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. Good evening. I'm going to ask Councilmember Snider to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. I will be back. I will be back. I will be back. I will be back. I will be back. I will be back. I will be back. I will be back. I will be back. I will be back. I will be back. I will be back. I will be back. Mayor Mills. Here. Mayor Proto-Tempidia. Present. Council Member Fiddler. Here. Council Member Green. Seated. Council Member John. Present. Council Member Pulaski. Here. Council Member Snyder. Here. Council Member Tadea. Present. Council Member Worth. Here. You have a quorum your honor. Thank you. First is the consent agenda. Madam City Clerk, please read that into the record. I guess it was one item. Item 2A, approval of the August 6th, 2024. City Council minutes. Would like to make a motion. Council Member Poloski. I'd like to move for approval of the consent agenda. And then council member Worth. I move to second that. We have a first and second to approve the consent agenda is read. If there's no other discussion, roll call though. Motion passes 9-0. Next item, approval of the regular agenda. Anyone want to make a motion on that? Not some member green. I Moves approve the regular agenda for September 2nd 3rd 3rd yep, then councilmember Plosky. I'll second that motion We have a first and second to prove tonight's agenda We'll call vote. Motion passes, nine to zero. Next item four A under ceremonies. Presentation of the land that I love artwork. City manager Martinez. Thank you Mayor. Good evening Mayor. Mayor Pro Tem members of council. It looks like there's some sort of unveiling that's about to happen over there with that So at this time all call up our president and CEO of the greater Brighton Chamber of Commerce Natalie Cummings to present the land that I love artwork First I thought was a frontier. Airlines banner with that color Hey chamber green. It's awesome Thank you city manager mayor Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and City Council. My name is Natalie Cummings, and I'm here with about six of my board members to present to you and to say thank you for participating with the Land That I Love project. So our ladies today are gonna unveil the original piece of artwork off of this artwork was made, the puzzles and also the 12 by 15 foot mural that is going to go into downtown. So we have a plaque on there that labels the art and the artist as well as saying thank you and that it's been given to you by the Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Bureau. So we hope that you'll hang that with pride. At the same time we have some signed puzzles. So artist Eric Dottel signed those for you and I think we're handing those out. Maybe. So anyway, thank you so much. We won't take up any more of your time, but thank you guys for believing in us and helping us see this project through. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'd like to thank the chamber for their hard work in getting this together. I know this has been something they've been working on for quite a number of months, the better part of a year. And this is great that we're able to showcase Brighton to the world. So good job. And I don't see anybody else wants to speak. So the next item on the agenda. Stick around for the fund everyone. But the next item on the agenda is item 4b is the performance and leadership academy graduation city manager Martinez. Thank you Mayor. So as you're all aware we have a wonderful wonderful performance and leadership academy tonight Katherine will be introducing our newest round of graduates and this puts us officially over the million dollar mark as I mentioned in our budget session. So big round of applause for that one. I think that's probably the biggest accomplishment that's come out of this. Christian Morales, who will be presenting tonight, took credit for taking us over the million mark. So given that grace with that, I'll turn it over. It's the last one on the presentation. So I guess he gets it. Yes, I'll turn it over to Katherine. Good evening, Council. I will remind you before I start that we give you little clappers feel free to use them as we cheer for each of our graduates. This is really just a celebration of all the cool stuff that they've done. So with that, I want to give a brief overview of what our performance leadership academy is for those who might not know. It's, we call it a five-week course, we actually do have a version that's just in one week now, but there are five modules that just allows some people to complete it a little faster. But it's basically designed to teach our employees about how to build strong teams. Some of those continuous improvement, sorry, continuous process improvement items like Lean, Six Sigma, some hard tools like that, as well as how to deliver good customer service and some techniques for leading from any seat so that we can really encourage every member of our organization to fill leadership roles. We are also open to external entities. We charge a fee for nonprofits or other governments to come through, but the majority of those who do come through are employees of the city of Brighton. So like Michael mentioned, to date, we have about 1.1 million and projected annual savings from all of the projects that our graduates have completed. Those are those process improvement projects, so they have to attend that training and then complete some kind of project that saves some time and ultimately some money in order to graduate. And we do have 49 completed projects so far. We have four graduates today. I know we typically stop after each of them to have pictures taken, but I think I'll just go through since there's just four, all four of them, and then we'll have the mayor and the city manager come down and take some photos with them. Okay. So our first graduate tonight is Maggie DeMarco from our communications and engagement department. The pain point that Maggie identified is that the KBRI 8 studio was quite disorganized and had some outdated equipment. She was also the only member of her team who knew how to actually get into these systems and operate them, which is obviously a problem if she wants to maybe take a vacation, things like that. So the solution she found is that she wrote some standard operating procedures to help other people be able to fill in that gap and Help train someone if she happens to get another job. Of course she wouldn't because this is the best city But it was to operate multiple of those Software's she gets into as well as she reorganized and made it a lot simpler more efficient better labeled all of the equipment in the media room So that people could again again, help her out, and that could be more accessible to people. Next, we have Elizabeth. I'm sorry if I say your name wrong, Varksack. I hope our Assistant Recreation Coordinator for the Parks and Rec Department. The pain point identified by Elizabeth is that our former process for onboarding the fitness staff members had quite a bit of miscommunication and was a bit disorganized. We didn't have any standard documents helping people walk through that and they do a lot of hiring. Her solution was to make a checklist, just a simple checklist to remind them of a mixture that they followed through on all of those steps and they also made some processes, sorry, they rewrote some policies to make sure that communication and all of those items were a little bit more standardized And it made the process a lot smoother not just for her staff, but also those new people they were hiring which has been great Our third graduate tonight is Emma Lane. I have to apologize for her title on here She's actually a senior planner now in our community development department The pain point identified by Emma was that there's a portion of the historic preservation code dealing with reviewing building permits. That was quite convoluted and had some really hard deadlines in it that made it difficult for both the applicant as well as city staff to track. So throughout doing some code amendments, she also lumped in an amendment to this section of the code that streamlined it and removed some of those arbitrary time frame requirements. That way it's a lot smoother of a process, not just for city staff, but also for our residents and people applying. And we make sure that we don't miss any potentially historic buildings through that permit process. And last but not least, the employee who claims are taking us over that million dollar mark, Christian, from our human resources department. The pain point he identified is that our onboarding process for hiring our new employees all across the city was quite a long and manual process and that gets especially time consuming for him during the seasonal hiring timeframe. Not sure if you guys know but our parks and wreck department does a lot of seasonal hiring and that's when really the majority of all of that onboarding happens. So to solve for that, he utilized some existing softwares that we have to make that process a lot better, more easily tracked and make sure that we have a running list of all of the items that we need to do. That helps keep our hiring managers informed as well