question about is there somebody I could address my question yeah I'm sorry I was gonna say yeah was it to go through by groups bring it up at that time and that would be the first group under General management okay thank you you bet okay um so uh budgets by um Deputy city manager group should should we go ahead and start with the uh Council and commission appointees which would Cil service Court admin judicial and public defender okay any questions for or or thoughts for him well can somebody uh um can you briefly go over it absolutely the uh the Comm Council and commission appointees include the the City attorney pages are F20 the Civil Service Commission which is f29 uh Court admin Administration which is on F40 uh judicial which is on page f110 and public defender which is on page f183 any discussion on this section mayor uh mayor Pim um so okay so we're not having the the managers from each department make any requests correct no they've they've made their budget request in part of the 2022 proposed okay thank you uh further questions discussion I see none is there any objection to this section of the budget amendments I'm seeing no amendments uh U let me is there objection do we um I guess process wise do we need to vote if there's no objection uh to typically in the past you have not voted on each individual section what would you what you would do is is make changes then at the very end you would vote on those changes okay uh City manager please proceed all right thank you so uh this covers General management which is you know clerk's office um Dei um City manager's office it um and I guess council member Lawson did you have a want something you wanted to raise yes um thank you um Jim I appreciate that so I was going through your budget and I just had a question and if I missed it please please direct me to where it should be so I know we had talked about you have talked with council members about Security in our in the city building maybe getting a magnetometer things like that to to so we could get back into the building um I was looking through your budget and I like I said I looked at it and I don't see anything in here in your budget where there's any allocation or anything that addresses that issue um and I and I think that there should be but if I'm missing where it would be located um I if you could address it and tell me maybe possibly where we're at on that because we haven't had any updates um I know that there's it shouldn't be that it shouldn't be that difficult to kind of get pricing on that I definitely think we need a magnetometer coming through to get to the city building because a lot of City buildings have that so can you tell me in the budget where that is and have and is it allocated for security sure and and we have not included that one of those in the in the budget and if we if we would have it most probably have been in public works under facilities um and I will say that as I talked to individual council members um I didn't sense the consensus on that and felt like that should be a discussion maybe at a study session where we uh where all council members can weigh in on whether or not that's some that's a direction you want to go um um well I I mean I I guess I'm just trying to understand okay that that's your thought but I mean it is something that we need to think about I think we brought it up I don't know what the consensus of the council is but I definitely think that there's needs to be some kind of allocation because I don't know what your what your process is is to get us back in that building but if I know security is on our minds of all of us but to me it should be something that should be even allocated discussed um it just seems like it's just been kind of under just kind of out to the to the left like it's just kind of like I don't want to discuss it anymore so I'm just I'm just bringing that up because I didn't see anything in the budget I think it should be something that we should have a line item for even if it's for future discussion so yeah mayor mayor mayor pres I'm sorry yeah 100% agree with council member Lawson because we did discuss this prior to the pandemic we actually had um the incidents at the council meetings and it was discussed that we would have U metal detectors and I actually honestly thought it was being budgeted for last year in the budget because it was I mean it was a serious serious um you know consideration and so I I would like also to have it added today to the budget in terms of a line item but I don't know what that amount is so I don't know if that's 250,000 or 500,000 but um you know if we're GNA go back to Council meetings and not have protection anybody can come into that building we have no and we don't even have I think police Staffing us anymore at the is there is there someone um from staff that could answer the question in terms of of um secur the security measures that that have raised this morning yeah in terms of the uh metal detector um I don't know if there's anybody on from Public Works that would have an idea about that you know if the consensus of council now is that we should budget for for that for when we return we can we can get that cost figure and added into the budget as a one-time cost Cindy is on Cindy do you have a I don't have a range but I did make a note and I'll get with our facilities team to get a budget uh cost estimate for a magnetometer or some version I I'm just wondering if we can express it in terms of what the outcome is that we want um whether it's a whatever because there's different systems in terms of metal detectors uh you know you've got the fixed system that people go through like an airports uh systems that people go through uh or or the the wand uh which is mobile and so uh um maybe if we mayor protm council member Lawson is it okay with you if we express it that uh that enhanced security measures um to include um Express this but go ahead oh I'm sorry approv today in the budget though yeah I would like it to be something that we' have on on the thing for discussion I know it needs six votes but I don't even I don't even want to I want to have it in a budget allocation um because otherwise I don't think it's G to be done so that's just my sorry mayor uh card I just I just for the conversation sake I just put a link into uh the chat for a TSA approved walkthrough metal detector that cost is $4,395 so I mean not that that's necessarily the exact model we' need to get but I think that can give us a pretty good idea of what we might need to budget 4,3 it's a TSA approved Garrett walkthrough metal detector looks pretty similar to what we use at the courthouse well okay mayor um May I pretend can we just um budget maybe 7,000 just to be on the safe side for it um okay um is Is there further okay so I'm going to take that as a motion on the floor uh to appropriate $7,000 for a metal detector mayor counc we would also need the Manpower for that those are contract security down there so it wouldn't be an FTE but it would be additional annual uh money for someone to actually uh operate uh that one and we probably need more than one we have multiple doors going into the building on uh you know both the east and west side of the building building as well as the north side uh as well as the second floor for that matter so there's a whole process so I think putting a funding wedge of uh it's probably going to be closer to you know based on what council member Gardner said it will probably be in a neighborhood of uh 40 to 50,000 maybe more but I think if we put a wedge in there uh in the budget uh that says that we're setting this aside uh ending cost uh analysis by the city May Council memberes um yeah so I remember there being a conversation about security I don't remember it being a conversation about multiple magnetometers and I do think there were also questions about at least when Jim came to my town hall meeting to talk about security um people had serious questions and objections to completely closing off the Great Lawn side of the building which was the initial initial proposal that you wouldn't be able to walk in and out of those doors and that you'd have to come in the east side of the building um so I just don't think that this is a settled topic I did I agree that we need to have the conversation about what are the security plans what are the costs I believe Jim at that time the conversation was also about other updates to the building including accessibility updates in in the council chambers that were maybe going to happen last year while we knew we weren't going to be in the building so I do think we need to have a conversation about what does it look like to get back in the building what improvements overall what um Public Works projects need to be done in the building for us to get back in there um and how much money are we setting aside I just think it's a bigger conversation than just adding magnetometers at a bunch of different doors if I can go back to counc member Lawson council member Lawson was at your intent when you raised this issue that it would that it would be simply uh the entry points or an entry point coming into the city council chambers or was it to the building as I yeah go ahead I'm sorry mayor um it was to the entrance of the building oh entrance of the building because most City buildings if you go to city of Denver you go into a magnetometer they don't have all of those magnetometers all through the city building but they have that one entrance point and I understand it's a bigger conversation but regardless I think we need to have money allocated and if you looked at the city manager's budget there is nothing allocated in that budget to talk about anything security okay so that's why I'm bringing it up um I know the conversation needs to be there but there needs to be some type of line item here yeah mayor mayor yeah I agree I it needs to be aine item um and I don't remember if it was an executive session where we had this discussion but it just went away I mean we literally were told that we would be there would be an analysis done on the security of the building yeah and if I could address that you know we we we had discussion probably last spring and I did follow up with conversations with individual council members and then the co started to spike again we also lost our security manager who was going to be the person really responsible for for moving this forward so it's kind of got between Co and losing the security manager it kind of got sidetracked um so we I I think council member gruber's suggestion of set of putting $50,000 in as a as a a something to be a start where we need to go if we can we can work on that and if we need more than 50 you know we could deal with that in a supplemental either fall or spring supplemental to you know to make up any shortfall um maym is that uh okay with you because you had a previous motion on the floor I think for was it 7,000 I'll resend mine okay is there um further discussion on the guber motion for 50,000 mayor I think Greg wanted council member thank you sir uh I guess I just want a little bit of clarity here since multiple ideas have been floated but I know that we're going to entertain council member gr's motion here in a moment is the idea to still bring a broader discussion to study session because I would like to know more about staff's concerns obviously my colleagues concerns and what feedback we've gotten from the public about security concerns in the municipal building just from my perspective I have never felt unsafe in that building and I do not want us to send the wrong message to the public by you know hardening uh the building and making it feel less open I think that's an important part of the function of our municipal center so if I understand council member gruber's motion it is for a placeholder for $50,000 uh but it doesn't it is in it is it's not determined in terms of what system would be deployed or where it would be deployed am I correcting that council member grber yes sure okay very well further discussion on the grber motion uh may this is Greg hay I a point um Ellie Watson just let me know that there actually is a security enhancements budget capital budget uh it can be found on page g17 um there's somewhere between 440,000 500,000 a year and she says that that's sort of what that that budget is for so we we may already have it budgeted well we may I don't know what that means we we do we do we would we bring this up again during Public Safety or we're good sorry to interrupt I please okay I was G to say I think the next step is to have that larger conversation about what the total secureity you know plan would be for the building where on t17 is that budget and it would have been nice to have that pointed out I'm on that it's the it's the fourth line from the bottom it says uh security enhancements and you'll notice there's there's money every year in the fiveyear plan Okay so we've had this money but it just hasn't been emphasized in any capacity that's where I have an issue okay I hope we have the discussion then given the fact there's money there I resent my motion very well okay uh further discussion on this section mayor council member regard so I'd like to hear from staff when it is that we can have this conversation about you know whether it's security or Co or whatever the um excuses we're going to use to get back in person uh I believe it was in April or May we had a conversation at the time about coming back into person and at the time staff said they were going to come back with some scenarios about what that could look like um whether that was for all regular meeting study sessions and and that's you know four or five months ago and and unless I haven't been made aware of it I haven't heard any more conversations on that and you know I think from a um public accountability standpoint we're at the point where we need to um be in person for our public meetings and so I I would really like to make sure staff um gets that back to Council in a timely manner because it's you know now we're pushing the end of September and we still have not had that conversation can council member Gardner have a staff response please yes we we can uh put that on a the October 18th study session to begin preliminary discussion about coming back security needs and so on councils Jim can that conversation include the accessibility updates to the council chambers that we've been talking about since December of 2019 yes yeah this is Cindy um in public and yes we've actually been looking into that already um and have also done some preliminary analysis on the security aspect so we can bring both those items and um I will tell you that we have gone the executive recruitment route for the physical security manager um just because of the challenges of filling that position thank you very well further discussion on mayor council bin thank you um does it and this is for staff does it cost us anything to have uh SWAT come and sit through our meetings you know they've had to come twice is that a cost to the city yes it is okay so that could be factored into the cost of a security system you know do we need to call swad or do we need to have a security system mayor uh Council thank you sir uh since I was I don't think I was on council at the time why was SWAT called into the building was that just because people were protesting during Council meetings resp on that go well thank you and and police can answer that too because that's what we were told to do we had to leave the uh Di and go into another room and be guarded by SWAT I don't know what the trigger points are but whatever happened had those trigger points mayor uh mayor yeah I think when there were two and there were two occasions I believe but um I think part of the reason and I don't know if police is here they could probably again address it like council member bers said but um you don't know what's going to happen when you have you know three 00 people in a room that are panting and screaming and disrupting the meeting you know they they brought a Fu cake to the mayor at the time we didn't even know what was in the cake I mean you you bring a cake up to the front of the dis it could have a bomb in it for all we know so I think there was precaution my dog is there were precautions that were taken that you know maybe maybe maybe council member maro's thinks that it was too much but I think they just didn't know what was the situation okay and I think that we're going to have a full discussion of this presentation by staff as options given full discussion during study session during that study session I believe on October 18th so we'll certainly have the opportunity to explore this issue further uh Is there further discussion on General Management on that section is there objection to um moving forward with the general management section mayor ptim is the chief on the call because I it would be nice to just get an idea of what that decision involved very well uh mayor Chief Wilson I'm here please proceed uh yes sir so obviously the unknowns of you know the crowd who's in the crowd if they have weapons or not we don't have security your magnom at the door so we we don't have any sort of um way to know what people are bringing into the building whether it's a weapon whether it's explosive whether it's a knife you name it and so um out of abundance of caution and care for Council and the mayor um that is why that we implemented um our SWAT team is trained in dignitary protection and uh quick quick ability to take you guys into a safe area where our Patrol officers don't have that same sort of training but it is a cost to us obviously with overtime but I just if there's any other questions I can address it but yes it does cost us and that's why we use swad is because they're specially trained further discussion on the general management section uh is there objection to the adopting the to moving forward with the general management section uh seeing none then then the general management section will move forward information technology uh discussion on Information Technology mayor uh council member mcconell thank you sir I did have a question not necessarily a budget uh ad here um but I am wondering what is our uh strategy going forward um you know we we are a predominantly I would say overwhelmingly windows-based environment but we some of us still use iPads and things of that nature uh and I know last year I believe I uh brought it up to some folks about about switching over to surfaces instead of iPads um and then there were some concerns I think about uh servicing those devices I'm just wondering has anything changed um or are we looking at making a you know moving more towards a Windows only environment the staff response good morning Council this is Scott Newman CIO and yes council member uh council member