is statutory authority also for your school boards because they have access to children. We technically and running the city don't you know. And you can choose who serves on the Brighton East Commission if you knew someone you're right. We didn't do it back on check. True. Where brought them? Not that I ever liked to repeat myself too many times in the evening. I would love to see a committee go and come back with some options for this rather than trying to decide it right now tonight. I'm back with that.. I'm fine with that. But I'm good with F. We haven't gotten to F. When the two proposed individuals that were proposed to do a subcommittee on this be willing to. I know. I'm asking both of you. He nominated Council member today on Council member worth. You don't you don't have to accept but okay. They have to be nominated at an point. We have to take a vote on any committee settled. But we would have to take action on that next week. You can take action next week if you're forming a formal committee. Right. You're like, you're like, you're like, you're like, you're like, you're like, you're like, you're like, you're like, you're like, you're like, you're like, you're like, you're like, you're like, you're like, that same section, qualifications for office, there's been the suggestion that we add that no immediate family member shall run for City Council when a family member is already serving on City Council or if two immediate family members run for office only the one with the highest votes may take office. Immediate family member includes spouse child parent, brother, sister. For this one, you could expand that definition. You could make it less. But this one's open for conversation. Open for discussion. Councilmember Johnston. Are we going to call this the Commerce City Rule? Bad jokes, sorry. Yes. I actually worked for a state senator at one time in his wife was about to become the state senator after he created a vacancy committee. So I do have something attached to this and I was not happy about that. And I'm saying that I guess we're getting close to taking away the ability for voters to make their own decisions. If we go down this road, it starts to get tricky. What an immediate family member is. And I don't know about this one. If we do take this one to the ballot, I think it would pass is the one thing. I think we could get this one to pass. So I would be willing to be a yes vote on it, even though I have apprehensions of its applicability to reality. Anybody else? Councilmember Fiddler? Thank you, Mayor. If I could on behalf of Councillor Poskey, who's absent tonight, because you had a seat for time, I think as you all know, the one issue with the change in the charter is actually no relatives, which should serve at the same time on council. Yep, she texts the same thing. All right, I promise I'd share. Mayor Putem. Not at the same time. To match her request and a conversation, we would have to expand it pretty significantly because in one of our recent elections we had somebody who was an in-law relationship to somebody who already sat on the council. So this change wouldn't necessarily approach that. I think my question on this one would be are there any circumstances where those people who are family members who have served on the council have demonstrated a conflict or have put the city at risk for doing so. I don't, I know of a handful of situations where people have been elected. I don't know of any problems where that has been the catalyst for something illegal or untoward or conflict driven other than the fact that our neighbors in the northern suburbs compete with this occasionally for who can be the most ridiculous at any given moment. I just, this may be a solution in search of a problem. Good point. Anybody else? I'm indifferent on it. It doesn't matter to me. I'll remember green. I guess the conflict from the cities where I've seen this happen is there two votes usually are in lockstep. And so, my struggle is that sometimes that's not necessarily a representative vote as it is basically an ideological vote so that you start putting enough of those on there and you basically taken away the independence of the council itself. So again, this is where I'm against it because I've seen it and the ones that I've seen. And it's typically in the case of Northland, a mayor and a council member, mayor and a council member. Or so you've got a controlling aspect of it and a given vote on a lot of these issues. And that's where I really see the struggle to I see some conflicts I'm in favor of this, but I think we should limit it to this close of family members What's listed here if My wife is elected to the council our family would have 23% of the vote of this council, just in our family. And as a joke, I'd like to say we'd obviously be on opposite sides all the time, because we're married. But that simply isn't true. We agree on most things. And I'm very influential over here. I could sway her. So I think having, I'm good at it. I'm telling you, she stayed with me for 31 years. Obviously swayed something. So I think if we include child's spouse, parent, these close family members, I assist her in law, brother in law, law cousin that you're getting far enough away that I think the influence fades a little bit, but I would be in favor of having this if it was limited to the very immediate family members. Mayor Boatem who was first? Oh, council member Fiddler, let's go to you. Thank you, Mayor. Those people got elected. Whether we like it, someone else doesn't like it. If the