as the people that we are hiring. So round of applause for all of our graduates. And then I'll ask the four of you to come up so we can get some pictures. Sorry, I was a little close. I'm not here. Okay, we can get him one at a time. All right. Here I'll get on the other side of the scene. Good job, Fishon. All right. All the ones. Group photo. Come on in. In the middle where you belong. Oh, so I'll get a phone. Yeah, that's far. There we go. I'm going to have to go back to the next one. . We're still able to recognize all of you that graduated from this and we're grateful for you to showcase your talents and save the city money. The next item, it's public and invited to be heard on matters that are not on the agenda. I just have Tom Lampo, the only one sign up to speak. So come on over Tom, say your name and you got three minutes. All right, hello Brighton. It's good to be back in front of you. Hope you all are doing well. My name is Tom Lampo. Recently we just had the RNC and the DNC and a lot of speeches. And I was able to listen to a lot of those speeches. A lot of the speakers asked for God's blessing to be upon the people there as well as the nation. God bless the USA. I've been coming here and asked for God's blessing upon Brighton. It's people and it's government. So I'm right in line. So tonight, there are a lot of blessings that God has. I figured that we could pray for God's blessing for truth throughout our society. So please join me in prayer. Heavenly Father in Jesus' victorious name, we invite you here to the city of Brighton. You're always welcome here. Your authority is greater than any other authority. You take direction from no one. Psalm 115, three states, our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases. It's a sinkily stated. And you rule in truth, Romans 118 states, for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all and godliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. By the you have victory over those that suppress the truth and because we are your people, we share your victory. By the way, I lift up bright into you and ask that your blessing of truth touches everyone in all areas of their lives. You are aligned with truth. You cannot come against it. Truth matters to you and truth matters to us, especially with a historic decision in front of us. Daily we are subjected to an enormous amount of information. Some is truth and some hints at truth. Second Timothy 2 7 says, think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything. Let your word come alive in our lives. Give us the understanding needed to discern what we hear. New cycles are fast and our lives are busy. It's difficult to get it right all the time. John 10, 14 states, I am the good shepherd. I know my shepherd and my sheep know me. Provide guidance, protect us. We need you to be the shepherd of truth in our lives to guide us through all the information out there. And in John 832 you tell us we can have freedom. It states and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Truth is freedom and lies or tyranny. We choose freedom. Break the bonds of tyranny, break the spell of deception that has overcome us. Open our eyes and give us discernment. Let us not be deceived by those that want to keep us in bondage. You rule without exception and you rule in truth. Give us your truth. We choose life for our city and our nation. You're precious and holy name we pray. Amen. Thank you guys. Have a nice night. Thank you, Tom. And that's all I have signed to speak. So we'll move on from there. Next is item 7a and ordinance of the city council of the city of Brighton, Colorado, and many articles, 3, 13, and 14 of the Bright Municipal Code related to impact fees and utility rates. City manager Martinez. Thank you Mayor for presenting this item is our finance director, Katrina Asher, and with her Emily Make, the assistant director of utilities. Katrina. Thank you, Michael. Good evening Council. Tonight we're here to talk about some municipal code updates related specifically to impact fees, utility rates, and some other code areas related to utilities. So you may recall in July, myself, and our utilities director, Scott Olson, presented to you some proposed changes related to impact fees. And at that meeting, we talked through a number of code amendments as well as some fee changes as well. Tonight's presentation focus is solely on the code amendments themselves. So we're walking through some slides that probably look very familiar from that meeting. But we'll be looking at, again, specifically impact fees, utility rates, and related provisions. As we walked through the process with our impact fee study, we did find there were some areas of the utility code that needed some updates as well, some cleanup, not necessarily fee related, but we wanted to get everything wrapped into one update for you. So the changes that we're proposing tonight would be effective January 1, 2025, along with the annual fee resolution, so that everything goes into effect at the same time. And again, the proposal tonight does not include any proposed changes to fees themselves, simply changes to the code, cleanup of language, and we'll walk you through the key changes that are being proposed. So as we were working through, as I said, the impact fee study, these were some of our goals and objectives as we were determining what updates were needed to be made. We did find there was a fair bit of language that was either outdated, internally inconsistent throughout the code or just no longer relevant and we wanted to take this opportunity to clean that up. We updated some of the definitions to our impact fees that I'll talk through briefly and then providing some clarity to some various utility regulations as well. We're also proposing to consolidate all of the fee amounts into the annual fee resolution to make them centrally located and easier to identify for the users. So this first slide is proposed changes related to impact fees. And with impact fees, just as a reminder, these are fees we charge on new development. We talked about these extensively at various study sessions over the last year or so. So I'm not going to go back through all of that, but when we're talking about impact fees, those are the fees we're talking about as fees charged on new development to support growth and city services to support that new development. So again, the changes here on the definitions and language are largely clean up of inconsistent language. For instance, we found that the definition of single unit and multi unit dwelling throughout the code was not the same. So we wanted to make sure those were the same so that we are charging and understanding our definitions consistently. We changed the definition or the change the wording from plant investment fee to impact fee because plant investment fees are an impact fee. And again, we want wanted consistent language throughout. We did revisit the definitions of our impact fee categories and updated those were necessary. The particular changes there are related to transportation and general services. So currently there is an impact fee for streets and an impact fee for bridges. What we're proposing is to combine those into one fee that can be used for transportation services, including multimodal services. So it's just a broader definition of transportation services rather than dividing between those two categories. We're also proposing to add a general services fee category. As we talked about in our previous study sessions, this would be a category where we could charge an impact fee that would support expansion of general services to support the city as it grows. So for instance, this could be supporting expansion or capital projects to expand, say, public safety services, which our current impact fees would not be able to support. So it's giving us another fee category to work with. The next area we addressed here was related to city developed facilities. So oftentimes when we're talking about impact fees, we're talking about a fee charged to a developer. But we found there was a lack of clarity around what happens when the city is the developer and if those impact fees are charged. It's very common practice for a city to waive impact fees that would be paid to itself because you are essentially moving money around with similar buckets. So it's not new revenue to the city. But what we also considered was impact fees payable to the utility funds because those are a separate bucket from the general fund. And would it be appropriate for those to be waived when the city is building a new facility that would have an impact on say water usage into the future. So what we are proposing is that impact fees on a city development that would be due to a utility like the water fund would not be waived the city would have to pay those fees. The one exception would be if the utility itself is building the facility because again you would be moving money around within the same fund you wouldn't be generating any new revenue to cover those future costs. So I'm now gonna hand this over to Emily for the next few slides related to utility provisions. Good evening, Council. Again, these are utility code updates. They're specific to