Maro we actually looking at that right now with the incoming council members unfortunately we are having still anywhere from a 4 to six month delay on equipment orders due to the shipment and Manufacturing issues so we're not certain those devices will arrive in time but we have a device that's very similar to the surface Hub it's not a surface specifically um but it does provide that same hybrid function that you can use as a laptop or a tablet either one um what we had plan to do is use those with the new council members once we receive them make sure that they work and then make the offer to other council members if they are interested in making that switch great than discussion on information technology I mean yeah further discussion on the information technology section um seeing none uh is there um is there an objection to moving forward with the information technology section I see none the information technology section we'll move forward uh the time is now uh 906 uh we will be um uh in recess uh until um [Music] 9:16 [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] the Workshop of the Roy City Council uh for September 25th is called back into order we are um we are now on uh Deputy city manager um Jason bachelor's uh budget um starting with Aurora uh starting with our dispatch 911 um are there any uh questions or discussion on dispatch seeing none then um well is there any objection to moving dispatch forward I see none dispatch will move forward I'm sorry sorry I couldn't unmute um mayor Pro one question and I I I'm sure it's in there but just want to clarify so the recruiting that that I brought up last at Monday's meeting then is that budgeted within the 911 or is that in a overall Public Safety budget so that's going to be a joint effort between both um uh police um and and and uh our Aurora 911 dispatch Center so uh it's going to be in both and yes the fun the funding is included there but is that enough to to focus on the 911 yes we we we've got that I think if we need more resources we'll come back for a supplemental or next year's budget but uh we've got a plan to to get that uh for next year and so we think that's we've got adequate funding okay thank you further discussion on 911 is there any objection to moving 911 forward I seeing none uh 911 will move forward um fire department Aurora fire rescue uh discussion any questions I have one minut mayor uh mayor um yeah well never mind I'm going to I'll hold back further uh discussion questions on um Aurora fire rescue mayor I have a question CER so it um last I think it was in July at our um July budget Workshop uh the fire department um presented some software that we some data from some software that we purchased last year using car's dollars and um as part of that software we were able to heat map um areas of the city where we did not have adequate response and um I think we saw from that those Maps I think on engine companies um we we were in a much better position um however still quite a few holes across the city um on truck companies though um there was a lot a lot of red there and so I'm curious um I hope Chief gray is on the phone but uh just talk a little bit about um your thoughts on that and and why there's what we're doing in this budget to address that staff response staff response please yeah Hear Me Chief oh goad chief so uh council member Gardner uh the conversation or the information that was presented I believe was at at a July Public Safety Committee meeting and uh for the rest of the council uh basically uh last year we were able to actually get software uh that will help us through predictive modeling basically identify where gaps in service are so uh right now we actually have five ladder trucks uh you know throughout the entire city of Aurora uh two basically on the outling uh portions of the city and then we actually have three ladder trucks uh basically uh within the core uh and you're exactly right uh council member Gardner uh there are uh a lot of red in that particular uh from the latter uh trucks aspect uh so there are some gaps there um there is uh not a uh solution within this current budget but uh we are looking at different options mayor uh yeah so I would like to um make a proposal for the fire budget um I'd like to propose adding um a lad company and it from I I would like to propose adding that to station a which I believe has the capability um to handle that apparatus um if you look at our heat Maps um the central portion of the city um south from Station 8 um through uh stations seven and nine um it's a it's a large area of red and what red means for for the public for those listening um red means that the response times for a ladder truck are outside of um fire standards um the the National Fire Protection Association um meaning um 4 minutes or 240 seconds is the is the standard the recommended standard and um the red means that it's going to be at least seven minutes before a ladder truck is able to respond and I think it's worth noting that that section of the city um is primarily zip code 813 which for those who aren't aware 83 is the most populated um zip code in Colorado and so it's it's a a really important area of the city and and there's a a pretty significant need there I think um you know this obviously is just one thing that we need to do to um I guess address what the data is telling us um you know there's going to be a lot more I think we need to do as time goes on but um I think we need to at least take one step to address what to me is a gaping hole right in the central portion of our city um and so that um I had opened a council request before this meeting um the the cost of the apparatus for the ladder truck is 1.5 million and then the cost for the ongoing FTE is 2.1 million so I'd like to um put a proposal on the table to add that to the fire department budget for this year C gner does it require any modifications to the station to add uh that asset it does not Station 8 could currently handle the additional apparatus and in fact so I I I think we need a little discussion on that mayor because I guess that was part of the budget discussion uh when when the department brought this forward and I I'll I'll sort of read you please I I'll read to you from from the request and when we discussed this was you know the station is in very poor condition cannot accommodate staff of different genders and space issues limit the capability of adding additional resources so um you know that chve said they've identified the issue we think it certainly needs further examination and um and and looking at so uh while we appreciate the the um information out of the predictive software I don't think it's quite as simple as just adding the additional resources at least based off of the discussions we've had uh at the department level well with the department so it is not as straightforward as that mayor may I ask May yeah so I'm looking at this heat map and why would we not put it at station nine because that's the that's the really red area so it has to do with a addressing the large red area it has to do with a station that has the ability to um have the apparatus station 9 does not have the room for physical room for the for the apparatus um as well as it's uh tactical um in that it's nearer to 225 for faster response times to other parts of the city as well as addressing the large red hole um that's in that Central Area station a lot of the red area around station 9 actually is Buckley Air Force based and so that's kind of a whole different animal if you will station not not to be rude but can I get the fire chief analysis on that on my question Chief yeah Chief can you please respond yes can you hear me uh can you speak up a little bit more it's you're not coming in well how about now okay better okay um again uh um council member uh I guess it was council member um franois B uh she asked the question correct I couldn't really hear uh yes it was me can can you repeat your question I'm sorry I don't know if I'm having problems with my I couldn't hear yes I was looking at the heat map and and the the recommendation is to add a latter company with the I guess four FTE um to station a eight and and I was asking why it wasn't at station nine and uh council member Gardner gave an explanation but I wanted to hear you know your your expert um kind of analysis of it okay I I I wasn't able to hear what he said so I apologize uh can you hear me okay yes okay so uh again uh to Mr bachelor's point he had mentioned the fact that we actually have this predictive software and the software basically will tell you where the best location to make sure that you're causing benefit for the entire uh City structure not just a particular area so basic but Chief the the software because I'm looking at the heat map from the software right the station n is completely surrounded in Red so my question was why not station n versus versus eight okay so again um the software also takes into account uh historical calls so a lot of times uh station 9 might be basically going into station 8's area which basically creates a gap in station nine so again the software is able to basically create that modeling another piece of that is the fact that uh when you start talking about uh being able to accommodate a second unit station n cannot accommodate a second unit uh it's just not possible uh Station 8 uh in the past was a double Company Station uh but at the end of the day again uh it's not even uh you know an Optimum approach to basically putting a second unit as well so uh I think Mr bachelor mentioned this but at the end of the day uh one of the things that we dis we looked at from a from a departmental standpoint is uh Station 8 uh although this would might be able to or not might it' be able to basically take care of some of the operational concerns uh it would need to be temporary because at the end of the day we would need to basically address uh the issues associated with that facility I hope hear everything that I no I could so Station 8 is is what uh Jason Bachelor said was in poor condition um but you're saying there's a I guess a bay for the truck so are there two engines at Station 8 at station uh eight there is not there's only one company one engine okay it there are three Bays station n could not accommodate a second unit it's just okay and then what kind of calls do we know exactly what kind of calls we get out of that area ye yes ma'am so uh again when we were looking at the analysis uh we were looking at complex type calls uh you know heart attacks uh structure fires vehicle extrications things of that nature that's uh something that we noticed that station 8 actually has a lot of those types of calls okay thank you Chief gr um I think it's been I I think uh Mr bachelor and I think yourself mentioned that station 8 isn't ready uh for uh another ladder truck um can you um describe why and can can you tell us where in the capital Improvement budget that is U that those upgrades are are going to be made so uh thank you mayor Kaufman and again if you can't hear me at all if if you have problems hearing me just let me know you're coming in okay right now for me are other members having our members having trouble any member having trouble hearing the chief okay I think you're coming in okay okay all right so Station 8 could accommodate a second apparatus right now it could at the end of the day what I'm trying to communicate to you is that facility was built in the 1970s it was not built uh to the standard of a modern fire station and uh one of the things I will say that through the capital Improvement plan uh we believe that that station needs to basically be uh you know I I hate to say it like this not renovated it needs to basically be we need to identify an alternate site and move forward with the new Fire Station uh the site uh is basically really really small uh and it doesn't accommodate things like uh gender differences um so again I just kind of wanted to communicate to you yes it could accommodate a second uh unit but at the end of the day uh it needs to be there needs to be a discussion about what happens uh with that facility in the near future because it does not uh meet our standards so to speak as far as what we feel like a modern fire station should be well let me ask you this using using your best professional judgment do you support this recommendation well I I I will say that uh at the end of the day I am the fire chief and I'm an advocate for uh the fire service uh I work in a city manager uh form of government and to be frank again um you know uh I understand that the fire department is only one piece of an overall uh perspective of you know for making sure our residents are taken care of uh I will say that uh there would be uh some challenges associated with putting a ladder truck in as I mentioned for our Personnel but the data reveals that it would uh be advantageous if that was something to go in service so again um not trying to make uh decisions for anyone but I just kind of wanted to make sure I proved that context Mr B do you have any comment further I see Jim has this hand uper please yeah mayor to your question about uh uh the capital Improvement plan where does this fit in we have uh fire did submit uh for replacement four stations in the capital Improvement plan which is part of the plan you know that we want to go to the voters with in November of 2022 so Station 8 is one of those stations named called out in that plan uh and also I would say that the way that City management budget office reviewed this request back in July from the fire department was that we saw this as part of that complimentary to that replacement of Station 8 when that happens as opposed to adding a company in a ladder truck now when the information that had at the time was that station 8's in very poor condition and couldn't accommodate this so that's that's what went into the decision making okay included in the proposed budget as it is thank you further discussion May council member Hils uh council member hilts and council member grber thank you um I would just like to separate the poor conditions out from this conversation because we've known for years that this station is in really poor conditions and and until what a year ago um this was a d double company station and so I'm just a little concerned that now that there's talk of adding a double company back there's all these new concerns from management about the conditions of the station that that wasn't prioritized you know two years ago when we talked about it or three years ago um when we talked about it or when they sucked all the mold out of the air vents or when we got the station facilities report that's a couple hundred pages that outlines all of the stations that needed con um work done so I do agree that station a needs to be um probably just torn down and replaced but I don't really think it's appropriate in this discussion if we want to maintain any sincerity in the conversation about our concern for the firefighters who might be housed there in a double company because it wasn't a problem a year ago um only a problem now that we're talking about adding one back and I just I I doubt the sincerity of that concern and so I'd just like to keep that conversation separate personally C gr so I think it's important to remember that we've had multiple uh discussions over our last few study sessions about the capital Improvement budget and how uh underfunded that is both in the fire department and the other Departments of the city um the uh as council member hilts identified uh Station 8 along with m any other buildings uh are are not compliant with current rules and and laws and those need to be adjusted I want to go back to the um heat map itself because I think the part of the discussion that we had at the uh public safety meeting uh involve the types of calls in other words uh Aurora fire rescue has two primary uh missions fire and rescue and it's typical for aora fire rescue to send a truck an engine the ladder truck whatever uh to a call even if it involves somebody falling down the stairs or a heart attack or or a 911 call uh that would be a medical emergency so when we discuss the um analysis the deeper analysis of the heat Maps what we didn't get into what we didn't get good answers to is to analysis of Alternatives uh that could be used to fulfill that heat map uh deficiency in other words uh instead of a ladder truck uh since you know the great majority of calls are medical calls as opposed to structural fires would it make more sense to bring in another type of solution possibly an MSU possibly another type of truck other than a ladder truck and what we discussed at that point is that looking at those Alternatives and trying to apply those alternatives to the larger problem would give us a chance to determine the best solution both from an economic point of view and from an oper AAL point of view to deal with those calls and to eliminate those hotspots so I agree with the uh statistics that were shown but as a you know I've been both a system engineer and I've had a fire U uh you know system under my command while I was in the military I think we need to take a step back and say we've identified the problem uh before we say this is the solution and stick it in to see what it does to the problem we should anal go into a deeper analysis come back and say okay well if we put uh a different type of vehicle an an MSU which is a simp simply an aor fire rescue U upgraded ambulance type capability where we can get the EMTs the emergency medical technicians on site faster uh from other locations could that be a better solution would that be a better way to go so without that and I think the chief mentioned is that they're looking at Alternatives and I think it might be um you know city council was now saying here's the solution to your problem where the fire chief is saying that that that might not be the best solution he said again what he said is that there are several Alternatives and and the chief and the city manager have not brought those alternatives to council so I think it's too early to put um you know we're talking a neighborhood of $4 million a 1.5 acquisition cost and a two plus million uh uh annual uh to pay for the firefighters themselves I would rather have a study done I would I don't mind putting money aside I do recognize that there's a problem but I would like to have a deeper analysis and a review of the Alternatives done and then those Alternatives being brought up to the city manager and city manager making a recommendation so what I would support is both that study as well as then having a set aside of say you know $3 million in the budget uh that that would be used to fund whatever the solution uh whatever the best solution to that problem is so my recommendation is is that we do a study