city of Brighton elected you and your wife, you should serve. And I don't love it either, but they get elected. So who are we to say, no, we shouldn't be on the, well, actually we let the public decide, but I'm with Peter. I think it's a problem and search of a solution. Yep. Mayor put them. Yeah, just the technical question. Again, I don't see that it's a specific problem. Could these two sit on the same ballot if we refer to both of them together? Yep. Okay. It's not a hill that I'm willing to die on either way on that one, but I don't see a particular need or drive for this. Yep. And then cut the member worth it. Thank you, Mayor. I would say that there's just as good a chance as two family members that are in cooots with each other as two non-family members that are in cooots with each other. I just don't see that big of a difference. And kind of what we're talking about. There's a decent chance that you don't see that big of a difference. And kind of what we're talking about. There's a decent chance that you don't agree. You don't see eye to eye with your family members. I never hear anybody say they just met their whole family for Christmas and they all thought the same thing. Haven't heard that yet. So I just think it's, again, not a hill I'm going to die on, but I don't see a point for putting that in. Did you have some council member Johnston? I wish we could add something in a charter when referring something to the charter needs a certain percentage of the council. That's the funniest part because I hate these five to four things with huge items sent to the charter because then the city only sees it as the five and the four the minority vote always gets tagged into it regardless. So I would hope us as a council as we move forward if we start to see this kind of divisiveness we just say no and it's just gonna provide device me even though I'm on the opposite side of the vote I might be in the majority still on this one, but I'm not sure. I don't care. I just want us to be careful about that. Yeah. And I also agree with Councilmember Fiddler. I mean, people voted for him, whether you like it or not. Up and fought up in a while back, there was a mother son serving, and they would cancel each other's votes out. They weren't always locked up, so it don't matter. Right? I don't think that's clear to move forward with, but let's move on. Sounds like it's not. Okay. Recall, I think there was a question about whether we leave it as is. Right now it's 25% of the entire vote cast for all candidates for a particular office. Do we want to change that to any other percentage or are we fine with how it is? Is that 25% of the registered voters or 25% of the participants of the previous election? Previous election. Or signatures. Or just signatures. Yes. So if 1800 people vote in an election the next time when you want to recall you need 25% of the 1800. Some of you are much better that math than me. That's why you see 5% of those that participate in that election. The word is being forgot point of word. The word signatures is nowhere near this and I just want to be very clear for the public. 25% of the entire vote cast for all candidates for that particular office. How many signatures you need to get and when it comes to mayor, it's city wide, ward, it's ward to ward. So this is how many signatures you need to gather to get a recall file. What about state ballots for, you know, if you recall in your senator or whatever, I mean, is it 25% or is there a different number? It'd be nice to align with. I know that the state constitution on municipal code is 25%. So our charter is in line with the state constitution there. Okay. Anybody else? Oh, this came up and I just want to back up our city attorney here. Why this is here? This was a big discussion in the past because of things that happened, but also in the recent past because it's a very small threshold to have a recall election this way. I just want to be clear about that. And while we all say that percentage is okay, we're talking about a few hundred signatures most of the time. And then there's a recall. And a recall, as we all know, is a tough time for any city. So before we just pass on this one, I think we might want to reconsider this at, if not tonight, because we're going into other things. I think there is an argument to be had that 25% of entire, it's very easy to put a recall election then our city clerk's office is doing it because not for mayor, it's hard. But for each individual seat, it's easy. What is your recommend to do? I would say, I don't have one. I just am telling you the where where this is at. I feel weird talking about this. Remember worth. Just one more point of clarification. In the case of a recall or not a recall. If a runoff election, you're talking about 25% of the first election or 25% of the second. Is Does that even have a lower down? Yeah, that drops down further. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, that would be, yeah, that would be very small. Right. We could. Oh, yeah, if we do go forward with this, can we do something where 25% of mayor? And then for city council members, it's a larger threshold because the number is large for mayor. That's, I forget what it is for, but I know what it was, but we're talking about 1300 signatures before in the past. And that's what you have to do to get on the ballot for State House. So like, I'm saying, I think we should talk about this, but I don't think the voters will vote for this, and we need to keep going back to that. That's something questionable. If this goes on the ballot, we'd like to have this, we're having a discussion about what this even means. Let alone the voters are me like, oh, so that's my only clear, whatever we do. Staying if and but, may confuse the voters. Right. Yeah. All right. Let's go on. These are just items that have been mentioned. So just for discussion. Right now, you have to miss three consecutive unexcused absences for the regular meetings to create a vacancy and a council member position. There's also the idea of allowing the changing the city manager and city attorney removal to a two thirds vote and allowing the city manager to reside within a certain distance. I think the second two bullets were just ideas thrown out and as I said I have captured every idea that's been thrown out every anytime anyone said anything so I've captured them all. But I think the one that I've heard the most discussion about is the first bullet. We should definitely not do this council. We should definitely not change that first, the first bullet to regular because that can be played during vacations and remove council members in the future. Three special meetings can be called three days in a row by only two council members while someone's on vacation. And not that this council will do that but I would like to use the word regular. On the second I think that's a very important one and I think we should refer this. I think having a two-thirds vote for the city manager and city attorney provides stability. It doesn't cause five to four decisions being made by the city manager and I think that's an important one. It causes stability inside of a government, more than just tiny minorities being or of minority being totally disregarded and city managers being removed from their office. And it's happened, we all know. But I think that one's very important. The last one just so I can shut up for once. I'll say the allow the city manager aside within a certain distance rather than within the boundaries of the city. I'm a no on. I think that the city manager should have to reside within the city for just lots of reasons. But I think it's important that we keep that as is on the second one. Did you say your favorite 100%% in favor I think it's a very big deal that we do that it changes the whole dynamic of what it's like to be a city manager and it changes the way the city can function sorry to go off on this this was a big deal in my life for a year and some of you also I'm telling you this one thing can change how a city functions because the city manager is no longer having to only listen to five voices. They have to expand their ability because they're able to have to listen to to right. No, no, but it's a bigger deal than it's saying. Right, right. I'm just saying I'm a big proponent of that. Mayor Brotein? I'll work my way backwards up the list. Again, this was a question on Fort Collins last year on the city manager. In fact, Fort Collins requires a significant number of senior staff, although they require the senior staff to live within a certain number of minutes of the city and the city manager to reside within and the folks rejected that pretty resoundingly. I think there's a reason that we wrote that in and I don't know that the city managers asking us to extend his leash, although he did choose to live like four feet within the city boundary. There's a five foot easement on the property that was there. Not even there is zip code. Yeah. So I am not in favor of the two thirds vote to remove because we would virtually make it impossible to, I don't think that we have this as an act of question in front of us right now. If we were looking at changing that one, my recommendation would be to a majority of the whole council, as opposed to a majority of the quorum and attendance, which is not in the meeting, you would have to have five votes. You wouldn't need just three of five to accomplish that because today you could actually determine the city manager with three people. But I'm not certain that that's broken enough to refer. And then. Honestly, there's a reason special meetings were not included in the requirements in the first place because the special meetings can be called with 24 hours notice. There can be people who can't make that particular meeting. There was reason that our expectation in general is to attend the regular meetings and that's where we show job abandonment, failure to cancel your vacation, come back from Hawaii, recover faster from your surgery to make a special meeting because remember that what makes a meeting excused or unexcused is an intentional vote by the members of the City Council. You have to say I move to not excuse these three absences. I think we have no record in the 24 years of the charter of anybody abandoning the post of City Council member by simply failing to attend meetings. We have people who move out of the city, we have people who find that they were never eligible to be on City Council, but I don't think we have anybody who has literally abdicated the post. I don't think there's a regular history of it. I think that the motive behind this one is well intentioned to ensure accountability, but I don't think it changes enough significantly at just introduces risk. So I understand the conversations behind these, but I don't think I would support moving forward on them. Yep. Council Member, today. Thank you, Mayor. I was I'm a little torn on that one now. The first one, I the point, the key point to me is unexcused. So if you call a special meeting 24 hours and you're already on