language and don't have any impacts to the fees. And this was all very similar to what you saw in July. So we've added some definitions to the code for things like curb stops or what a water tap is, water day, occasion fee, and we have very common terms we use every day. There's an additional requirement here for a property owner to be responsible if there is a service line that needs to be abandoned. We've updated some of the language just to read match current practices and remove outdated language around that curb stop there. And there's also removal of specific portions of the codes. Mostly the engineering standards. Those can now be all found within the city's engineering and standards from. Standards and specifications. No real changes. It's just all in one location. Additional provisions that have been updated. So there's additional language regarding the ownership of service lines. This will come in to play with new regulations, but we want to just clarify where that ownership is. It doesn't change any responsibility that's already currently defined in code. There's additional language for sewer lines outside the city limits and the monthly rates that are involved in those. This mirror is exactly what's already in there for the water portion. So it's a mirror on the sewer side for that language. And lastly on the stormwater side, there's an exception for private streets that's being removed to be paying those storm drainage fees and adding additional language in for the credit that is in there right now. If people are applied for the credit they have to reapply every three years. Changed in the language kind of leaves out the discretion of the director and we can continue that credit that's available for people and make it a little bit easier on staff and applicant to do that. I'll hand it back over to Katrina. Thank you Emily. So this last slide of changes that we're proposing is really related to location of fees and rates. So similar proposals related to both impact fees and utility rates and charges. Right now some of those fees are in the annual fee resolution and some of them are in municipal codes. So that causes confusion for people who are trying to understand what their fees are when they're located in different places. So we want to bring some consistency to where they're located and how they are approved each year. I want to emphasize we are not proposing changes to fees at this time. We're proposing moving them from municipal code to the annual fee resolution. They would still be brought to council every year. These always have to be approved by council every year. It would just be part of the fee resolution discussion that we do at the time of the budget every year. So again, bringing consistency, simplicity, making it easier to find these fees, and kind of putting those administrative actions into the resolution rather than in municipal code. Again, I know that when you look at the red line version, lots of red lines, this was a pretty big overhaul, a lot of cleanup, a lot of language and consistency that needed to be kind of brought together, but we tried to highlight for you tonight what the substantive changes are within the code. Nothing really changing from what we talked about in July. So hopefully this all looks fairly familiar. Tonight we're giving you the first the ordinance for first reading. If council is supportive and approves that we will bring it back to you for second rating later this month. And then in October when you are looking at the budget adoption there's the annual fee resolution. So that is where you would see the impact fees for 2025, which would be what we discussed when we discussed impact fees at the previous study sessions. So we would be bringing utility rates. If there are changes there, those would always come later because they are dependent on increases that are passed by our providers like Metro Water Recovery and Lockdown. So once we know those will be able to bring you the proposals related to the utility rates. So with that, we're happy to answer questions. Thank you. Questions will start with Councilmember Jonsden. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, there's actually things in here that does change the fees for many residents. So saying that this is just definitions, the definitions guide us to take more money from the residents for water. One is on page two is one of the ones that I have on the actual red line ordinance, not the presentation that we were presented, but the actual ordinance itself on two page two, a two, it says wastewater impact fees. That's a fee charged on a per-connection basis, which is charged by the city on behalf of metro water recovery or the town of Lockbooe, where there costs in providing wastewater. So how many residents in the city of Brighton are ruled over their wastewater fee or developer developments from the town of Brighton are ruled over their wastewater fee or developer developments from the town of Locke Booy who they've never had a chance to vote for other than two members that are currently on the Locke Booy sewer. So we currently have roughly 13,000 utility customers, about a third of them are Locke Booy and two thirds of them are serviced by Metro. So any new developments which fee they pay would be determined by who would service that property. Yeah, and most of the new development you would agree is going on the east side of Brighton where the town of Lockbouille rules over our wastewater. There's a lot of development theory, yes, and anything that's within their area would be, with their service area would be paying the Lockbouille rates as defined by that Lockbouille board. as defined by that Lockbooe Board. And that Lockbooe Board, if you've sat on it, there's a couple of very influential people that end up guiding that heavily unless you have good representation on the Lockbooe sewer board. And sadly, we haven't in certain ways. I've been a one-loan no vote many a times, and I'm hopeful in hearing that we have two good representatives on there now, and I'm just an alternate. But to use, to put that in the language in here is very scary to me because then we have to remove it once we find out that it could be almost, I hate to say the word scam, but the town of Locke-Bouy and that sewer board and what ends up happening with those fees that gets charged to East Brighton and future residents is outrageous and the lack of control that we have over it, of a third of our residents. So that's one major concern I have is putting the town of Locboui in writing in charge of costs in providing wastewater. If I may, Council Member, that was actually already in code. It was just in a different location. So that's how we've been operating with our wastewater impact fees for some time now. So that was already there. That's not new language has just been relocated and included in the definition. Yeah, no, I'm totally aware, but I've never had a vote on the previous language. Here I am sitting here with the vote on this one. So with A vote on this one. So there's one. So that's where I'm a no vote for sure. Page 10. If you go to page 10 in the document, this is something I've been against and the residents have been against for a long time section 13-4-130 charges, monthly water service and schedule, residential properties shall pay a monthly fixed charge, it's letter A, pay a monthly fixed charge for water service. I would like it to be, I wish that there would be a charge based on how much water usage, not a fixed charge, because there's, there are residents that are, especially some snowbirds that don't actually pay, use any water for months at a time and they still are paying this fixed charge. So that's another reason that I will be a no vote on this. Then the one another concerning one and we can move on. I don't think I have votes to stop this, but I do want to just voice my opinion to all of you because this is scary to me. The entire page 15, if you go there, we're missing one sentence, and let me give you an example. Well, first it says, let's go to section 13-4 220 service line ownership, and it's now item A. With the red lines, it's item A, it says, if the water meter is located outside the structure, the property owner is responsible for ownership, repair and replacement of the service line, from the structure to the water meter. How many water meters are located inside a private residence compared to outside? Aren't most of them outside like 90% 95? Yeah, majority of them are outside. This is a caveat for any that are still within the house. Right. And there's a major issue with that because what if it's not their fault that an outside outside of their property, especially the work that happens on these water lines is often done by city employees. So what if a city employee goes accidentally takes a track hoe stabs into the water line? It says here that now the property owner is now responsible for it. It wouldn't be practiced for us to be on the customer side. If there was a situation where I got pulled like in that situation, that's a different conversation, but we are never on that side of the water meter and don't like to approach utilities homeowners side of the line. But if it did happen, it used to happen