and have $3 million set aside until that study is complete okay mayor uh there is a proposal on the floor of Mayor fortim so with that set aside of three million if the solution was the latter truck then that that would still go towards it correct yes and the idea is that um you know it'll take a few months to get the study done it'll take a few months for for the um uh ladder truck to be purchased well actually built you don't buy one of these things off of uh The Havana The Havana Motor Mile um but uh the lad truck would be built and then while the ladder truck is built uh the you know the larger solution could be other enhancements to Station 8 uh so the $3 million would get us through uh um next year and then the following year it would probably you know then you'd have to fund a full year of operation in other words if we ordered a ladder today we wouldn't see it until June or July so we don't need FTE funded from January through December because we won't have anything for them to operate at that point in time so putting a funding wedge aside uh would allow the solution to come you know to be decided city manager to to approve it once that's approved whatever that is and it could be multiple msus it could be could be something else I mean that's I don't think it's up for Council to decide the best way to fight fires and and and deal with medical emergencies in aora but once that's done then that wedge would be used to fund that solution so follow please proceed M so I know you said that the um city manager would have that analysis done and then make the recommendation but would it city council would still have that final decision on the set aside correct well no and that's what I'm saying is that if we would make that decision right now so the decision you know if we put a funding wedge right now if we created a funding wedge and said city manager we recognize that there's a problem we ident you know we we saw the presentation of Public Safety so yes we identify there's a problem uh we're putting $3 million aside for you to uh put a solution in place for that problem once you have completed the analysis and um decided which way to go you know so so it's one thing to do an analysis and not be able to to uh implement the solution it's another thing you know to to to find a solution and then find out yeah that might not have been the best thing to do it might have been better to do a or C or one of the other Alternatives let me just CL point of clarification uh to the to the proposal the sponsors of the proposal uh council member so essentially what you're saying is um is uh staff uh via the city manager's office will undergo a an analysis A study if you will uh could be used it could be internal external study uh and that um should this should the study warrant uh the the purchase of the the the fire truck and the F Associated FTE then then they would have the capacity to go forward with that uh or they could decide not to it's basically you're creating a contingency uh if the study is affirmative in terms of going forward am I correct close so so the idea being that they they do conduct the analysis when the analysis comes back it has to look at everything it has to look at the building it has to look at the fire Tru or the you know it has to look at the overall solution you know from a system approach what what's the overall what is this going to take from a systems approach to solve this uh this problem that's been identified uh so once they have the best answer you know have that analysis and have this is the best answer then there's $3 million for them to execute that answer okay further discussion uh Council mums um yeah so I just wanted to clarify from the city manager Deputy city manager Bachelor and chief gray don't we already have um research that's being done data that's being looked at for overall systemwide what is warranted and that's a longer term process that's supposed to be looking at what's needed so that we can take and ask to the voters on this so uh council member Coons uh you're exactly right can you hear me okay little louder please okay um how about now just any oh that's greater yeah much better all right uh so council member kums you asked a question about have we conducted analysis and research uh the answer to your question is yes not only about uh an assessment of all of our fire stations not only about the type of responses and the best resources to deploy uh but we even did a really robust study as it relates to you know um our deployment models uh one of the things I don't know if if the council members remember uh we basically implemented a MSU optimization plan and what that allowed us to do is to make sure that we were putting the resources in service at the appropriate time at the appropriate uh location and um you know I know council member Gruber asked the question about would an MSU be a good uh resource potentially or an alternative not for this particular uh situation council member Gruber uh what we were looking at is ways to basically address more complex cause like I said a little bit earlier the extrications uh structure fires uh core zeros to where people are not breathing and unconscious and one of the things that the data reveals to us is that in Northwest Aurora uh that is a good deployment model for the msus and that's basically where we've put those particular resources so uh we have done uh the analysis we've done the research uh again not just for this particular situation but also looking at our response model in total I just kind of wanted to make sure that I clarified that mayor vers counc vers thank you I want to get back to the original request we keep going down these rabbit holes talking about Station 8 and yes I know it's it's in really bad shape but I want to get back to the original and I I appreciate what Chief gray just said you know they they are constantly reviewing and see how how they can do a better job you know we need to you all know that I've been to many many budget meetings and honestly staff doesn't always agree but um many times we have requested a new engine or a new ladder truck or extra firemen um and um Council has agreed whether or not staff agreed or not um but when we do these budget meetings then is that now is the time to add we went through a really dry spell uh with one of the former uh Fire Chiefs where we didn't get anything at anytime and we got behind the curve and now that we have some money um now is the time to add to add a piece here add a piece there and and I'm not talking about going to the into the Capital Improvements for the the stations uh to be renewed or scraped or whatever I'm talking about you know get getting getting the the actual equipment that our firefighters need and it you know it doesn't seem to be important um to many of us until it's your house burning or your apartment complex or someone that you know and love that needs that ladder truck you know needs that fire engine there so because of of my past and i' I've done this many times in the past now is the time to to add a piece while we can and yes it's it's a little pricey um but the ca just keeps going up it doesn't go down they will keep going up uh next time it it might cost two million or 1.75 million I mean now is the time to do it while we can and kind of pece meal it out and make sure that we have the equipment that our firefighters need the city is not getting smaller it's getting larger and we need this equipment um and nothing says it has to stay at eight it can always be moved to a different location but they're suggesting eight because it has the room and it's centrally located but next time maybe you know we get something and move it or it you know it our equipment can move around but to me get it while can while the price is as low because it's going up and as the city grows the more we need the more stations we need the more equipment we need you know it's I just think now is the time um because it it won't get better let like I'm for this to do it now um as they said that they constantly they constantly do studies it's not like they only do it once every five years they're always fires are always flux so I I'm I'm in agreement with with the extra one get it while we can and add it to our our um station wherever and it can be moved so thank you I I stand corrected uh although we are fairly informal uh I still need to recognize some procedure and uh councilman Gardner uh put the motion forward first uh about adding uh the uh the ladder truck and uh um Council man grber then had a subsequent proposal but unless councilman Gardner sees that as a friendly Amendment it's councilman Gardner's proposal is still on the floor mayor Dave grber C grber okay so I guess my question to the city manager because you know do you support the budget that you gave us or do you support the fire chief and this change in the budget which your I'm I'm confused if this was an emergency in June um and the analysis are which is this is different by the way than what we talked about Public Safety but do you support the budget that you put in front of us or do you support the fire chief's Amendment well I guess it sounds like it's really council member Gardener's Amendment the fire chief expressed um what he sees as the need for the fire department from a management standpoint like I said it it came to us with information about Station 8 uh not being able or not not being appropriate I guess to house another company and this uh apparatus um I'd also say that in terms of the presentation of need um I saw the heat map and I've seen response times but he he hasn't presented to management and the budget office further information about types of calls response times differentiated by types of calls and also the types of calls that would be uh that would require a ladder truck uh as opposed to some other piece of equipment so without that information we didn't include it in the proposed budget knowing like I said that we have in the capital Improvement program a replacement scheduled for Section uh Station 8 so if I could go back to my question do you support the budget that you gave us or do you support this change to the budget I I continue to support the budget budget that I provided to Mayor and Council I do think it would be a good idea to have further study on the need um not only for at this time for you know a lter and Company in the central core of the city but uh going forward for the future also so we're not making decisions like this on a Saturday in September but rather there's a more methodical uh thorough way to approach so what you're saying is is that the city's position is that you would prefer to have a study done uh and then Implement a solution to that study that would be my preference yes thank you further discussion yeah mayor mayor P so can I ask the chief because I I would like to know what what is the reason for the ladder truck company what does that solve because I'm not sure I'm clear is it response time is it the type of calls is it just only because we have a extra Bay in Station 8 so can the chief articulate why this is really needed because I mean if it's needed I I you know I certainly want to make sure that that from a public safety perspective that we have the resources we need but I just want to really understand why it's critical to have it Chief yeah I'm here um the first thing I I do want to make sure I mention uh is something and I appreciate Mr twamley uh mentioning this as well is the fact that um you know we we have provided uh or that we we are doing studies we are looking at things from a comprehensive standpoint and uh we'll continue to do that so again I just kind of wanted to make sure that I mentioned that the second piece that I wanted to mention uh is the fact that uh you know again this wasn't an amendment uh that I came no we lo you Chief great hear no you're very F we can't hear him okay can you hear me now you're very I'm gonna try to switch to another device okay so in the meantime could the city manager tell me was this there so this was an Ask by the fire department and this and and the decision was not to approve it it was that you're correct the decision was not to approve it in this budget and what was pardon what was the main reason because it's going to go to the to the voters well it was it was it was tied up with replacement of Station 8 which is part of the capital Improvement program that we're bringing to the mayor and Council that hopefully we'll get to the voters in November of 2022 so it seems premature the time to uh you know budget for a ladder truck and a company that would be not be a place to go for for a couple of years at least okay so I hopefully we'll get Chief back on because I still want to know why it's so critical to have it right now okay in in the meantime um let me ask uh council member Gardner do you consider council member guber proposal of friendly amendment to yours or or can you uh respond to that please uh no I mean I I think they're really two separate issues I I fully agree okay can I finish okay okay okay council member Gardner's proposal then is the proposal that we're discussing right now okay council member Gardner mayor C hear me oh can hear Chief go ahead go ahead Chief okay chief all right uh can you hear me yes okay uh the question uh and I heard your question uh council member Bergen your question was related to you know what the benefits would be uh basically uh when we did the analysis when we looked at everything in total uh it would not only reduce response times as it relates to our uh ladder truck companies throughout the entire city but also provide us better coverage and also uh assist with some workload management aspects uh so again those were the benefits of you know putting uh that proposal uh together so Chief great it so reduce the response times and is that a proven is that proven by adding companies that you do reduce response times because I thought did like my area we added a couple years ago um you know a truck to to station 13 did that improve Ward six's response time yes it did yes okay so so that's kind of a I mean it's a it's basically a function of more resources yes ma'am so uh again when you add more resources is uh it creates more reliability to whereas when one unit is out then another unit is close and can basically be able to take on those additional calls and that area you said was heavily like the traffic accidents I guess is is probably a a a bigger need I mean there there's a lot of calls specifically for car accidents and you're referring to station the station 8 area near amca yeah yes ma'am yes so uh more higher City calls within that area Okay and then did I understand we do have extraction equipment or we have to add extraction equipment extraction you mean extrication equipment oh yeah sorry okay so uh so basically uh whenever we acquire a ladder truck we actually have to uh acquire uh equipment along with it so is that added to this cost uh I believe that uh council member Gardner uh did a um did a council request and the numbers that were provided in that Council request I don't have it right in front of me but I can try to pull that up they included everything in total oh oh so the okay so the cost well I don't have it right in front of me but it's what so it's not just for a ladder truck it's for a ladder truck and and Equipment yes ma'am and that equipment must go on a ladder truck so uh at the end of the day uh I would just say it like this uh ladder trucks are where we put our equipment and I don't know if you heard me a little bit earlier uh we don't we only have five ladder trucks for the entire city but we have 17 engine companies and the engine companies are smaller uh you know more mobile they actually have the uh the water on them but the ladder truck or where we house uh things such as the exportation equipment uh additional ladders uh things to where we can basically support a more complex incident okay thank you further discussion mayor counc Hills thank you um I support this you know we've always had an uphill battle I think in my time on Council getting any resources for fire um and that includes you know apparatuses bunker gear you name it it's always been an uphill battle um I I hope that if Council chooses to approve this um that despite Management's veh objections um they do not you know there's not any retaliation or anything to to come back because this is ultimately a a council decision um and I just the vehement with which staff has been you know really opposed to this I just don't want you know I think Chief gray has been put in an awkward situation today um and I just want all of us to be mindful of that and for management to to be aware that we're all mindful of that further discussion Dave grber council member guber then council member McConnell Chief gr if you could turn your camera back on I just want to make sure chief that I heard you right that what you're saying is is that you worked with a solution for the council request that council member Gardner brought forward um and as part of that solution uh you're endorsing now something that you you could not get passed through the city manager so what you're doing in effect is bypassing the city staff and bringing this directly to council is that is that my understanding is that what happened no sir um I I will say that um you know there was a council request that was sent uh by uh council member Gardner and uh part of my job is to make sure that I'm responsive to any Council request that comes in uh and based upon that you know our team responded to that information uh I I didn't no I I didn't basically ask council member grer or Gardner to um to do this is if that's what you're asking I guess what I'm saying is is that you're what I'm hearing is is that you're endorsing the council request you're you're endorsing this uh even though you did not bring this through the city staff funding process it was brought through the city uh funding process I think uh Mr twamley mentioned that it wasn't funded uh and as I said at the beginning of the meeting is I do work within a city manager form of government and I'm respective of that and the chain of command uh at the end of the day if I'm ask questions uh I think it's uh prudent for me to actually respond to those questions and that's what I'm trying to do here today okay chief I think we can see what's going on thanks thank you mayor um so I think that you know kind of going back we're actually all I think in some level of agreement here we understand that we need Capital Improvements for our stations but we also understand that we need to improve service quality um I think that getting a mobile device like an apparatus and getting some folks uh and you know temporarily placing them at a station that my understanding is used to uh you know hold