vacation, then in my mind, that's an excused absence. It's an opinion. It's an opinion. Right. I disagree with the second one. I think it should just be a majority vote. And I do think the city managers should reside in the city. Council members are required. I know it's not the same thing, but I think they should. Okay. You know, for me, removing the word regular, I'm against and the word special meeting's been called here. There are times we've had two meetings. So would that be two absences in the one night? Think about that. And you're on vacation, you already have two absences and one night? Think about that. And you're on vacation. You already have two absences and you didn't know that was going to happen while you've been in wherever on a cruise. And then I am for the two thirds vote. We saw a lot of turmoil a few years ago. And I really think a super majority, but six people minimum needs to decide if something as grave as removing a key city official like the city manager, city attorney, it really needs to have a super majority. It needs to actually say the number six on there, I think, as well, not just two thirds of the attendance. And as far as the city manager is signing, I really like him residing in our city. Although if we want to annex that street that he's going to move to and Todd Creek or whatever, I would be forward that so we can keep him in the city. I'm open to that. The environment is open within six houses of the mayor. There's probably none of the inventory in the city that get that deep. Council member Fiddler. Hey, thank you, Mayor Distanne, my commitment to Jan. First of all, I want to make sure that I understand that I have my own clear down regularly. That's the business meetings on the first and third. That's the regular meetings. Okay. Is Janet written that she would like all meetings to count. Towards continuous meetings, not just the first and the third Tuesday. Someone to share that she had that. That. Yeah. I wanted to share that on behalf of the. She's saying all meetings. I think she's not meeting. I wanted to share that on behalf of. But she's saying all meetings. I think she's considering counting this meeting. Yeah, she texted me the same thing. Not at the same time. At the same time. Yeah, we're not doing it every time. Um, I agree with what mayor pro times set around. You know, people choose to run for counsel as it. She's run for school boards. They don't, and things happen, right? So, I hope no one voted against my excused absence from last week when I was in Vegas if so, someone would know. Not even discussed. But anyway, I, we're all busy. I'm, I'm thinking through the two-thirds vote. Michael would love that. But Michael is smart enough to know. If it ever got to a five, four vote, he'd be looking for a job anyway. Right, so I'm intrigued by that, because nothing ceases progress in my opinion, like a change in leadership, the whole world stops. So I'm intrigued by that. I could go either way. And he's already moved. He lives in, he's on the south side of 120th, but he is in Brighton. When I was, when I had to move to the school district, it's superintendent, I knew they meant Brighton. I knew Brighton proper, just south of Chambersman, way north of you. Anyway, I'll stop. He's not. No sidewalk access. Not part of the discussion. Councilmember Snyder. I had the pleasure a few years back of being removed from a board of directors for that very word. Regular was not in the charter. I went to California on a business trip. They were trying to do something that was actually illegally. They knew they knew I was against it. They had a special meeting and the only item on the agenda was to remove me from the board. I think regular has to stay on there. I don't think it's fair to throw up a special meeting by somebody's out of town. Somebody's on a business trip. I can say maybe they're in to throw up a special meeting by somebody's out of town, somebody's out of business trip. Like you say, maybe they're in a cruise, they're in a good time. You can't just throw them off for that. The 2, third vote, I like that. I don't think it should be easy to throw somebody out of their job. I mean, if two thirds of the people don't agree that they're doing a bad enough job to be fired. They probably aren't doing a bad enough job to be fired. I mean, that's something if somebody's really doing a bad job, you ought to be able to sell that. That's only six council members. So we're talking six instead of five. That's not a big reach. I think two thirds is proper and yeah, we got to keep Michael in the city. He belongs here. I don't care if he's in a different zip code or not Tell you what can add next I would like the record to reflect I live within the incorporated boundaries of the city per my contract Yep, I did move 1.3 miles away from my previous home in a different city to move into the city However, I made that commitment and I will honor that commitment to play Del's advocate. I do live at one of the furthest points south of the city, and there are many places closer to city hall that are not within the city boundaries than my house. Could be, I could live closer and still not live within the city boundaries. I'll also add that to the last point, this has been a discussion, right point this has been a discussion. This has been a discussion amongst a lot of cities, especially as we grow into becoming regional cities. As you, I plan on being here for the rest of my life, but if ever there was an instance where you're recruiting a new city manager, one of the