not often, but it's happened in homes that I'm aware of including my own. So I'm just asking, you know, excuse me, it looks like the city attorney, please is you mayor. It's a city attorney called around. I just wanted to clarify when we're talking about the service line, we are talking about the home owners part of the line. And so that's why some of these updates and changes were to clarify where the service line is the homeowners and where it belongs to the city. And that is correct when it's on the city side. We would do the work. You're right. We could puncture it. Things happen. I'm going to deny that things happen but that's only when we're the city is doing work like in the road could even be the sidewalk but on the service side on the homeowners property that is always the homeowners responsibility and the city would not go on to your property and do work that would not even be permissible. Okay but the issue is is that let's say Aloe who is not doing such to your property and do work that would not even be permissible. Okay, but the issue is is that let's say, ALO, who is not doing such a fine job in certain parts of my neighborhood of disrupting things, what if they drill into the line and the city gave them the right to do it, and now it's up to the property owner to deal with that main line water break, and it also says the word immediately. When it says immediately, that means they have to do it. I don't know about all of you, but my family and many families are pretty strapped. And so if all of a sudden they got to pay $3,000 because an aloe employee drilled through their water line, I find that. I mean, that's that's scary to me. So I don't and if aloe wanted to, they could say, well, I went and looked at section 13-4 220 they could go to the court of law and say this is up to the property owner even though they are the ones that hit the line and there could be a lawsuit but we're saying as a city we gave you the right to be on the property and even though you drilled through so I mean that's that's scary to me wouldn't in this case the utility company on network be responsible. So I think the mayor is going down the correct path. If all is on your property and doing work and causes damage, then all is responsible for that. The city does not give all permission to go on to your private property. The all has a franchise with the city, which it allows them to go through city streets. But when they are using the easements that already exist on your property, I believe they're using United Powers easements. But regardless, if allo causes damage on a private homeowner's property, then allos responsible for that, I'm not their attorney. I can't tell you what they do or how they do it. But since they have the right to be on that property through any governmental entity to figure do their project, it's still the same law that can be applied in the courts. I mean, and it also just to continue one, two more places. Same on page 15. Here's the one that is really scary to me. It renters. It's item D. Whenever a breaker leak occurs in a water service line, the owner or other person in charge of the property receiving water service where the break or leak occurs, she'll have the same repaired or replaced immediately. All costs for the repair replacement. She, she'll have the same repaired or replaced immediately. All costs for the repair replacement should be borne by the property only. First of all, that's a big contradictory because a person in charge of the property and domicile law says that the person in charge of the property in any time is a rent tour once they are renting the property. So that means that we, a property owner could take someone to court and say, hey, you're renting the property, but here in Brighton City Code 13-420, it says that you have to pay for it as a renter. So I mean, those are all the things I have other reasons. I feel like fees and this will raise fees overall and I voice those before, but I don't want to waste anyone else's time Those are the three things I'm gonna be a definite no vote on this and if you all are gonna vote yes Then I would love for you to kind of handle some of this first at least on second on final reading if not now But those things are scary to me and if any of you actually did read all of this there's other items in here, but I'm not gonna sit here in grandstand. I've given you my feelings in opinion that I feel like comes from the residents in certain ways and I'll let you all Hopefully work this out. I'll be a no vote. Thanks Okay The next person is council member green Thank you, Mayor. I got a couple of word questions. Who is eligible for the storm drainage monthly charge credit? We only have a couple of those. I'd have to get back to you on the list of who currently utilizes that credit, but it's up to 65% off of the fees. And how do you become eligible for that? I believe that's on our website, so you can look through the eligibility for them. I'm sorry I don't know off the time I had. And why would it need to go beyond three years? Because it's a continuous, I mean fees, people are it's not an impact to be for one time development. It involves monthly fees and charges as well. So continuous use of the infrastructure. It's a continuous credit. I'm still rather than I mean, the middle of questions here. You know, in Cosmer, John says, couldn't we say on page two, on behalf of the costs in providing wastewater, also known as sewer service, rather than list, see a brighten and then the tunnel lock buoy, just the cost. So then basically that covers it all. And we're not necessarily putting LaGbouy into the code. And now back to page 15, what is the timeline of immediately when the next section says if it's not done within two weeks. So how do we say it wasn't done immediately if within two weeks is that immediately? I mean my best analogy is if you had a leak in your home how long do you want to let that sit. I mean because if you have it just outside your house, your foundation, a lot of those are similar questions and you're gonna hire the same kind of plumbers to come handle it when it's private home. You know, your private line. So again, this is private plumbing essentially. So I don't know that I have a direct answer for that. But I think it's going to be just a concern for that resident to have that kind of leak outside their home. Maybe depending on how it drains. And if I may, it says immediately. And then the next one says if it's not within two weeks or if it's beyond two weeks, they get the full charge. So again, you would say it must be done immediately. But then we also have a degree of charges. If you do within two weeks or if you do it after a month or you know. So the two weeks is giving us a timeline on that leak adjustment that will offer for for yeah offer for residents who find it and fix it quickly because we don't want to see them leaking water wasting water either that's important for us as a city as well. So if they find out leak and repair it quickly then they can get a pro-rated portion back on their bill. if they take a very long time one more than two weeks to get that repaired then they wouldn't be eligible for that. So we're trying to incentivize them to make that repair happen quickly. I mean, I understand the language but I don't have a definition for that. And if it was a slow leak, it's after we determine when there's a leak, correct? So it may have been going for six months but once we find that it's a leak, then that's when the time starts to kick it. Correct. Right. Okay. And then finally, you know, and I don't mean to disagree with Councillor Brighamson. But in Section D, it says the owner of the person, she'll have the same repaired, but the last sentence and that says, all costs for the repair or replacement, she'll be born by the property owner. So that means even if you're a renter, you can get it fixed now, but then you can turn around according to this code of questions back into, I believe all of those are items that have been moved around within the code. None of these are changes being implemented in the code at this time. We're not introducing a new fee or a new responsibility that doesn't already exist today. Much of this is rearrangement and language clarification or consistency. And the specific examples called forward all sounded like exactly things that were removed except perhaps the mention of the town of Lockbuey. But in that case we have two providers for wastewater treatment today, correct? Metro wastewater and town of Lockbuey? That's correct and they were both called out in the wastewater section previously. We've included them in the definitions around impact fees because the fee that we charge on their behalf is an impact fee. Okay, so we didn't even introduce the name the town of Blockbui. No, we moved. We moved. The name of the town of Blockbui. That's correct. And just to clarify as well, where there were rates called out in our ordinances, we're moving those rates into our rate resolution that we'll vote on separately from this, but those are being moved. And the effectiveness is the same time frame as that new rate card. Right, so the fees would be proposed as part of the fee resolution. We'll do an addendum