two companies I think it makes sense to improve response times quality of service for our residents while we hopefully are able to then make the necessary long-term investments in the capital infrastructure for our fire station so I also support this further discussion mayor question mayor just um question on the timing so if we were to order the last truck I think I heard somebody say it would take maybe six months to get it so are the additional FTE what we have to hire so there's the I mean they have to go through the academy as well right so are are we we're budgeting but really the money won't hit till probably latter latter part of or mid mid 22 is that right Jim so you're correct there's two things going there so there's the Staffing portion we would add uh 17 FTE I think is the is the is the number uh to the department authorization um Chief would build that into his shift bid uh to make sure that we staff at at the appropriate time but those would be new authorizations they would have to go through the academy uh to increase the overall Staffing we wouldn't put all new um recruits you'd have a combination of existing folks you might get some new folks but overall you know the overall Staffing demand of the department would go up by 17 that would go into the shift bid and I'll have to get an update uh previously it had been taking up to a year uh to get uh fire apparatus I think as part of uh some of the financial troubles with uh Co across the country um our equipment manufacturer E1 has seen that demand go down and I think their response times uh in terms of getting um equipment built and to us has improved a little I don't know for it's six months but I I think realistically it's probably between somewhere between six months in a year we'd have to put the request in and see what uh what they tell us in terms of a likely response time would be but um you know I think the bottom line to your answer is no uh this station or this additional company would likely not open up on January 1 it would be sometime during uh the year that we'd be able to uh have all the appropriate resources in place to open it but I I don't know if we know exactly what that is and chief uh if you have additional details on that go ahead and provide them so um so council member uh as far as when we would actually be able to put the unit in service uh it probably would not be able to be uh January the 1st exactly but we could if uh if you know the funding was there we could basically uh come up with an approach to where we could put it in service uh you know pretty early in the year now we'll say but we won't have the truck well uh one of the things that you know again we've done in the past is the fact that you know because it takes up to a year uh we basically have put units in service with a reserve apparatus so again if this were to go through that's the approach that you know that we would take further discussion bersin cust bersin thank you I just want to thank Chief gray you've really been put on the spot today from both ends of the barrel and in in the end you know you're supporting your your firefighters and I appreciate that um I didn't realize that you would get under the microscope like you have but we appreciate you um telling us the truth um and uh maybe sometimes um well like like council member Hill said you could you could have retaliation from this and I certainly don't want to see that um and as I said before these trucks are not getting any cheaper and uh we can certainly use it and as I said to staff usually does not go along with this this is nothing unusual um sorry sorry Jim and Jason but they usually don't go along with it but we need it City's growing and they're not getting any cheaper so that's all I want to say further discussion uh seeing no further discussion uh is there objection to uh the Garder proposal U seeing none in the the uh um The Gardener proposal will will move forward further uh discussion on uh Aurora fire rescue seeing no further discussion is there objection to moving the Aurora fire rescue budget as amended forward seeing none uh then the Aurora fire rescue budget as amended will move forward uh planning and development services discussion uh seeing no uh discussion U is there any objection to moving uh the planning and development services budget forward sorry May yes I have a question on um for our retail specialist department and um I I feel like we do not have enough resources to support a city of our size of almost 400,000 people um we have basically two people we have our retail Specialists and then uh and then I forget Frank's uh title but um I would like to propose another FTE for that department because the focus is so much on you know Urban re um the uh what do you call it the um to sites and then also obviously Northeastern Aurora where we have all the new um the new developments and it just seems like the rest of the city doesn't get and it's not not any fault of our staff but they don't have really the attention needed and I think this is such an and this is how we're funded we're funded by retail sales and we really need to invest in that department to make sure that we maximize our ability to capture retail dollars there's a lot of my ward goes to Parker and Centennial and the DTC area so we lose tax dollars actually and if we were able to have some Focus not just my ward but other Wards I think we could attract uh more retail um better retail to support our our financial tax base and so I I I would like to propose an FTE um added to to that department could uh could staff please respond to the May Bergen proposal as well as the the F the cost for the FTE um certainly your honor um uh what council uh member Bergen is uh proposing um is certainly a consideration obviously if you apply more resources we're a very large city and on top of that staff has been working pretty hard to be responsive to the pic and issues that that presented uh we have costed it Frank uh Frank's position coun member Bergen is um a project manager adding an additional project manager would be approximately $85,000 inclusive of benefit um and would allow us um to to provide more services of a broader of a broader nature um further discussion mayor counes um so I agree that this is a really important issue I think one thing that I would like to have a better understanding of is where would those resources be targeted we have a lot of retail centers that are underutilized um and that are really struggling and maybe even to the level of being BL did so would there be some emphasis and some focus on addressing um those difficulties with those retail centers that are underutilized are you asking staff request could staff please respond or do you want me Mayim go ahead and and staff certainly can also my intention council member KES is for for that additional FTE to be able to ex do exactly what you said to look at those areas that are that are I mean even aapjo Crossing for example needs really needs some help I mean we you see vacant vacancies there and um so I I would say just overall for the city further discussion on the Bergen proposal I see no uh um further uh discussion um is there any objection to uh the May prend Bargas proposal of adding a one FTE to the retail section seeing none then the Burgen proposal will move forward uh are there um further questions or comments on uh planning and development services seeing none is there any objection to moving the planning and development services budget as amended forward uh seeing no objection in the planning and development services budget as amended we move forward police discussion mayor council member Hils thank you um I I this is a combo that's also mentioned in housing um so I will refer to that so in the housing budget for the Aurora mobile Response Team there's an editorial comment that this uh new non police model of mental health response is not intended to replace the police co-responder model which I think is a bit preemptive to be putting into an ongoing budget when the pilot was supposed to be done um in time for this but that obviously didn't happen but the intent of that pilot was to see whether or not this non-p police model response should replace the current co-responder model the the co-responder model that's been in the police department has been pilot funded for the last three years and it looks like it's now um in a reduced FTE just due to reorganization um but in the actual ongoing budget and so those two items combined are really concerning for me because that wasn't the intent of the pilot and I think it's a bit preemptive and was also something that I've mentioned many times that I had a concern with Aurora mental health um running both of those programs because they had a financial incentive to maintain both programs in operation and so for that decision to already be made now I think is really problematic um so I would like to propose that we not include any ongoing funding for the police co-responder program um they are still pilot funded so they won't this won't end that program it'll remain pilot funded and I know that there is a pretty large set aside of Monies to implement any change and recommendations for police that came out of the patterns and practices and so if that pilot were to come back and the data were to show that we still needed that co-responder model it can still be funded at that point and discussed in future budgets but given that we launched a pilot um and we're now for the first time at looks like we're adding in some of that ongoing unless I'm reading it wrong which I guess is possible um I just think it's it's disingenuous I don't think it's in this Spirit of what we approved last year especially when combined with that editorial comment in the housing department um budget and and frankly is disrespectful to the community who we told that we were going to do this pilot with a good faith effort um and it appears in the budget that that's not um actually the case so to summarize my proposal would be to keep the co-responder model in the police department pilot funded and then re-evaluate that discussion after we have the pilot data to see what is the best way to move forward to to maintain the spirit of at least giving the appearance of doing this pilot in good faith mayor Dave grber I strongly disagree um I I do not think we should defund the police uh on this issue uh the discussions that we had was that we would have three response models uh the one uh uh the gaho model that we're talking about uh would be focused on frequent flyers those people that um we know are no threats or non-threats uh that have called the police department Fire Department 911 multiple times and uh as opposed to sending out uh uh an officer with you know a uniformed officer with a cruiser we would send out a uh Team to people uh to deal with whatever mental issue whatever issue non-threatening issue they had then we had the crisis response team model and that was uh for a higher level of threat not an emergency threat but a threat where whether it was a domestic uh response or a domestic abuse type of response or something like that we would be able to send out an officer with a mental health person the mental health person would do the lead on the discussion but again when you open the door or when someone opens the door when there's a spouse fight going on or or something between two people uh behind the door uh you still want to have an officer around in case the discussion or in case somebody draws a weapon or or the discussion goes bad so for the no threat we would send the two civilians if it was a moderate to unknown threat we would send an officer with a mental health professional and if it was a threat then we would send an officer possibly two officers to respond defending the um the police officer with a mental health I think is the the wrong way to go um I would still want to see the results of the two you know sending out the two uh um two mental health people but I think uh again defunding the police on on that second response would be a mistake mayor council member Hils I respond no can may I respond first please Jason please um counc who who else was it okay Council H go ahead thank you so that is 100% false council member Gruber and not at all what you voted for uh last year when I brought this forward the intent was to do the two pilots concurrently and then determine which one to move forward and my intent was and this is what the data would support is that it would replace the co-responder model and this Council unanimously supported running that pilot so what I'm saying is maintain the pilot funding for the current co-response program it's not defunding it's not ending and I and I look forward to you voting down this entire police budget because in it there is conversation about shifting some current Patrol work to civilians and so by your definition that would also be defunding the police so I hope that you maintain that consistency and how you want to use your your buzzwords because this is something that this Council voted for unanimously last year so we can try to change change what that was but that that conversation um did happen so I'm not proposing that we cut the crisis response co-responder program I'm saying that we not put in additional long-term ongoing programmed funding until we have the results of that pilot that we all voted for back if that data comes back and it says yes we still need to keep this co-responder program and we need to expand or reduce or shift or change the hours or whatever that data is have that conversation in next year's budget and in the meantime when that pilot comes back that will be in March is when it ends it'll take probably a couple months to get the data collected there is millions of dollars set aside for the police department that could temporarily float that program if needed to be budgeted in next year's budget what I'm saying is that we voted for this pilot to collect the data so that these two programs could run concurrently and City management has chosen to put in this budget that that pilot is not intended to replace the co-responder program without having that data back which is highly problematic um for both the people in this city who thought that we were taking this response seriously in light of everything going on and also not in the spirit of what this Council um voted for with the pilot so I'm not trying to defund anything I'm saying let's not fund it on an ongoing basis until we have that data back that we all approved and supported and then use that data to make those decisions and so you can call it whatever you want I wasn't I wasn't done finishing but sure go go ahead because I know you're probably going to want to explain to me the program that I worked three years on that you don't understand again C gr okay I'm not gonna bite and she can insult me all she wants I'm not gonna bite okay so so as I as I mentioned earlier I voted for that plan I voted for that plan for what I thought was for the best needs of the city um you know other council members can explain why they voted for it uh but only I can say why I voted for it and I voted for it as I mentioned earlier we're going to have another discussion too about the um putting um nonuniform people to do an investigation at a at a car wreck I do support that and I don't consider that to be defunding the police because we're not uh doing anything to reduce the number of officers on the street so we're and and that's two separate things and and if it comes up we'll have that discussion what I'm saying here is that I believe and I consistently believe that that the three model uh that we have right now where in a non-threatened environment we send two civilians in a unknown threat or a moderate you know light to moderate threat we send an officer and a civilian a mental health professional and in an unknown threat we send an officer or two officers is the way we should go forward for us to uh defund the second one I think is a mistake so mayor if I could provide a little Clarity on on the funding status of of the CRT program um and and the the pilot program in housing and neighborhood um in Housing and Community Services um so uh I guess I would part of this is a terminology issue I don't think we consider the CRT program a a pilot it it has been a grant funded program so there's been a question about the funding source for the CRT program it is not I don't think we would consider a pilot program we would consider it a grant funded program and we've been using grants to fund portions of that program that has not changed That Remains the Same in 2022 so that that we are continuing to extend our our grant funding to fund the CRT program so there's there are not uh changes to the the funding structure of uh the CRT program in the 2022 budget uh as the council members have discussed uh the pilot program for the Cahoots model uh is underway uh and and we will get that data and if there are changes that need to be made to either program um we we will discuss those with Council and and um um make the necessary adjustments but no decisions have been made uh as to the outcome of that pilot so again and the funding status of the CRT program has not changed it is a grant funded program and that continues in the 2022 budget mayor discussion mayor yeah I mean I don't I guess I don't understand I I think both programs are needed and and I understand council member helps you know wanting to evaluate them but I just don't want to cut them currently further discussion mayor I'm not proposing that we cut any program um yes it is Grant funded but it has also been Grant funded through developing new new iterations um and and quite frankly at the beginning of covid um you know we had a conversation at Public Safety probably two years ago about bringing iPads into um the co-responder program and they didn't even get funed to be used until well into the pandemic and so the way that the program is supported is not um with an intent to design it's not with Fidelity to design and that has long been my issue with kind of how our co-responder program was used it was something that our previous Chief would Trot out and talk about but it was not actually supported and and we saw that through multiple Public Safety discussions and so I'm not recommending that we not keep co-response I'm just saying let's not do additional ongoing funding for it and if it's Grant funded that's great but that does not change the fact that in the housing portion of the budget it says in there that this is not intended to replace the co-responder program and when we're talking about an ongoing annual budget that means that the city has no intention of taking seriously the data that comes out of the pilot because they have no intention of replacing that co-responder model and I don't think we