benefits of doing something like bullet point three is that you do increase the poll, increase the area so that folks can live within certain boundaries and don't feel like they're limited to certain specific pockets of a community. Like I said to my point, you can still live pretty close to city hall while not living within the city boundaries proper versus living within the city boundaries but living in where I live for example just the point. I didn't know yet interested in Wattenberg to be on this but it's actually a wrist of crats branch. Oh that's north of Fort Leipzig. Who is Tom? Go ahead. Got some member green. Yeah, I guess. Sorry, dude. You get a living brine. You know, the you might be tempted to go and look to a wall county. You can still be within a certain amount of distance in being wall county and pay less taxes. I think it can be in one county and been brightened. Well, that's true. Two neighborhoods. But I think you should be under the rules of the city. Follow the rules of the city, just like we have to, we pay the taxes, we pay the utilities. We operate under the rules of the city. I think the city manager should, too, but therefore you kind of have some stake in the city. The two-third again, I was trying to point out, it's one vote. You know, that's the only difference between five and six is one vote. So I don't really see where, you know, he's forced to listen to more members of the council just because it's the two-third vote. I don't care. I'm kind of on the move mind with Jan here though. I think a lot of the business of this city council gets done in study sessions. A lot of the discussions and the working out of what we're going to read a vote on gets done in a study session, I think those should count. You know, I'm not, and remember it's consecutive. So you'd have to miss a regular meeting, a study session meeting, and another regular meeting. That's three weeks, people, that consecutive, and beyond excuse. So I know we're talking about special meetings and everything else, but for me, you could leave the word regular, but let's count the study session meeting, because again, that where I feel that a lot of the work is done here. You see that we put it on the consent agenda after we have our discussions, after we work out, after we talk about it and we're familiar with the topics. So if you're not counting study sessions, I think you're sure changing your job as a city council member if you're not in attendance at a study session. I'm excused. Okay. Council member Johnston, yeah, there's something to be said about that. I think the idea that what is there's some rules about roll calls at study sessions are those rules are this just been a procedure that roll call has never been called at a study so that brings up a problem with doing that, but I actually agree with adding regular meetings and study sessions and just making sure that special meetings are not attached is what I care about. But I don't know if there's a rule about roll calls and our study sessions. I think there is one that you cannot do a roll call at a study session. I think there is one that they can't, you cannot do a role call at a study session. I'm not sure about that. But if that's not a problem, calling role at a study session and counting it as a three consecutive meeting, unexcused as what's, then I think that's okay. I don't see a problem with that because a lot does happen here. Just making sure special meetings cannot be included to remove. Yeah, study sessions aren't actually in the charter, but you certainly could add them and then include them for this purpose. Are other cities counting roll in study sessions that you know. Well, we don't take role because they're not in the charter so they're technically work sessions, not meetings that count. You absolutely could take role. Yes, but I'm asking do you know if any other cities do that? Yeah, I mean, certainly some cities do because they look for a quorum. Yeah, that's the other thing. Sometimes we've had some moments where we've been very short because, you know, circumstances get in the way of people and we're unable to, we would have been, unable to have a quorum in our study session. So, Mayor Putem. I would point out because it's fun to use the city manager but he did not request that we remove the requirement from the charter. So there has been some discussion in my ward with people who actually wanted all of the department directors to have to live in Brighton. And my answer to that was the level of professionals that were trying to draw against the title and the salary that's associated with that. We would be very challenged to force every department director to live here. And we want a wide pool of candidates to run very important departments. I think that the city manager position is different from that, but nobody is really questioning that. So move on. I think that bullet point one, if we were to redefine our study sessions as mandatory attendance for the city council members the city council members in count as three consecutive. And we have to come up with what the word is for for gatherings of the city council. That would be fine. I do agree that the primary discussion of our work takes place at study sessions. The challenge that I had was special meetings are by nature. Ad hoc. So, I think that's what I'm going to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to like to say that I would like to like to say that I would like to like to say that I would like to like to say that I would like to like to say