to that for the utility rates once we have the Metro and Lock Booyue information. We'll all go into effect in January. Okay. And so none of the rates will be set in ordinance. All of the rates will be set in the fee or impact fee resolutions. Okay. So this really is cleanly or almost entirely clean up activity and clarification activity. We're not introducing new responsibilities. Thank you. Councilmember Fiddler. Thank you. I'm just trying to gain clarity on a with the with the water meter. I'm pretty visual. So if that's my water meter, and I'm inside my house, and I really try to get clarity on this, I'm responsible from the home to the meter. And if you're the street, the city's responsible from the meter to the street. Right. So that's the dividing line. What's it comes, it's coming into my house. Okay, that helps me. Thank you. Case I have a problem. Also, a point of clarification, your insurance typically does not cover that line between the street and your house. Between the street and the meter. And you're dwelling. No, the meter. That's the dividing line. Yes. That's the divider. Correct. I'm responsible for everything this side of the meter into my home. Yes. That's right. Correct. And the meter. And the meter? The line from you to the main line is the city's responsibility. Right. I think I've got it. And the meter, I don't know what the answer is. I was just trying to get. Those are responsible for the meter. Yeah. We are the city is the city is the city utility is okay. Very good. Thanks for clarifying that. Next councilmember Pulaski. In regards to what was just spoken. Where like for instance the 10 foot set back right away. Is that the city or is that the property owner? I'm not sure how that would relate with the line. So with the line the divider is the meter. Okay, but like when we first build our home in 1971 and we heard that the first 10 feet to the street was public right away, we said, okay, we're just going to rock it, but rocks there. So something happens out there, it still goes from the street to the meter. Is that what you're saying? Usually, right. With regard to the maintenance of the water line, the meter is a fighter, okay, regardless of where it falls within. All right. So it's just the meter itself, not okay. There's a blue the meter. Yes. All right. Anybody else? Does councilmember Fiddler have more just kept it illuminated? All right. Councilmember Green. I'm looking on the website and I do not sure if you're thinking of the same thing. I'm not sure if you're thinking of the same thing. I'm not sure if you're thinking of the same thing. I'm not sure if you're thinking of the same thing. I'm not sure if you're thinking of the same thing. I'm not sure if you're thinking of the same thing. I'm not sure Thank you all move item 7a. So remember today. Thank you, Mayor. I'll second that we have a first and a second to move item 7a. There's any discussion. If not, we'll call the motion passes 8 to one. Thank you. Next General Business Item 10A, the gift that keeps on giving the Brighton High School parking permits. City Manager Martinez. Thank you Mayor. This will be an item between myself and the City Attorney. I'll introduce it and I'll let the City Attorney give the details. But basically, as we all know, this program is a new program to us, really. I mean, even though we did have a parking permit program in place before, the way that we've structured this program is definitely different than what we've done in the past. And as we've started to implement the program, there have been a few things that have come up that I don't think we as a city have anticipated. It's been brought to our attention by various council members and various residents as well. So tonight we'll discuss a few of those nuances and ask for your guidance. And so I will turn it over to the city attorney for further comment. I have proceed mayor. Thank you. Thank you mayor members of council. I'm not sure if you can see that. I'm proceed mayor. Thank you. Thank you mayor members of council. This item I would say is a great example of why we try to plan ahead a bit when we're making motions. So for the parking permit motion when the city manager or city staff to have any considerations for any special circumstances, any unusual circumstances. And so as these have been raised and brought forward, there was no latitude to consider those items. And so, I think that's the only way to get the right to the point where we're going to be able to these have been raised and brought forward, there was no latitude to consider those items. So, what is before you in the staff report this evening, is a possible motion to expand what you originally proposed, to allow a bit more latitude for the city manager to make some exceptions. If someone has good cause, we attorneys like that term. It's not a very well-defined term, but there's enough law around it that we're pretty comfortable with it. And then also to allow the city manager to put the annual fee into the fee resolution and the renewal fee so that it's not $25 forever but to allow the city manager to have some flexibility around that as well. Questions, comment, Mayor Prattam? Thank you. I have spoken to the city attorney about this and I will introduce a motion that we can then have discussion on and take any discussion for amendments. But that motion will be to grant the city manager or design the authority to make exceptions to the parking permit limitation of two per property for good cause or for extenuating circumstances. And second, to set the annual renewal fee for the parking permits in the annual fee resolution so that those aren't governed just by this one one time standing resolution. So two portions to that motion, changing, allowing city manager authority to make exceptions to the limit of two per property, and then second setting the annual fee and the renewal fee in the annual fee resolution, and allowing city manager the ability to set that rate. So there's a motion, Do we have a second? And then we'll go to discussion again. Councilmember Tadeo. I would second that. First and a second. We have more discussion. Councilmember Poloski. Thank you. Now, as I understand it, does the motion say that each public can only have two in the motion? The resolution that we passed back in January. Not talking about the one you presented. The one I'm saying says that the city manager for extenuating circumstances are good cause can increase that from the two. That's what I wanted to make sure because I know that there are some corner property. It's currently set it to this gives some latitude to staff. Thank you. Councilmember Johnston. Thank you, Mayor. The first part of that is great. The second part is we need to talk about the... It's not this city manager. Remember, we make rules and laws for the next city manager. And if they... If that city manager and that city council doesn't like this parking program which a previous council I was on didn't like the parking program the parking permit program what they can do is raise the fees so high And the city manager has to do without a city council vote. I also don't have I don't know if the residents that are there. I mean I'm there. I'm there every day this time of year And it is a total different world that we did this parking permit program. It is much nicer. They wave at us instead of yell at us, the residents do, and I don't blame them. And I'm saying that what we have to really consider making sure their voices heard in this in every step of the way. Councilmember Fiddler, before he was council member, myself council council member, today, and council member Pulaski all sat in a room and it was tumultuous to say the least when this first started coming. And then we've made it to this point where I feel like everyone's in a good place. So I would recommend one thing is the first one I'm sure I as a representative, I think that everyone in that area would like that first one. The second one, I'd like to make sure that they know that we're doing this and have them voice their opinion about it and what that would look like, or put a cap on it, or because a new city manager come in and say it's $5,000 per year to park there, with the way that that's red. So, and even if we don't, even if it doesn't go that way, I'd like them to convoy their opinion about that second part because they were the ones that brought this to us and it really moved well. And I don't want to all of a sudden have them go, wow, we did this, but now they can raise the rate. And that could be what happens with the rumor mill and that alone is bad when we've really tried to do something good here. So I like the first one and I would love to pass the first one because that seems easy and then come back for the second make sure the right are the residents aware that we're voting on them to raise rates on them tonight. Because it is a rate that we are going to do and it's giving the ability for one office to raise the rates. Yes, would you like to mayor Pratton? Yes. So actually what this is doing is putting it in the rate resolution that we vote on. So it's not giving the city manager the ability to simply set the rate at any time. It's putting it in our fee resolution instead