should be making that decision ahead of time before we have that data and and council member Bergen you'll be here when that happens I won't be and if the data comes back and says that we need both programs then that's great I I think the co-responder program is a great program I just think that this other program is a better newer fresher more Humane evolution of that program so but I don't I don't want to see us in light of the same the same organization doing both Pilots the fact that the new pilot is is all crisis response co-response people I just I don't want to see this already prescribed in the budget it it's the city showing its hand that we have no intention of taking this the Cahoots pilot um which is now the Aurora mobile response team but that's longer to say um as seriously so so when we get to housing I'm going to propose that we take that comment out um and keep the co-responder program in policing on a on the pilot fund like they are or Grant funded whatever terminology we want to use um and keep that and then evaluate at the end and and if City you and and others council member Lawson um well Council B you won't be here either whoever's here still half of you if that happens we also have that $2 million set aside for implementing recommendations or one and a half to two million is what they said in study session so it is a small amount so that it is very easy I think for police to to float that funding if it was necessary to keep that program going I just don't think we should be making that decision before we get that information back mayor um I'm sorry um coun m gner i I believe it was the city manager okay city manager please proceed yeah and I would just say that um council member Hill that phrase didn't belong in there I wasn't aware of that uh I agree with where we were coming from in terms of standing up that program I do want to say also that the police auditor will be auditing the co-responder program later this year so we'll have both that and the evaluation of the uh Aurora mobile Response Team um after the early next year and so that that will help in terms of determining where we go in the future with both program mayor um council member Gardner council member gon mayor P ber no I didn't have anything May oh I'm sorry uh okay uh mayor pm thank you um you know just as we previously had the fire discussion and we certainly put fire you know uh Chief gray um we had him answer questions it if Chief Wilson is on the call can can you respond to the need for I mean I'm just I I I understand evaluating these programs and I don't think anybody's trying to say get rid of the cohoots program but um I really think it's a critical need for both and maybe uh Chief Wilson could address that Chief Wilson uh yes good morning um first of all I think that uh the idea and I know council member hilts worked on this for a very very long time and has been supportive of any of the um mental health U help that we can bring to this community so I think she understands the importance of it um I I actually um are really liking the new pilot program and seeing what they can do in a non-violent type situation and I think it is very helpful and um the officers that are in district one because that's where their house at right now are appreciative of their help um I I will say that obviously we do have mental health calls that are very dangerous uh we're dealing with people that are planning um active shooter type situations we're taking weapons and stuff from their homes and so I obviously I'm I'm being put on the spot a little bit I'm in favor of both but obviously again uh we we don't know the results if if we don't know the results yet so um I just we're keeping um our CRT program Grant funded through September of next year and after that we'll have the pilot information mayor uh council member Lawson so I have a question to Jim so you just stated that they're going to do kind of an audit on the on the co-responder program program and those results will be probably given to us in early the Early part of the year so I'm wondering and I'm just kind of looking I'm trying to look at both of these because I I kind of like both programs and I I'm just trying to see if with council member um ks's proposal if we if we kind of did what she stated and kind of didn't put any proposed funding but we're kind of getting some of those results in early year could we add additional funding if necessary to the other program I know we won't have the evaluation on the other one but maybe set aside some monies for the in a supplemental I'm just trying to look at something from a midpoint so you're talking about setting aside money for funding for the well I'm just kind of going with right I'm just she's saying don't put anything else to fund it but you're saying where they're going to do an audit of that program and that we should probably get results sometime in the beginning of the year and I'm just trying to see if we kind of if we went I'm just looking at her proposal if we if we saw those results and we're kind of looking at that program I know we won't have the other one but we'll kind of have it based on this program a little bit is there is there any way that we could come back and say well we're kind of looking at this one but we might have some results from the other one and we can probably do something in the supplemental the Sprint supplemental that's right the audit will the audit will be of the police based CRT co-responder program and then we also will be doing an evaluation of the pilot uh Aurora response program and so uh that will help inform in both cases for example with the CRT the audit will say tell us are there things that we could better there are there areas we need to improve on um you know things like that the evaluation of the um mobile Response Team program will really tell us uh things like how many officer hours are we saving by sending a paramedic in a Clin on a mental health call uh how effective are they in dealing with the the issues you know we're this is also a program that's going to free up officers and firefighters for that matter so that evaluation will will tell us more about that and it may very well be like you say that we want to add to that program because it is so effective in those ways but we we don't know any of that until we get the the data but there would be a you know council member hilts has talked about the $2 million in public safety funding that's available that could be used for this or it could be a supplemental okay mayor council Gardner so I'm going to ask the question and hopefully I'm not the only one but I I'm not really clear what we're vot what we're voting on or what we're talking about my it sounds like we're going to keep the money for the for the CRT the crisis response team Grant funded we're going to continue with the Cahoots program that we funded last year but didn't get off the ground till a couple of weeks ago and the city is going to continue to perform an audit and do some analysis in terms of the effectiveness of both programs and in which program more or fewer resources should be put towards so I'm I I guess I'm not following what we the change is asking for only thing I'm only thing I'm picking up on is there's kind of an editorial comment in the Housing section but other than that I I I guess I'm not really clear on what we're what the ask is for to change clarify yeah so when I read the budget it didn't look like grant funding it looked like ongoing funding so if there is not any ongoing funding then that change does not need to be made and I've I've asked about this program um and that was not shared with me so um I don't if there's not ongoing funding then I can resend or pull back or whichever part um that portion of it I I do want to say that despite the fact that I am very Pro nonp police model of mental health um there has been a leadership change in the current co-responder program and I wish this change had been made um years ago because I think it's probably in a better position now than it has been um previously and and there's probably a lot of missed opportunities um on the city side with that so um but I still want to see you know obviously I think the data will show and I'm optimistic that this other program is going to be um the better option but I I do think that if we're going to be you know with this Running Co sorry concurrently um with the pilot and the co-responder program this is probably the best we're going to get with it um with the new leadership that's over there so um so then I guess my I guess I can change my proposal then and save that for housing to pull out that editorial comment um if someone can confirm that this is intended to remain fully Grant funded um until next year's either supplemental or or however you guys decide in the future respon staff yes the the CRT program remains Grant funded there's no been there's been no change in and how we are funding the CRT program okay daber yeah I'd like to since there's not a motion on the floor I'd recommend we move on with the rest of the police budget further discussion on the police budget uh seeing none is there any objection to moving the police budget forward mayor I have one more question on oh sorry Char Hills um so earlier this year I had talked to management about how um and we got a budget breakdown that Greg helped with on and and risk assessment on um a conversation that we had with the study session on how the city of Aurora's insurance premiums went up and a good portion of that was specifically related to our increased use of force claims and they were able to staff was able to call around to some other cities and kind of figure out what the averages were and the end result is that um other City departments lost about half a million dollars in order to supplement that um premium and there's no way really change that with an overall risk profile for the city's insurance premiums but I had asked staff to um be mindful of that and to make sure that other departments were made whole so that they were not other departments were not losing out on dollars to essentially offset um use of forth claims because that's that's not the same as I think the comparison that was given to me well sometimes you know a truck might back into a tree and that's an accident but I would argue this isn't the same thing as an accident um of of driving through a power line so can staff just confirm that that was incorporated in that budget to make sure other departments were made whole for for their losses on the insurance premiums uh no no Department had their budget taken from from any increase in we we fund we fully funded everything in every Department okay perfect I know that was something that that came up so thank you I have no other questions thank you mayor further discussion okay further discussion on the police budget I seeing none is there any um objection to moving the police budget forward I seeing none the police budget we move forward I think we're doing well time wise and uh I'd like to take a a 10-minute Break um The Time Is Now 10:39 we will reconvene at [Music] 10:49 [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] he [Music] he [Music] the workshop for the city council for um September 25th uh 2021 is back in session uh we Marshall Brown Aurora Water uh any discussion on aora Water I see none is there any objection to moving Aurora Water forward I see none of Aurora water will move forward uh here Human Resources uh discussion is there any objection to moving Human Resources forward I seeing no objection Human Resources will move forward library and cultural Services a discussion mayor uh councils um I wanted to along with council member Bergen make an ad actually never mind this will be under the council contingency funds so I'll just wait for us to bring it up then very well further discussion on library and cultural Services seeing none is there any objection to moving library and cultural Services forward the budget seeing none uh library and cultural Services budget will move forward parks recreation and open space uh budget discussion mayor council m m uh thank you sir so um for those of you who might not know we have been having some ongoing issues uh at Utah park with folks violating um curfew using the park after hours setting off fireworks and sometimes even discharging Firearms um and I'm not sure if y'all are having similar issues uh in parks and your Wards um but I did discuss with the city manager uh potentially adding three FTE uh to our Rangers so that they can ensure that folks aren't utilizing um you know the parks after hours and disturbing the surrounding neighborhoods so Jim if you'd like to elaborate on that a little more yield the floor to you sure yeah we we have looked at uh increasing the uh the numbers of Park Rangers um I I'm not sure if three is the is the right number if we're working if they're working after dark there's probably going to be in hairs so I might um I'm sure Brooke Bell is on and she might be able to give us a little more guidance on that Brook Bell can you respond please uh yes good morning um currently our current Ranger model um we do not work after dark so our Rangers work from dusk uh or from dawn to dusk and so that would be a change in the Ranger model um in so to add three uh that would work after dark would be very it would there would be a very limit uh very limiting in their scope as far as what they can respond to um we would have to go back to our current Ranger staff and um have that discussion I think it would be a challenge because they're not accustomed to that uh that um I would say that time of day or that time of the yeah the day to be working and it would take much more than three rangers so I really believe it is a a broader discussion and Analysis um we can always use more Rangers during the day but to actually be responsive um to after dark and petring parks would be a shift in in the Ranger model our Rangers also do not uh you know they are not carrying weapons m here uh so it really is in our mind uh when you're talking about people that are uh shooting on Firearms but that's really a police response further discussion ver council member B thank you thank you Brooke um Can how many Rangers do we have now I I actually do not have that number um I'll see if I can get that here in the next uh couple minutes okay I you know I've never known um but I'm glad we have them but yes I have always have big problems in delmare and um Expo Park and there are a lot of either fireworks or gunshots or um a lot of trash I don't know if people go in there at night and what but I I do get many many complaints so whatever we can do to help help alleviate the the fireworks going off I I would certainly support that but it it kind of frightens me to know that they would be working after dark and were not um being able to protect themselves that that's a real concern right there too further discussion mayor uh Council Mell thank you so Brook when Jim and I spoke three was kind of what was floated out uh do you have a recommendation at this time then for an appropriate amount for enforcement so I do know what Rangers cost and I what I am saying is that hiring more Rangers to patrol after dark is not a recommendation that I support so well I can give you the cost of what a ranger would cost and what it would cost to have three rangers these would be Rangers work during the day to support our current Ranger staff I personally believe this is this uh changing the model of our Rangers after dark and to respond to typically police calls is not appropriate this time so the cost of three rangers would be $220,000 ongoing and 195,000 one time and these were would be Rangers that would continue to patrol respond to daytime calls in the park or and also respond to offleash dog calls um patrol get more patrols on the trails so you have more visibility of the Rangers on the trails but um I'm sorry but as I understand the proposal it is for after dark uh further discussion yeah mayor uh mayor so just clarification from Brook that you don't support the the Rangers um in the evening but you do support them adding for the day I would I would support adding Rangers uh during the day because that's our current model okay and H and how many do you support for the day um a Ranger three rangers during the day would be uh a great addition it would allow us to get out to the Trails um more often um currently we are fortunate if we can get to the Trails um I'm going to say once or twice during the week during the summer because the Rangers are focused on the Royal Reservoir Quincy Reservoir um some of the other Open Spaces um so it'll get us on the trails more often so uh what about in the winter are so concern is having adding three FTE but then the workload decreases in the winter so I was just wondering if you really need three I would say again in the winter it just would allow us to be on those Trails more often and have um yeah and I don't see the workload decreasing as we grow we just get more and more calls okay thank you Mary grber grber so I'm a little bit confused as to what we're talking about so I understand council member Marano's comments uh and I share the concern of um that activity on in the Parks firing weapons and things like that um I I guess in my mind though I'm struggling with is that a criminal offense or is that a park ranger offense Rangers are not considered uniformed officers as far as being able to arrest uh they would call the police and the police would respond so I acknowledge that problem I don't know the solution of that problem I think it leans more towards the police side as opposed to the ranger side uh I also understand you know independent of that the discussion about increasing the amount of Rangers on the police but as I said uh in the fire discussion uh this was this was brought up uh through the uh Staffing process through the funding process and I would go to the city manager and ask the city manager whether that priority for Rangers uh raises to the level where he would overrule the the published budget or the published draft budget and and acknowledge that that's that's a need but I don't see how bringing in three additional Rangers would solve council member Marano's uh stated issue mayor CC thank you sir so for a little clarification the conversation that I had with Jim was folks using the park after hours typically for you know making a lot of noise uh shooting off fireworks and things like that there are uh occasionally Firearms involved council member grer which I would agree would warrant a police response not a ranger response but part of the what I had spoken with or really what my constituents had uh reached out to me about was that they just wanted someone to be able to enforce the park hours which are posted in Utah Park you know