that I would like to like to say that I would like to like to say that I would like to what we're doing for the City Council and document that, the same way we documented in our rules that participation on the boards and commissions where you represent the city is a critical element of the job that I've defined with that. Again, though, back to the first point, the more things we refer to the ballot, the higher risk they all are. So I would prioritize really carefully, is that the critical thing where we have a gap, a widespread gap that can be repeated or is managing the eligibility for felony more important when it comes to it? I think the more things we put, the more we we put, the more we risk all of them being turned down. Thanks. Let's say we come up with a top two and just go forward. And that may not be tonight. Anybody have anything to add? I think we're all over the place on this, to be honest. Well, the good news is that was your last slide. So, we'll add under general business a discussion of your subcommittee to talk about qualifications for office. There we go. We can agree to that. We have one action for next week. All right. I'll be removing my offer on the House of Todd Creek after the next week. Thank you. Hey, we just annexed down there and turned down that road. No big deal. It's in our growth plan, definitely. Well, yeah, most of us feel that way, at least. Is it possible that the water across the river? I don't think it can turn up here. All right, if we're done with this part of the discussion, policy items, anybody have anything to bring up? Mayor Pro Tem, I know you have something. I do just because people so enjoy this. So we have a pendulum swing, and I want to bring it back towards center. When I first joined council, we were spending the first hour of every meeting, doing our celebratory proclamations of everything under the sun. And we decided that we needed to curtail that a bit and we got to the point that we celebrated nothing for a year. We didn't recognize some important cultural and historical months. We didn't recognize employees in an opportunity to call out something that's good about what we do as a city. So I would like us to review a calendar of those announcements or celebrations that we truly ought to recognize as a city like Black History Month and Women's History Month, I would like to have a calendar that includes some things that celebrate our youth and what they do that includes the Arbor Day and Earth Day posters and naming snow plows, but it also includes Speak Week and includes and the public. And I think that's a great way to say that we're going to be able to be able to do the Arbor day and earth day posters and naming snow plows, but it also includes. Speak week and includes parks and rec kids to the parks day. I think they're a handful of things that we really ought to respect. And then we can add hawk, do things that are specific like the Tilly Ruby wrestling. But I think we've gotten to the point that we're failing to recognize our residents as it is. So I guess the ask would be to put together a calendar of that type, get it on there, make sure that we don't have anything that the council is opposed to and return to celebrating some of the residents of our city on a regular basis. Well you have a spreadsheet you want to share through the city manager I think? Yeah I'll give my my list of them to city managers so they can pair something that we can review as a group. So remember Johnston. If we are going to go that route can we change the way we do them? Most cities, they do the picture before the meeting with the mayor. Having the mayor have to walk down, do that, and choose not this mayor, but the mayor also gets to choose who goes up in front of for each thing. And you do a great job of that, Mayor Mills, but other mayors might not, and they might choose the same person and all of that I'm saying why don't we have the mayor do a picture before the meeting with and so all the picture part is done and if media wants to be there They're invited one two if we're not taking a vote. We don't have to read these five-minute proclamation That's actually the big thing and if we're doing celebration It doesn't need a proclamation. It doesn't have to be voted on, doesn't have to be read and doesn't have to have somebody here to accept it. Sometimes we should just recognize that this is black history month without trying desperately to find somebody who's available on that Tuesday night to come and take home the piece of paper. 100% and we don't even have to read it into the it is we'd like to proclaim this, this, and we move on faster. So it's not 20 minutes. 10 seconds. Yeah, we had, yeah, but we've had people come and bring their friends from other cities that are elected officials in and signed documents that took 20 minutes once and it's just disgusting. You've not done that mayor, but someone else has. And I'm just saying that's, that was always my quam with this. Other than that, I would love to celebrate things but let's just And I think it would be asking the city manager not only to have the list but have the procedure for what we do in certain circumstances and then we can vote on that Don't remember green? I don't mind if we do a proclamation you just put it up on the screen we don't have to read it you know that's where I'm not saying we don't do a proclamation or whatever there's the proclamation we're here to recognize. It's Marches Women's Month and that's it. Don't we're done. You know, they can read it at their leisure. It's