of having 99.9% of our fees in the fee resolution and one fee wherever they like. It's to put it in our rate resolution that we have city council vote on once a year. Mayor Span, Mr. Go ahead. No, that's a good point. It wouldn't be just in the city manager's office. But I was on a council before most of you were here. That would have raised that rate to 5,000. And then we're right back here. No, they it was on a council before most of you were here that would have raised that rate to 5,000 and then we're right back here. No, it was hated thing, maybe not 5,000 dollars. I don't know what they would have, but with that leeway, we're giving up our powers of council to keep that in that program going to another council. We don't know exist yet that could raise the rate so high that it actually makes the the parking program meal. It just takes the program out because they make that fee so high. So I would love to talk about this, but make sure we know we're giving up full power to future councils and city managers, because they can then come in here and raise the rate so much for parking permits that it's not doable. And I saw that that was a discussion that was had by certain council members previously when this discussion came up before most of you were here was why don't we just make it so expensive they won't do it. So if you think it won't happen, it could. I would point out that they can do that anytime now. It's already a resolution so any future city council can set it wherever they want to at any time with a simple resolution. So all we're doing is moving it into the consistent place. Yeah. City turned it called her own. Let me just clarify it was done by motion the first time which is why we're doing it by motion the section time. In the future my recommendation was to do it by resolution so we're not doing it by motion. So remember green. Thank you mayor. You know two weeks ago they were here thanking us for this program. Didn't hear anybody suggest any changes. Didn't hear anybody complain about it. They were saying thank you very much for this program, you guys did a great job, we appreciate what you're doing. And now suddenly, because a couple of people have complained, I haven't heard that, you know, majority of them have complained, a couple of people have complained, we're suddenly throwing this all up and saying, we need to make all these changes. Does the city manager really want to evaluate everybody's request for more than two parking spaces one at a time and you determine whether they have good cause or not. Is that something because this is what we're asking for you to do is that you will decide whether someone gets that extra parking space or not. It's going to be in your hands so they'll probably be mad at you or not. And then what's going to happen when somebody decides that they got four because they had a corner property but somebody is not in their spot. So they use somebody else's spot, somebody's mad because they're two are gone. And suddenly they're, well, we have four spots. So that means we get four spaces. Again, there's a lot of things we're suddenly snowballing here and saying, suddenly this is up to you to decide whether and what if you don't like these people? You get a personal vendetta against somebody or you're not happy that they have four cars and you decide, I that's not a good cause for me. I'm wondering why we're messing with this and why we're putting it in your hands and as far as the fee goes, I thought we said a fair fee, though we said a fine fee, but, you know, as long as it doesn't go down, I guess I don't have a problem with where we put it in there. So those are my thoughts. I just don't know why we're putting it in your hands. City Manager Martinez, would you like to respond? Sure. Thank you, Mayor. So really that's a reaction towards comments and requests that I've received from some council members as well as from some residents. I currently don't have any authority to make any changes. So the reason why this is in front of you tonight is because I have been asked to look at some extenuating circumstances. I don't have the decision making power to do that currently. To your question, do I want that power? I'm a city manager, right? There are a lot of things I don't want to do, but I do anyway because that's my responsibility. In this case, if council gave me that responsibility, I'd happily do it. But again, this is more of a response to nuances to the program that we didn't anticipate. That was brought to my attention, myself, and the city attorney's attention from fellow council members, as well as some members of the community, and it's up for discussion tonight. So definitely not my choice here this evening, but again, whatever council directs me to do, I'm happy to do it. Next council member worth. Thank you mayor. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the program. Or if I have a permit, does it guarantee me the spot in front of my house? It just guarantees that I'm not gonna get a ticket if I park anywhere in that area. That zone right? In the whole zone. Okay. My problem I think, or at least question, with just allowing more parking spots. Is there a chance we're going to have another exception that we want to allow down the road? And if that's case, we can be back here voting on it again. Shouldn't we just grant the CEO of our city, the city manager, the ability to make decisions on this that can allow him to better manage that area. It's all I got. Okay. Councilmember Tadeo. Thank you. Well, this is my ward. Most of it, not completely, but I live very near the high school. So I did get quite a few calls about this. And I was in favor of the permit parking going in. I was in favor when they came and said, let's take the signs down until the residents started coming and saying, this is a really big problem. And so then I got behind it, went to the meetings. And I think yes, we made a decision. And I mean with some things, we've gotten lucky with the goats. We haven't had to make too many changes to our pilot program. So I guess jokingly, I feel like this might be slightly that. Some of it a pilot program. It's something that we haven't had to deal with, not in this decade or beyond. So I personally went, bought my two parking permits, I paid my $25 each. My one thing that I, that came up in my household was I have two people driving those vehicles They take them to work they come home are they expected to bring their permit into the house So that I mean I work from home if I have somebody over to my house during the day they can't park in front of my house Because I've already used my two permits since the video. So he has them so I Mean I think there's there can be exceptions to not only if just if you live on the corner. I mean, I have six vehicles. But yes, I can only have two in a spot at a time, right? So, but I guess my point is, as I would say, let's go ahead and open it up without having to get permission from the city manager or his designated, that if you want four of them by four of them, your money, you want to buy that many to have for your household then okay I don't think that there should be a $25 fee each year to renew those and I know that's the renewal situation that we're speaking of. I think that should be very minimal if nothing but I understand if we've got staff to pay and to take care of those things, but that's my two cents on the whole thing. Thank you. Then council member Fiddler. Thank you, Mayor. Well, first and foremost, I'm not advocating on behalf of council member today else. She's not the one that was worried about the number of party movements. But I know that I'm partially responsible for this conversation because I have a resident who is, it's just funny how life is, right? So she was mad about paying it all and now she liked it by more, right? Which I'm if you're watching, I'm only kidding. But I would say we should celebrate the last meeting where folks came in talking about how well that it's working. And I would say respectfully, to land on two permits was arbitrary in many ways. Okay, so in the end, there's some folks out there that would still like us to revise this, give them the opportunity to buy additional parking permits. I just can't believe unless someone's really an entrepreneur they're going to buy the number that they need. Unless they're going to start selling a brand high kids. I don't think they'll do that. But again, I have a you know and I'd time I can arrange for that resident to come in and speak under public comment. I've tried to to fur her to not do that, but I think she has at least other friends out there that like at least at least one more than two if not a couple more. And I will tell you I drove that area. There's there's plenty of space. I'm not worried about loss of space. And it's a large area. I'll joke a little bit about you know you've got permit parking only along the east border of St. Augustine Church. I don't know how that all plays out. It's a place of worship or a place of business, but that's all permitted already. There's just lots of space there available. So again, I'm here at this on behalf of one of my residents. You know, I didn't have a good reason for why you couldn't