outside of the parking lot um and uh discourage folks from basically coming in to use the park after hours to cause nuisances um I would not de dare to ask a park ranger to you know approach people who are out there discharging weapons or anything like that that I agree with you that would be a response for APD but uh I think the goal was more to dissuade folks uh from trying to use the parks after hours um by having a park ranger presence while also generating some of the other benefits that Brooke and Jim just talked about with regards to you know Trails responding to offleash dogs things of that nature okay as I understand moo proposal before it is it is to have three additional Park Rangers uh for the purpose of enforcing um park rules after hours further discussion on the Marano uh proposal mayor uh Council B thank you but we don't know what the cost to that is um I believe that uh U Miss Bell stated that it was $250,000 am I correct in there or 240 for three rangers it would be 220,000 and ongoing and 195,000 one time for vehicles okay so we're looking at around 500,000 a little over 400,000 okay okay do they address any of the homeless uh issues if they see homeless scamps that Rangers do do that um our daytime Rangers do address homeless issues we do follow the the appropriate protocol um based on current uh bpms that the city has okay thank you further discussion on the McConnell proposal mayor Dave grber C grber I'm I'm still a bit confused on this so so thank you council member Maro for your explanation but as far as the um creating a what we're talking about is creating a night shift a minimum minimally Mann night shift that would I guess would be able to respond across the city uh to where complaints arise that uh people are in the park so the the process would be that um uh the neighbors would see that people are in the park Pro they would call 911 I would imagine uh 911 would then call uh the the Rangers and and again now that there would be a night shift and then the a ranger would respond to say that that you have to leave the park and then uh if the situation got ugly at that time uh the ranger would call for backup from the Aurora Police Department that's the scenario that's in my mind um so I'm going to ask about that but then the second part is is that in order to fund This Night Shift uh is three the sufficient number or you know is is there a different number so uh Brooke if you could help me out first off as far as the model that I talked about neighbors see problem neighbors calling 911 911 contacting the Park Service a ranger would then be deployed to wherever it is in the city where the people are and again this isn't an emergency emergency this is uh something that could take 5 10 20 half hour uh for a for a park ranger to arrive and then shoe the people away um but you know is is that the model that you're envisioning with this so we have not discussed this model um I mean we we've been I was made aware of this about four days ago this a nighttime model is a significant shift to our current arranges and so um what I'm saying is what three rangers would cost if we if we were changing to a nighttime model um I do not have the data or or an idea of how many Rangers would be need um and what that uh response would look like could yeah mayor mayor so it sounds like there book is supporting adding ranges but to the day and not to the night so can council member Maro um just clarify his his request sure council member Bergen thank you um and this is a bit of a departure from the conversation that I had with the city manager about this so I understand Brook's uh concerns around not having a model set up for that that it is a departure from the current you know services for the for that department so I would hope that if we do move this forward that she could put something like that together but in the interim obviously there is still a need as we heard from Brooke and Jim for three more Rangers uh based off of volume of calls for service and also to you know just Patrol the parks and ensure that things are remaining clean and safe so I I guess if I could restate the ask it would be for the three for the time being with the expectation that we get a proposal at a future study session or maybe at a supplemental um to see what it would cost uh and the visibility really for uh nighttime uh Rangers at some of the trouble spots so I guess it would be Expo um Utah and again maybe some of yall are aware of other places where this takes place throughout the rest of the city mayor uh mayor B um and and so that you're asking for the three and then and then later decide if we could deploy them in at night so my only concern there is and maybe this is for Brooke um when you're recruiting for that position will it be known that there's a possibility that they would work nights because you know if they're thinking they're going to work day and then you hire them and they're like I don't want to work nights could you address that please sure so um yes staff are willing to look at what it would cost and what it would take to have a nighttime Patrol and I am willing to bring that back to study session and yes council member Bergen I would not want to recruit without letting people know that there is the potential for a nighttime shift and was certainly we would discuss that with our current range as well and then we would also want to collaborate with the police department to understand what the what the protocol would be and um what it would look like because we do not want to put on unarmed Rangers uh in a situation where they a weapon could be drawn on them so I mayor yeah mayor pretend please proceed so if I might ask council member Marano um would you consider adding one Ranger because then we use them for day and then look at adding the the you know whatever additional two or or back to three uh once they were able to I guess identify what the model I'd be comfortable with that I'm sorry who else Phils H thank you yeah I support um you know Brooke in wanting to do that ad during the daytime I um like council member Brin I would be very wary of of recruiting someone for a dayshift even with the possibility of going to nights I don't know if anyone on Council has worked the night shift but it is a complete and total disruption to your to your life and so someone who applies for the day shift likely cannot work the night shift and someone who applies for the night I mean it's very very disruptive and so um keeping those separate because I would really hate to to bring someone on on days and then um and then flip that especially if they have kids and daycare and all of that it's just it's a really big disruption so um however we however we split it if that's giving three to the daytime now and then getting that and then adding another three later for the nights whatever those numbers are but but really keeping them fully separate um not even the possibility of a shift um and same thing for current employees I wouldn't want to see current employees be asked to go onto the night shift um if they volunteered maybe but um a reason there's a reason why people you know work both of their shifts based on their home needs so thank you that's all I would like to sever the proposal uh so to where as all we're voting for uh at this point in time is to increase the number of FTE whatever that number is uh for Park Rangers I I'm deeply opposed to uh taking or ordering uh non-post certified uh Park Rangers uh into uh what could potentially be a an atrisk situation at night uh endangering their lives it is it is not appropriate uh I and I share the concerns of the the department director uh in in being opposed to that and so if it's okay with the um the proposal sponsor council member McConnell to severed at this time knowing that you're going to bring a proposal later on but but delinking the two in terms of just have increasing the number of Rangers whatever number you want to put forward uh but without any requirement knowing for uh nighttime uh work knowing that you will bring that proposal forward at a latter date uh mayor Koffman that would be fine by me I'm happy to uh I think mayor pretend ber and suggestion of one for the time being um for the day shift and then I guess effectively saving the uh rest of that appropriation uh for I guess a combination of a study and then potential future hires uh would be adequate very well um is there any opposition a further discussion to the marono proposal just one uh I'd like the city manager's opinion y I agree with that approach what approach please approach that council member Marano just just agreed to so we're voting on one FTE uh to be added to the ranger uh Force okay but there's a hold for two other FTE that would be allocated to the night pending uh further approval by Council pending formal approval by Council am I stating that right council member mcon yes sir counc I have a little bit of a concern about that so I understand the onefd and I and uh you know given the fact that city manager supports the uh Department head's uh recommendation uh I'm good with that I personally believe that that what we're talking about at nighttime is a mission change I mean it's a significant thing uh two people will not be enough and we don't know how many it's going to require so I'm a little bit reluctant to support a wedge a funding wedge for that at this time because it's a total unknown so I do support having one person put into our budget uh I I do not support having a funding wedge for you know a funding wedge means that we're going to pull um um probably about $180,000 uh which is the loaded price for two people to to have $80,000 sitting uh aside that can't be spent for any other function uh until we make a decision one way or another I don't believe that's going to be enough and I think it reduces the flexibility that the city will have coming forward I think once they do the analysis in order to fund a night shift uh you know even if we're doing just swings if we're doing you know from up till say midnight um you know that's going to require you know by the time you fully fund it you're going to need two billets uh that can respond but then you're going to need other Billet so those people can take leave and and it's much more than twoo so I I think that we should not fund that until we have the analysis done so so if we're talking about funding one FTE increase I'm good with that if we're talking beyond that then I have an issue mayor mayor and I'll posst this to council member marcoo based on what council member bruber just said would it be possible to delay it and put it in the the spring supp Al once that analysis is done so sensing the hesitation um I'm fine with just moving forward with the one additional right now um and then bringing this back up at our upcoming supplemental um assuming we have and hoping that we do have the information from Brook um by then so very well then the then the vote is uh then the proposal is merely for one FTE park ranger uh without changing the mission uh further discussion I just want to make a comment U mayor because we keep saying night shift and all I can think about is the commodor song oh please okay mayor all right further discussion mayor um in the analysis piece are you going to look at other jurisdictions that have this night shift because I would be interested to see how it's working how it's not working some of the causes some of the impacts um so I think I I just really for me that's going to be important in the analysis will that be included Brooke yes we'll look for that okay further discussion is there any opposition to the Marcell proposal of one FTE um park ranger I seeing none uh that proposal will move forward is there any further discussion on Parks shre and open space are we on Public Works mayor mayor you're muted or open space I'm sorry okay uh I don't know where is there uh any further discussion on par Rec and open space as amended um is there any opposition uh is there any objection to moving forward the parks Rec and open space budget as amended say the parks Rec and open space budget as Amendment will move forward uh Public Works discussion mayor May yes um and I have a question on um on the traffic calming program I I see that we have um I think I saw an FD added but could staff tell me what is the budget for the traffing calming budget for this upcoming year is it still 500,000 I will try to find that in just a moment hang on just a moment okay because if it is 500,000 I would like to increase it because so many neighborhoods as you know are asking for the um analysis and then obviously with the analysis comes the devices that that are needed to be funded and I just think we fall short yeah and we confirmed it is 500,000 M prot okay so I would like to propose 750,000 instead of the 500,000 okay further discussion to the Mayer's proposal I have a question C so and I'm supportive of increasing the amount but I'm just curious I I know in the past each council member had a certain allotment um of locations so increasing by 250,000 how would that change that allotment we do not have that allotment in the um Budget moving forward um that was a kind of more of a one time for a couple different budget Cycles but we do not have that moving forward now so how would the decision be made then to where to put where to place these because there's going to be needs all across the city um it's based on the neighborhood application go ahead sorry sorry I'm sorry to interrupt no I was going to say isn't it based on application and um and so every every neighborhood every ward has the opportunity to apply yes they can apply through the neighborhood traffic calming program um which is all online a resident driven getting um buy in from their neighbors and then we do the analysis and installation as appropriate by the analysis yeah and I I guess that's where I kind of have an issue with it because you know the system before of having each count council member have a certain allotment I think that made sure that there was some um it made sure that it was spread throughout the city because each council member especially the ward council members made sure that those locations went in in areas of their city where they heard the need by doing it through an online application process a I'm frankly not sure how most people are going to um find that um you know I know we all know that there's a website with some information on there but um getting to it I'm sure won't be it'll be several clicks and I I guess I just I'm not sure that that's necessarily the best approach but maybe that's a discussion for a different day um like I said I I support the The increased amount I just I'd like to think a little bit more about how we do that because I think as best as possible we need to ensure that we're addressing all parts of the city and um you know I'm just I'll just say it I think there's probably um certain parts of the city that might be um a little more plugged in and a little more likely to get on the website and apply but I don't think that means they should necessarily get more of those locations I think we should figure out a way to make it as equal as we can across the city and and obviously prioritizing um the the biggest needs that we have and if I might address that please for precis um and I I agree council member Garder I think I have tried to always bring it up during um you know town halls and and of course I get I guess residents that just you know are talking about can we get speed bombs can we get you know you know whatever devices and then what I do is then I respond to their request and tell them that they need to go online to the application and I direct them there so um I mean I think each Ward member certainly could Advocate to make sure that that their residents are aware of the program and and maybe we should just do more to um advertise that across the city and and educate people that there is that program available mayor d grber uh Council grber I also support this and I also share council member Gardner's uh uh concerns what I would recommend is that um you know increase uh $250,000 for the traffic calming device have the city go to the transportation committee brief uh their plans on on board parity and then uh once Transportation Comm committee V to bring it study second for approval but I think putting the money in right now uh uh would be so I guess my recommendation uh to Mayor proam Bergen is that would you support the 250,000 increase with the understanding that a plan will be brought to Transportation committee and then study session oh yes I mean I definitely want par with all WS so or you know the opportunity for all residents to to have that um application made available and if we need to change the way we do it I'm I'm fully supportive of that thank you mayor this is a Greg hay can I ask a clarifying question is this assumed to be one time or ongoing so we normally do 500,000 each year correct we have done oops we have done sorry I thought I was muted we have done 500,000 for a few years we have a little bit in 2023 about 275,000 but we have not yet budgeted for 2024 and Beyond I mean I I don't know if we want to just add the 250 for 20 what are we 2022 and then look at it for future years I mean I'm fine I just there's and maybe you know if we fund it fully enough that we solve the problems that it's not needed in future years so I'm okay with that as well okay further uh further discussion mayor council Maro thank you um Cindy uh where are we at with Ada sidewalk um updates so we have um issued or the purchasing as the RFP for the Ada transition plan so we'll be kicking that off later this year right now we've got a proposal on the floor uh we need I apologize mayor sorry yes yeah council member Bergen can you restate your proposal sure I think what I'm asking for is to add $250,000 as a one time for next year and then re re-evaluate it and with the condition of uh looking at how we can make this Equitable to all Wards okay okay so it it's increasing by 250,000 for the traffic caling uh uh with um um further consideration uh for uh U an equitable process to be determined later so the real so really what we're focusing right now is a $250,000 increase adding it to the budget so it's there and then uh then staff can work out through like council member grber said through the transportation okay uh further discussion mayor uh I'm sorry counc thank you and I just want clarification from mayor preton Bergen are we talking Equity or are we talking equality you would have to ask me that I I want you said Equity so I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page I I want to make sure that every part of the city has the ability to um participate in the traffic calming program based on the needs of their neighborhoods further discussion uh seeing none