part of the packet or whatever. What slows us down is the reading of it all and then going down there and taking the picture and let you know if somebody wants to speak, they can say a couple words, whatever. They take their picture ahead of time, you know, or they can arrange to take a picture at some other juncture. I just don't want to slow down the meeting by reading their proclamation and then going through the rigmar roll. And even with the snowplow ones, I know they're fun to do, but we stop after everyone, after everyone, after everyone and get their picture. And so maybe we wait until the very end and just take one. Those I'd argue that are pictures of kids with the City Council. That's a big deal. and so maybe we wait until the very end and just take one. Those I'd argue that the arbitrage of kids with the City Council, that's a big deal. Yeah, but let's do more special for them. That's when the Grand Mothers read the paper. But let's let us all be part of that too. Those are different from, you know, that we're not always a part of those. That's a member today, oh. Thank you. I've been approached by some residents about the people that are wanting to clean windshields. Oh, yes. They're not happy about it. And I mean, it is a concern for myself. I mean, it kind of goes along the same lines as being in the median that we put a stop to. And it's, you know, do those people have permits to make money? You know, I mean, obviously not, I'm sure. And I'm not being prejudice in any way, but I don't, they just don't need to be there. I think it's my pain. The real concern is their safety. They're safety. Absolutely. I've seen that in intersections, even in Denver. I'm like, these people are going to get severely hurt. Yeah. And unfortunately, some of them will get hurt on, we'll get hit on purpose. Right. And we don't need any of that either. Right. So when that light turns green, they just go and they don't know someone else is in between lanes in that dangerous. Yeah. So I wanted to bring that up. I'm gonna say it again city wide recycling if we do we have that in the That's anywhere I'm gonna be noisy about that. Do you have that? It's a part of our sustainable long-term sustainability plan which we're going back to you very shortly Okay, but not not yet I know I know what you're talking about in terms of having like Just a place for people to drop things off like we used to with cardboard. We don't wanna do that at the end, that was. Well, you know, we probably all got the email that there's companies out there that will take care of it. I mean, they're responsible for the dumpsters and, you know, taking care of all that and it would take the monkey off the city's back to have to, you know, police it, so to speak. And I also wanted to bring up, I don't know if it's the same part of the other survey, but I get the little survey card, you know, about sustainability. And I just want for anybody that's listening, um, or out there watching that, to really, really want to encourage everybody if they get that or even to go on to that, um, link and fill out that survey because they think it's, it's very important to, I mean, that's what we're here for, right? To hear what the residents have to say and know what their thoughts and feelings are. And one more, Mike, I have a question. The scooters. Are the scooters coming back? Are they good? They're gone. They were they not making enough money here? And what was the problem? Do we have a company doing? And one of you, in lightness on that? Yeah, the company itself went out of business this past year. So I thought they were still in business, they just pulled out a brighten. Because I saw the bird scooters in there. There is another bird scooter company who I don't know if they've assumed this one, but the entire, the original bird scooter company who we had a contract with is no longer in business. Breaking news, Is that all? Councilmember Snyder. I just want to mention we really do have an option for city wide recycling right now. I use waste management. They give me separate cans, black cans. I put my trash in. The big grape can I put my recycling in, they pick it up every two weeks. So it is available people, they just have to choose to have it. And my neighbor, I'm not sure who their trash company is, but I know they have the same option. They have trash cans and they have a recycling can and their people pick it up. So we have that right now without the city investing any effort into it at all. and their people pick it up. So we have that right now without the city investing any effort into it at all. Anybody else? Councilmember Johnston? Yeah, most of the, the bull, a third of the residents in the city don't have a choice, but have recycling. I want to be really clear about that as we go down this path. Is that RHOA's it's part of it and we have to use whatever company they have. So this is something we need to talk about and understand the contention behind having those people in that have HOAs that already have recycling. HOA fees will not decrease but the fee on a water bill will increase with no extra service once again. So that will be a big fight if we go down that road and have to and do forceful recycling. So we just need to be careful about how we approach it because I want everyone to have the opportunity to have recycling. But those to not be taken advantage of twice for the same thing that we already have. Okay. Anybody else? Alright, if not, we're done. We're adjourned. See you next week. Oh, and then see you tomorrow too.