have more. Other than they decided on to. And if I may, Mr. City Manager, this would have been addressed already had not. City Attorney's today, wait a minute, we had a very specific resolution that was passed and let's bring this back in front of the council. Because there's no flexibility, right? Then one final thought for Michael, he gets paid for people to be mad at him. It's just that's just how that works. It's better when they like him, but he gets paid for both. Like and just like. Except that home. Except that home. But anyway, again, I'm carrying that on behalf of a resident who's at it, she'd like a couple more and she's on a corner lot. I'll vote yes on her behalf. Before we go to round two, we haven't heard from Councilmember Snyder. Thank you, Mayor. I too have spoken with this resident and understand her concerns and her needs. It's my understanding from the people that came in that were very happy with the program that they wanted to do two things. They wanted to clean up the parties and the trash in their front yards from the high school students and this program has done that. I don't think it was ever their intention to not let their neighbors park in front of their house. I do think that we could curve the special exceptions to if you want more than two spaces, there have to be two spaces more than two spaces adjacent to your home. So if there's only two spaces. There have to be two spaces more than two spaces adjacent to your home. So if there's only two spaces in front of your home, you're done. But if you live on a corner a lot and there's two on the side and two on the front and the second curb, you have permitted cars to that address, then you can buy additional permits. That would curb them from buying them for somebody else. They have to prove they they have the need and they also have to prove they have the space That's just my thought. Thank you Councilmember Johnston. Thank you mayor. These are good thoughts. I I asked a question. Let me ask you at less rhetoric. I I Want the residents that are involved in all of this, that we're involved in all of this to be aware we're having this discussion. Are those residents other than one? Are they aware we're having a discussion to disrupt this parking right now or make it better? We don't, that's up to us. I don't think they know that this is happening tonight. Do they? Can anyone tell me that all of the residents that came into this room and into the library that a good portion of them know that we're talking about this tonight? That's a lack of transparency. That is a full lack of transparency when we're about to make a decision without asking the residents what they think when they are the ones that brought this to us. So I would like to I would like to continue this item, do some outreach, have them come in and help us decide this because I think they could be all for it, but we work for them. And I don't feel like they are being represented right now because I don't think they know what's happening. And tomorrow afternoon, I'm actually going to be across the street as I am every afternoon with the main resident that brought this up. And if I go there tomorrow and you all vote yes, and she goes, I had no idea. I didn't want three parking spots because of this or this. And wow, now what is the fee going to be? That is not fair to those we represent. We should probably hear from them. And that's all I'm asking you all to do is just continue it and let us make sure, unless let me ask the city manager. Has anyone reached out to the members and the people that started this whole coalition? I have not. I couldn't speak as the city attorney. Did you turn me cold? No, I only advise council. But thank you. You're welcome. Has any staff member reached out to the people? Has anyone in this building told them that we are talking about this tonight because they came in happy and we don't want to make them come in. My knowledge is anybody that would read what's on the agenda. Right. And they most brighten citizens do not go and read our city council agenda. So can we please continue this? I'm begging you all to just try to make sure that the residents that are affected by this know that we're discussing this. That's all. Well, since there are two motions that'll be up to those that have put the motions out. So may it be a demo? Do they care about what the residents think? Let's find out. Yes. As a matter of fact, I care about the residents think and had several conversations with residents in a number of areas and got their feedback in developing the motion for tonight. So at yes, I'm not interested in moving, changing the motion, but if somebody wanted to make a motion to amend and set that date or to postpone it, they could see if they got the votes to accomplish that. But I would like to move forward with this because the people who I spoke to asked me to move relatively quickly so that the circumstances surrounding parking their cars around their house would be addressed quickly, which we indicated that we would take that action to do. The two spaces was not arbitrary. The two spaces were chosen because that was the normal set of spaces available in front of a house. And if we used to have the old program had two spaces and then two guest spaces, which then created a problem that there were four spaces, four cars where there were only two spaces in front of the house and people couldn't park near their houses, it defeated the purpose of the program. And we had a fair number of issues where people then gave high school students they knew the permits and then they were being used by the high school kids anyway and they were paper programs and they were just photocopied and used year over year. So the two was not arbitrary. The fee was not arbitrary. The fee was based on some of what was it going to take to operate the program. And if you remember, the fee set in our motion was actually a compromise because there were people who desired it to be much higher and there were people who desired it to be much lower. So it was a compromise. Again, the purpose of this one is to get that fee into the resolution that we vote on annually so that we can do it in a single motion. And I would not, at Councilman Snyder, I wouldn't want to put more defining language into the leeway that we're trying to give staff. So I wouldn't want to go measure the average length of a car and the the city manager's staff is going to be able to put more defining language into the leeway that we're trying to give staff. So I wouldn't want to go measure the average length of a car and the average amount of linear footage in front of a house and determine those two things form the formula that the city manager then has to use. I would rather leave that to the city staff that's why it's or designate so that they can determine is there a proper extenuating circumstance and is there a room to accommodate that i don't want us to start writing that that's why we're in the boat that we're in right now is that we wrote was too specific and didn't give staff leeway so my motion is to give them the leeway but not to provide the extra governance for that and then one more, Council member green. See, I was actually going to be on board with Council member Snyder's friendly amendment. Because let's consider Council member Tadeo's example. Two spots, that's what she has available, but they're gone during the day. But she would love to have an extra pass to be able to have that's a client so is that a good enough cost That's why we made the is that a good enough cost? I'm yeah, cause that's up to the city manager One of your honor. I don't believe we can talk over each other without having the other member greens got the floor So that this is where I would like to really put some parameters around this because I think that that just saying it's for good cause, the city manager or his designate may really like Antidale and say, you know what, she's got a business, she's running out of there. I think that's a good cause. We're going to give her an extra spot, but this other person, we're not going to give them one, because I don't think that's a good cause. So I get, it's fairly nebulous and Council Member Sanders was if space is available, that would still apply on Council Member today else because they're gone during the day, so she could argue that there is space available for an additional for me to use for customers to come by so I can use my business. So I would like to at least have some parameters around it other than that. You see where I'm at? Council Member Snyder. Thank you, Mayor. You know, sometimes we do get in a hurry and I wanna resolve this for people as quickly as possible. They need to be able to park at their home. But I'm going to have to agree with Councilman Johnson. What would the harm be to send out a notice and postpone this conversation for two weeks and let the residents have a chance to come in and speak. But if we're talking two weeks, we're not talking next year. It's just the thought. Last one, Councilmember Johnston, then we'll get we let's go ahead and take the vote. Yeah, I'm the only reason I'm allowed to speak is because it was given to me as a possibility of a friendly amendment to the motion at hand in order to do a continuance to a date certain of September 17th following outreach to the citizens that brought this to us in the first place. Okay, and that is item 10a. First we got to take a vote on the original motion made by Mayor Protempidea. Always trying to amend the motion. Yeah, amendment. Yes. If it pleases you mayor, I'd like to do a continuance on the item as an amendment to the motion if the motion and the second agrees. Mr. Motion no you can take a vote on that but I'm not going to accept that as a friendly amendment. Okay well let's see if there's a second to continue first. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Are you City Attorney called please please so we have we have a motion in a second on the table. What councilmember Johnston is asking to do is to continue the item for two weeks. He's made that motion is there a second to support his motion to continue it for two weeks? And then you would have to vote on the motion to continue first. Even though there's already a motion on the hand because it's an amendment. I tried to do it friendly. It's not except okay. So councilmember Snyder seconds that. Can we have some discussion on this? Okay. So what are we voting on now? You're voting. You're voting. You're voting. You're voting. You would be voting right now on whether to continue this item for two weeks. Okay. So now we vote to continue this item for two weeks. Okay, so now we vote to continue that in for two weeks. A point of order, Your Honor, on our screens, it says motion to approve. So those need to be changed by City Clerk. There can be no vote in progress for a motion to approve. On my screen, it says motion to a man and I have councilmember John Stunna as a mover. It's just not on our screens that reflect in that way. Okay. I don't. So if we if we need to take a a vocal voice we can do that to or vocal vote. I'll give you a moment to see if that can be updated. Oh there we go. Now it's a motion to amend with Councilman Johnston as the mover and then the seconder is Councilman Snyder. Roll call vote. Okay, motion passes 6 to 3. Okay. So now it's going to be continued for two weeks on September 17th. All right. Just a moment. All right. We're done with this part of the conference. Councilmember Snyder. We haven't determined how the residents are going to be notified. All that staff determined how that is notified. Okay. Hi, May mayor. And typically what we would do is, it would take a little bit longer than two weeks, but again, in this case, all you have with staff tomorrow will figure out a way to notify the residents within the area. In fact, what we'll do is reach out to those who currently have permits, who's given us their contact information. It's probably the easiest way for us to do that. I think that's a great way to do that. Reach out those already have a permit. Okay. Ready to move on? Alright. Next is the reports. All those quickly go through reports. By the mayor I was at my data meeting a couple weeks ago, the North Area Transit Alliance. We talked about the Dr. Cogtit process. It'll come up in the next couple of years. Some events I was at was the touch of truck. I was also at the Jim Yeager Memorial Parkway dedication that happened a couple of weekends ago. And of course those are the budget meeting last Tuesday and the Dr. Cog awards. So next we'll go to reports by department directors. We have none this evening. Thank you. All right. Port Spar City attorney. Nothing. Thank you this evening. Port Spar City manager, including the board and vacancy update. Thank you mayor. I am pulling up the board and commission vacancy update as we speak. Just want to remind folks that we do have art in the park here at Carmichael Park on Saturday. So please come join us for that. It's always an excellent event. So I look forward to seeing you there in terms of vacancies. For a planning commission, we have one ward two member parks and rec advisory board two alternate members and one at large. We have two urban renewal authority members. That's very important that we fill those. I know that we potentially may have more there. So if you're interested in the Brighton Urban Renewal Authority, please apply. We have three members of the Historic Preservation Commission and one alternate member open, and we still have one member and two alternate members of the Brighton Housing Authority open. So if you're interested, please visit our website. It'll have the list of vacancies I just read and how you can get involved. Thank you. Right. Next report is by our city council. We'll start over here with councilmember Worth. Nothing to report. All right. Councilmember Polowski? That was brief. Yes, I also attended the Jim and Sharon Yeager memorial plaques placed on the memorial parkway and to our night. We will be meeting to try to change and bring back the council legacy pathway. Thank you. Okay. Council's a member, Green. You know, that touch of truck was such a great event. I'm telling you, it is so good to see the young families out there and the kids. We actually ran out of things to give away. There was so many people that attended that and that doesn't always happen for United Power. So, that was pretty impressive and it was great to see. I would like to see even more of the trucks come there. This year it seemed like there was mostly just a city in the fire and the police were in the past. Sometimes we've had more of the commercial participants, but it's a great event. I can't see us ever stopping it because it is really a good thing to see. Thank you. I hope to remember today. I don't have anything. May I pertain? Thank you. I was at a few of the events already mentioned, but I was also at the historic splendid valley farm to table event this last week. Fantastic event celebrating all the development. And the conservation easements that we've been able to do to keep our farmland intact. Our historic farmland intact. And then this week I have the the council. We have a lot of concerns. We have a lot of concerns. We have a lot of concerns. We have a lot of concerns. We have a lot of concerns. We have a lot of concerns. We have a lot of concerns. We have a lot of concerns. We have a lot of concerns. We have a lot of concerns. We have a lot of concerns. We have a lot of concerns. We have a lot of concerns. to the state fair with the governor. And I have to tell you the kids there, it reminds you of what you want for an actual farm ranching heritage to see those kids. And then I ask them the same question every time with their animals as we are bidding, is are you gonna be sad? When, and before I could stop, the sends they go, yes, I'm gonna ball my eyes out, we do this every year. So it's quite a weird sacrifice in ranching that we forget about until you ask these kids and some of them were 18 big, big guys and you're just shocked when they're like, yeah, I'm gonna ball my eyes out for this pig. Like, when if you do take it. And also, I've been waiting for scottles and for a very long time to tell you what happened with a water issue and as soon as he's here for the meeting, I just want him to give you the technical details because it's actually an important thing when it comes to affordable housing that happened with Adams County water quality. So I will wait for you Scott, wherever you are. Thank you. That's a member of Fiddler. Thank you Mayor, just when it would say how much I enjoyed and was impressed by the study session last week and I arrived late but that is the fastest budget presentation I think I've ever been a part of which is a testament to the amount of work that you put in preparing for that so it's well done and dialed in so I was very impressed. And councilmember Stander. I too would like to come in on the budget meeting and complement all of the department heads for The hard work they did in the sacrifice. They they all had needs that they had to give up to make this work and for making it clear So even I can understand it. So thank you Berra conducted the downtown walkabout and working lunch to With Puma to start the investigation on the downtown development authority. And the walk went well. Gary let us all around and gave us an immense amount of history. And we had a working lunch and I felt like everything went well except for one thing I was very disappointed in and it's going to be a problem as we go forward if it doesn't change was there was not very much participation from the business owners. And without that, a DDA is not going to work. So we're going to do some outreach directly and see if we can get them more involved because if we can't, it's dead in the water. And we really can't allow that to happen. With the progress we've made downtown with the urban renewal authority to let that expire and have no mechanism to fund development and help the businesses down there keep the upgrades we're gonna be in trouble. So we are working on it and we will work to get more response out of the actual business owners down there because they have to push it and they have to vote for it That doesn't need a dress for sure soon Okay There's nothing else on the agenda next week is study session that'll be at our normal time at 6 p.m. We'll see you then, we're adjourned.