is there any objection uh to for the um uh mayor protm proposal to move forward uh see seeing none uh further discussion on Public Works um C conell I think you had an issue no I was just one clarification okay further further questions further discussion I seeing none then uh public works as amended the budget for public works as amended will move forward um since we recently took a break I'm going to go ahead and let's move through five and then we'll take a break between section five and section six uh section five Roberto Venegas um first Communications U is there any discussion on the communications budget uh seeing none is there any objection to moving the communications budget forward seeing none the communications budget will move forward um discussion on the finance budget I saying none is there any objection to moving the the finance budget forward seeing know the finance budget will move forward Housing and Community Services mayor um council member Hills thank you I'd just like to clarify that that comment is coming out that we discussed earlier of the budget and that we won't see it again thank you seeing a lot of thumbs up so I'll take that as a yes okay um uh staff can you um Can somebody comment on where we're um the proposal for um the temporary shelter uh for those experiencing homelessness uh mayor this is Barto can you hear me okay yes so Jessica prer is on the line uh we provided in the backup for Council uh question three in the backup that uh Greg sent on Friday morning several options as it relates to a temporary emergency shelter for the cold weather season that's uh fast approaching so uh we laid out those options and that memo we are happy to go through them Jessica's on the line and can go through them if You' like don't know if you want further clarifications uh but we can provide those for you uh I'll defer to the to the mayor and the council how you want to do that do you want uh to go briefly go through each of those options yes please I would prefer obviously that you go through each of the options is there any objection see none then go through each of the options Jessica you on the line yep I'm here can you hear me yeah go ahead okay so mayor and Council um if you remember last year about this time we were talking with you about shelter options and we're here again um we are still in the midst of covid we're still at the need to separate people at six feet head to toe for winter Sheltering with the recommendation from the state and from HUD to have as many non- congregate Sheltering options as possible so that is not having everybody sleep in one room together and being able to separate folks as much as possible so given that um given our previous experience um with leasing hotels a couple of times uh we have uh leased a warehouse which is what we did uh last year uh we did some community outreach this spring if you recall to look at some different non- congregate Sheltering options that would be quick temporary um and uh financially feasible and sustainable so um you know the staff recommendation is to be able to utilize the Aurora day Resource Center which we did not do last year we put all of our emphasis on the warehouse um being open each night we called it the E shelter um so the recommendation for this year is to utilize the day Resource Center on cold nights um like we have in previous years non-co covid um but we cannot accommodate as many people as we used to be able to because of those distancing requirements so we're at 75 individuals that we can shelter within the day Resource Center it used to be more like 200 um and then we're looking for at least another 100 uh capacity uh for um you know emergency shelter purposes um but being able to have some of that shelter ongoing the feedback that we heard from folks experiencing homelessness um was that it was nice to be able to have a place to go throughout the winter months so based on the um you know the costs the operational challenges the ability to spread folks out and have that non- congregate option the staff recommendation is to utilize pallet shelters um which are individual units that can accommodate from one to four people there's different sizes of units we recommend purchasing a mixture of sizes um those can also be used for quarantining if we do have a covid outbreak at um the day Resource Center um we are recommending swapping out the tents that are currently at the Salvation Army site with pallet shelters um the the current tents that are over there do not have heating cooling um and they do not have electricity in them these pallet shelters are very basic they can be moved um they're sustainable um they the city will essentially own them um we can store them we can move them to different sites um and then the recommendation is to put an additional grouping of them in one or two other throughout the city uh based upon working with Community Partners there so our our partners that also provide the services at these sites um you know in talking with Mile High Behavioral Healthcare Salvation Army is operating the current site that's been open for about three months um there's a real opportunity to be able to engage with folks that are in these um you know tents and then moving into pallet shelters with uh case management wraparound services medical uh Workforce Development um things like that so it's working well whereas at the e-shelter people had to leave every day all day and then be moving around quite a bit and we didn't get the chance to do as much case management so we're seeing some great results over at Salvation Army now with getting folks housed um and the recommendation is to use the uh day Resource Center like we have in previous years and then add the addition of the pallet shelters to accommodate another hundred or so individuals and get to about that 200 number um for the for the cold weather months um so I'm happy to answer any other questions about the other options um I mentioned you know the hotel I mentioned the warehouse that we've done in the past um we laid out some of the pros and cons in this memo and then we also laid out the tent option so we could stick with the tents that we currently have we could buy additional uh fishing tents um the you know there's Pro and cons to those as well as laid out in the memo but we learned last year in a big snow they do collapse and then we had to find other locations for people and so we were kind of back to square one um so happy to answer any other questions that's kind of a basic overview um again this will be funded with our emergency Solutions covid money which is HUD money and then the recommendation is to use a portion of our arpa funds as well uh for the purchase the one-time purchase of those shelters and then the operating costs and then I'll just very briefly mention we have also um applied through Congressman Crow's um kind of set aside for this and the state also supports this um uh solution and would be willing to leverage some of their funding as well we've also had conversations with arapo County and Adams County well so I support the the S camping option with the tents the tents that were used last year were inappropriate because they were like party tents released uh by you know you know but through a company uh versus uh tents that are used in safe camping so my proposal would be my substitute proposal would be tents used in safe camping discussion mayor Dave grber I support that but I also want to go a little bit deeper into the funding strategy that we're going to use for this we know that we have additional money coming down uh the pipe that we're not going to discuss todaya funds opioid uh funds and so on so what to to um have a discussion with Council a brief discussion about is a clawback provision in other words we're going to fund this out of the city's general fund we suspect that we're going to have additional monies come to the city that will be specifically targeted to this requirement I would like to see the fact that if those additional monies come in and we can buy the equipment and pay for the FTE to operate this function uh with those additional monies that the city is able to claw back or bring back the funds that the city used from the general fund back into the general fund for uh the city manager and Council to redeploy to other City requirements I want to be careful that we don't get into a situation where we'll put up as many you know as much dollars as it requires today but then there will be more dollars and then there will be more dollars where a a function that you know the the shelter function and Manning could be funded three separate times without the ability to pull the funds back okay let's uh if we could do this if we could sever that because um I think that's pretty much that I'm fine with that but that's um separate from the the first question uh so let's let's do the first question first in terms of what type of uh temporary shelter we're providing so the motion on the floor is for the tense mayor yes and then we'll go to your motion question bersin council member bin thank you uh where will we put you said you wanted wanted to have about 200 places for 275 in the DRC so that leaves somewhere around 125 where would they be other than the Salvation arm area or could they hold that many so currently at the Salvation Army site there's about the plan would be to have 30 there um there is the ability to put two people per sh pallet shelter um our recommend would be to buy a combination of smaller and bigger ones families can fit in the bigger ones you can fit up to four people in those um so the recommendation would be to put some at the existing Salvation Army site and then again work with um different partners um restoration Christian Ministries has obviously expressed interest um in utilizing the lot that they're currently using for safe parking to have pallet shelters and then we're talking with a few other partners um in different parts of the city so they would be other areas so the Salvation Army would happen right away and then we would be um looking for those other um locations which you know we're having ongoing conversations with a few other folks thank you mayor could I just ask you on my computer when when you said we're we're going to vote on whether to replace the tents with the pallet shelters what what was your we're voting on right now the proposal before it is safe camping tents families uh uh I that's not appropriate for families but right now is my understanding is uh the Commodus provides emergency shelter for families okay so you're saying you don't want the tallet shelters corre you want correct further discussion mayor can I just ask Jessica a question so we get we get these tents and we have these safe um these places okay so you're looking at you're saying about hundred you know 75 I'm just kind of estimating but there's still a lot of people that are going to be out there dealing with the cold ISS you know the cold weather so what's your what's your process for that if we get these these places for those individuals we're still going to have some individuals so what's what's going to be the process for that to help those individuals because they can only take a certain capacity so and then you're talking about covid and doing all that so what's the other solution right so we're we're basing this on numbers from last year when we had cold nights at the maximum number of people that we needed to accommodate and then increasing a little bit so we have to remember we still have about 150 beds but at the kidas crisis center so our regular overnight shelter can accommodate 150 we'd have an additional 75 at the day Resource Center and then space for an additional 90 people in Pallet shelters beyond that once all of those things are full um and for folks that you know are not good candidates for shelter then we also have motel vouchers and so working with a couple different motels so those are kind of the four different places when you start to Overflow what we have um you know and then beyond that then we work with our partners in other counties and cities and um send folks to those other areas help transport them there um you know in a in a you know cold night where we have a lot of demand but we we know that based on the numbers from last year um we know that the kidas crisis center mixed with the day Resource Center mixed with the pallet shelter should accommodate the demand that we have L had last year and then some okay well I'm glad that you're doing from last year but there this is a whole different circumstance this year there are a lot more people who are unhoused um a lot of people are probably going to be there's we got to kind of look at what's might happen with this eviction things and I know we have money but I'm just I'm just I'm glad you're looking at it for a forethought I just wonder if it's if it's going to really be enough so thank you further discussion mayor I'm sorry mayor yes thank you sir so the we're gonna currently vote on your proposal to use tents um and I just wanted to state that I think that the pallet shelters are actually the superior option here um it's a long term asset for us to use they were the ones that our residents wanted us to use the most um they're the most durable uh and you know again they're mobile which I think is important because we can you know move them this permanent asset around uh to serve the community as it the UNH house Community as it changes and hopefully as we reduce the numbers where it will be able to better serve the folks who still remain out on the streets so I will not be supporting your motion but I do want to uh advocate for palet options thank you further discussion on the call proposal uh for for safe camping mayor what is what's the difference in the cost of tents compared to um call houses right council member B can you repeat it what would be the difference in the cost on buying uh the mayor's tents the tents yeah so we already own 30 of these ice fishing tents um we'd have to replace some of them to get them to make it through the winter um they're they're in the kind of $300 range um we could would probably look at some other options just to see if there's anything best we went with best practices we were also doing it quickly last year because we had to isolate people with covid um but the ice fishing tent seem to be the best the best option um again on a very snowy um you know night heavy winds we would probably still have to have a backup option for getting people into a more secure shelter location um we did have those same ice fishing tents set up outside of the E shelter last winter and when we did have heavy snow in Wind um some of them did collapse and we ended up having to transport people to the um respit Hotel um with Denver because they were covid positive so we couldn't just bring them inside into the E shelter you know Jessica those those were not the tents that you described that were used outside of the day Resource Center last winter um they they were tents lease from uh a tent company that does party tents uh and they have they they don't have the curve surface that the tents that we you and I uh saw at the Salvation Army to clarify mayor we use those party tents in the spring of 2020 outside of the day Resource Center last winter we had the same exact ice fishing tents that you saw at the Salvation Army set up outside of the E shelter during the winter of 2021 just to clarify and those are the ones that did not withstand the weather as well as you know we would live like them to further discussion May uh Council yeah no I mean we're we're hearing from staff that these tents don't are we're we're acquiring acquiring this asset um to respond to cold weather um activation and that they don't respond to and I not do not hold up during snow so I don't understand why we would make the switch from a pallet home to a tent that doesn't actually work for the intended use further discussion having lived outside in cold weather environments for months at a time let me tell you there are tents that withstand snow and are insulated that can be purchased uh further discussion Dave grber council member grber yeah mayor I agree with that and I understand that many cities uh including snowy weather cities were using tents uh and and that there certainly are tents that that the unhoused have used that are that will survive winter I mean I don't think that's a question the tents that the city used did not and and I understand that that you know that created problems but there are tents that can be bought uh that will survive uh the environment here further discussion mayor mayor um council member con thank you sir um Jessica has your team been made aware of you know these higher grade tents um that can apparently withstand inclement weather so we purchased the same ones that were being utilized um at some of the Denver safe Outsource spaces last winter um you know so we we went with that best practice of U utilizing those insulated ice fishing tents um you know and they mostly withstood the weather um but you know the heating and stuff is problematic in them um and um they're not going to be the same as a long-term asset like the the pallet shelter but there's certainly an option that could be utilized okay I was just curious if you had any more specific information thank you so with that question of durability Jessica do you know what the expected life is of the ice fishing tents like how many Winters they're expected to withstand compared to the pallet shelters I do not have specific warranty information and I think we also have to consider what they're made to be used for versus what we would use them for so taking them out to a lake and ice fishing you're probably not going to go and it's dumping snow and so um I can't answer that question right now in terms of the warranty the pallet shelters do have a a warranty attached to them further discussion Mary Dave grber I had a follow up I apologize please okay so I think it's safe to say that given the construction of a pallet shelter versus the construction of an ice fishing tent that they are more durable and would be likely to last through quite a few more Winters um than a an ice fishing tent would staff response say go ahead sta please respond oh I would just say yes I believe that the pallets would be more durable yeah ice fishing tent may not be the appropriate way to go um again you know 21 years in the military cold weather training Arctic training there are tents out there that are insulated there are tents out there that can withstand a lot of snowfall uh further further questions or com C so if I could then then a tent is by definition portable I mean you put on a pet then palets can be stacked up somewhere the the um these pallet homes that you're talking about what is the what is the the plan for those uh so so after winter is over um do we keep them where they are forever do we move them to a central location what what is the uh City's plan for managing the pallet homes over multiple years yes so I think we would keep them in the existing locations as long as they were working well in those locations um just like we've had the site set up over the summer with Salvation Army um and then the the plan would be to utilize them over the next few years until we had more options for uh more brick and mortar shelter if that's what we decide to do um but they should be able to last year round for a few years um the warranty is 10 I'm sorry I'm sorry thank you so you see these then this will be a permanent campsite there will be a permanent site uh for the 10 years where we deploy these um and that's that's the plan so to clarify the warranty is for 10 years um I think we would again kind of treat this as a pilot we put them up for one year see how it goes evaluate the success of it um and then make some decisions for there but the point is we own them and so they do fold completely flat um you could store them um you know if we don't have an issue with homelessness in a few years and they're not needed they could be stored and Emergency Management could utilize them for disaster we could use them for other things as an asset okay but again you okay first off it's not a this this is a permanent ACC asset so it wouldn't be a pilot definition it would be a permanent asset that that we would own uh for the for at least warranty period for 10 years so so it's not it's not a pilot it's a permanent asset and then the second thing is that you know that you had said is that you would expect these to stay up um at the location uh for X number of years whether X is 10 or less but you would expect so we're creating permanent um um homeless shelters uh that that throughout the city with the tents we would also intend to keep them up like we're functioning now um you know with Salvation Army so um we would keep them up for the winter and then we would keep them up as an option um for people to move out of encampments into these safe outdoor spes mayor um I'm sorry thank you um I I I like the tent idea if we can get tents that are durable because I think it just gives us more flexibility as far as moving them um you know ease of taking them down and so forth and I don't think I like the idea of the pallet um houses whatever they're called it does sound like it will be permanent I I guess I don't know where these locations are with the Salvation Army and the restoration church but are there houses nearby homes nearby so the Salvation Army site is located directly across the street from where we had our emergency shelter last year at 33rd in Oakland and there are not residential homes um close within a half mile probably on the other side of Peoria um at the restoration Christian Ministries area they own quite a few Acres on their site um and so they would be within the fence screened area where currently we have safe parking um for folks to come and park so they would be located there and then in the other areas um you know we we don't have any specific other areas at this point um but obviously mindful of the screening um just like we would be with the tents if we were putting tents in other areas um you know screening of the site and security and making sure that the you know adjacent prop property owners are well informed um and so when we asked the community about this their preference was they would rather um have the pallet homes um as an option than the tents and it's sort of a visual preference survey then at that point I would rather you know look at a pet home and look at a tent even if it was a uniform tent and they were all the same okay and then you when we did the respit well not just yes the respit motel as well as the the temporary Warehouse that we used it was not always occupied I mean it was like really it had to be like super cold days where people really chose to go there so that I guess my concern is these are going to be permanent and they're not necessarily going to be used um does that encourage Denver to send people to us so I will tell you the uh e shelter last year um was about 88% capacity that was the average capacity rate um and since the Salvation Army opened their site um on July 1st since July 15th it's been at 100% capacity for those 3010 the entire time and they're all folks coming out of encampments in Aurora and our street Outreach teams have reached out to folks and that's people are coming in um so we do feel that these will be utilized and we will be tracking that they will be folks um you know from Aurora utilizing these these Services um and when obviously everybody gets put into the the you know homeless management information system the hmis so we're tracking where people are coming from but we do feel like they will be utilized okay so I had heard from actually it was um someone in our state leg legislature that had seen a a white Bus drop off a busload of he said we're homeless people into Aurora do you see that happening because then I'm like where are they coming from and we're take we're you know bearing the responsibility to house them and I was just kind of surprised that this bus came in and dropped off a whole bus load of homeless people so do you how do you deal with that situation that were to happen so I can't speak to that specific situation because I don't you know have much information about it um but obviously um in talking with um Mile High when people are coming to the day resource center and other places um we can see the last place that they receive Service as part of the hmis system and so if they have been receiving services in Denver and they come to Aurora we often encourage them to go back to Denver where they're already in the systems there and working with case management and other service providers May homes so the Aurora day Resource Center um and yeah so they and Street Outreach buses are white so that could be what someone is talking about clear that you know we do have buses that we have asked people well Vans I guess that we have asked people to be picked up in so this was specifically a a bus that looks like a huge school bus but it was white wasn't a van further discussion mayor uh counc m gner to me the the tent option seems to make more sense um as kind of something temporary until we're able to figure out a more permanent long-term solution I think we're all aware um there's potentially tens of millions of dollars in Aurora the state has uh well over two billion dollars um in in arpa money um as well as the counties and and I think um in fact we're getting a presentation on October 4th um about some potential uses for for some of that arpa money that could go to a more permanent long-term solution and so to me it makes more sense to go the tent route be and then um carry that us over until we get something permanent I think um I think when people think of tents or where we're talking about tents they they have a Coleman in mind but um you know there's there's tents that are used in um much much worse weather conditions than we experience here um in Colorado to uh you know to significant temperatures below zero that withstand significant winds um and that are used in some you know some some really extreme weather places so anyways I'm rambling at this point but long story short to me it makes a lot more sense to do that rather than go the pallet home because then that becomes our permanent solution um and I I don't think we want that to be our permanent solution so I think this provides us a good uh kind of carryover discuss mayor c m like I just want to be very clear that staff is not saying pallet homes are going to be a permanent solution and to the best of my knowledge staff is actually supportive of us you know Finding long-term Solutions you know brick and mortar solutions to actually House people um with a variety of programming and things of that nature the pallet homes are more durable they might look more permanent just because they're not you know made they're not tents but that doesn't mean that that's actually what we're going to do we're going to set up a pallet home Village and call it a day so I don't understand where that framing or that thought is coming from these structures have power they have heat which is important for our cold weather here um and this is what our residents prefer and I think that having an inventory of you know things that we can actually repurpose and reuse for other purposes aside from homelessness in the future if necessary is I think a wise investment if we're going to be spending money on this further discussion mayor c yeah I mean considering that the um camping site is in Ward one and we're talking about um you know visual preferences of neighbors I know we've gotten complaints about um kind of the aesthetic part of the issue related to uh homelessness I mean I don't see why we're pushing back uh against the this process we went through to get resident feedback around a visual preference I mean I think um that's part of the the concern we're hearing from from residents homeowners taxpayers um and if that's going to be you know if if if that that potentially is in Ward one or in Ward six I would want to honor kind of that feedback and input from um residents who who gave input that way further discussion mayor CES um so yeah and people came out and they looked at which tents we were using they didn't think we were using Coleman tents they went inside of the ice fishing tents and saw how they were outfitted um so they were seeing the difference between the tents and the pallet shelters a lot of people have also expressed concern about the tents and about whether the tents are really a good place for people to be staying in the time that they are in any time type of a transitional or emergency shelter situation they would like to see people have access to things like Heating and Cooling and the pallet shelters provide that much more more efficiently so we also had tiny homes that people could look at and the tiny homes were a little more expensive and harder to place and transport and given those that kind of information that was available the community said hey this seems like the best intermediate option between tiny homes and Tents and something that we could use and they understood it to be for potentially temporary and emergency Solutions and I don't again I agree with my colleagues part of the deal with pallet pallet shelters is actually we can also put them on a pallet and store them that's one of the advantages of having them and just let me say that obviously we don't want to take our time up with arpa funding today but the AR our arpa dollars will be used for more permanent housing whether it's pallet homes tiny homes or the ridu academy facility that the state wants to look at going into Aurora arao County with uh for people participating in programs so uh this is only for emergency housing uh further discussion discuss mayor clarify mayor this proposal is for arpa funds so it's ESG HUD funds that are only for Co related and then the proposal is to use arpa funds and then still work towards those other permanent shelter options further discussion oh cific a lot of feedback um go ahead please just real quick sorry uh council member Mario did you say this we're asking for aror funds now because we that's for October discussion so there are a few items within this budget um under Housing and Community Services for the use of arpa funds now and so this would be funded with a combination of arpa funds and then our HUD ESG Co dollars okay but the arpa funds are to be discussed on the study session for October 4th not today that's correct and so you'll find a few items in the budget are related to arpa funds under Housing and Community Services um in advance that we're included in the budget and then we're discussing all the other options and ideas you're right on October 4th yep okay thanks further discussion mayor customer Mar thank you sir I'm not sure if you misspoke but I just wanted to clarify that pallet homes are not permanent housing options these are temporary that have a 10-year warranty they will deteriorate over time no was referring to those in in programs that will be participating programs that we uh want to provide transitional housing for and so we can certainly debate that as to what is is the appropriate um vehicle for that but that's just that that'll be another debate further questions or comments mayor counc Mario thank you no I also wanted to clarify that as well that palet homes um are temporary shelters um and then the other thing was um around oh and it's totally escaping me now I was trying to get my comment in earlier um you can Circle back to me when I when I recall further discussion May dve grber C grber I'm a bit confused um you know today's general fund Capital fund General City business uh arpa funds opioid funds are going to be covered in other meetings uh the discussion on on um you know I think 10 years is I think if we agree that it's semipermanent 10 years is semi-permanent but the question is fundamentally what are we talking about today as far as the general fund goes and if we are talking um a general fund would we if we make a decision today will that lock Us in uh to a decision on October 4th so if we could get some clarity as to what we are voting on today what we were voting on on October 4th and will the decision today preempt any decision that will may be made on October 4th council member mayor can I uh just a clarification this had some time sensitivities because of the nature of whatever option we choose we need to buy or secure that and the cold weather coming forward we felt like we needed to get this in front of council we didn't have any steady sessions September so we felt like we needed to get a decision and direction from Council sooner uh as we discussed during our one-on ones there were some items from the rescue plan money that we had already programmed into the budget and we had gone through those during our one-on ones and then again during the budget presentation so the the bigger picture items on Fourth will be kind of land acquisition shelters all the other bigger ideas that Council was brought forward and that we're hearing from our community engagement process but just to clarify the confusion it's not we have some elements of the rescue plan that we are using in this budget primarily in Jessica's Department some one-offs that we had for The Gap financing some for some housing software that we went through on the one-on-one so I'm sorry if that's a little bit of a confusion but this one had a Time sensitivity and then we did have some rescue plan money that we had placed into the budget but the larger conversation about all the other Perman shelters and housing and all the other ideas we will have on October 4th okay so if I could follow up the what are we voting on today then are we voting on um the tents and houses today or or yes what option do you want us to pursue for an emergency shelter option for winter weather what options so so then the followup on that is is that whatever happens as a result of the decision we make today will the general fund be refunded uh for for any general fund dollars that that that we're voting on today or are we is say not no General funds and we're talking arpa funds opioid funds or whatever right now what what part is the money coming from I would say if we could just get direction on what you want to use we certainly can reconcile the budget that we use on the fourth if we want to use arpa or if we want to use general fund whatever the the council Direction on the fourth we can do that we simply need to pursue the the the the option and securing the site and securing the material we can always reconcile I'll defer to Greg on this we can always reconcile where we take that budget once you make the budget decision about how you want to fund it it's obviously there's consensus that you want to have a solution for an emergency shelter we need that in the winter weather how the budget maybe can catch up to that decision um if that makes sense Greg do you want to uh speak to that or or I don't know if Council if that's responsive yeah I I I would say that um if if we're wanting to use general fund I don't think that we'd want to make that decision on October 4th because that October 4th was was talking about spending the arpa funds if we want to it's not like we're done you know it's not like like we're done today and we can never change the budget ever again so so I would say that if there's a question on that I would not make the adjustment right now let's talk about it talk about where the money wants to come from and then do a supplemental after that that's that's probably the cleanest I'm sorry uh coun Bergen oh c May okay it doesn't make sense to me we're talking one week away October 4th so why don't we just I mean wouldn't it be better to use arpa funds rather than general fund monies there's a there's a lot in the arpa funds there's I I think you know general fund we we can use for roads and other things and it's a week away it's not like it's going to cause a major delay Council memberes so can I clarify part of the money that this is coming from is the ESG CV dollars which can only be used for this type of use correct it is not general fund money um that's paying for that portion like what what if any portion of the dollars being proposed for this for cold weather activation are general fund dollars The Proposal was for no general fund Monies to be used only the ESG um covid money and then um arpa funds to fill in the rest we want to spend those ESG funds first they have a sunset of May of 2022 we already have existing agreements with many of our servic providers like Mile High to do the cold weather Sheltering at the day Resource Center um we have an ongoing agreement with Salvation Army that we would add to um so we would be using um you know probably if we were looking at a $1.2 million ask we're looking at about um three to $400,000 of ESG money and then the rest coming from arpa sorry follow up um typically for cold weather activation I know these last two years have been unusual because of Co when would we have already when would we have had the cold weather activation budget and plans done by they would be built into the existing agreements that we would have each year with Mile High um through uh marijuana funds typically in a non-id time so the need for the additional piece is that we cannot accommodate everybody in that existing facility um with the operations that we have and we're seeking additional you know space which then requires add additional you know Staffing and wraparound Services bers Council bses thank you um why do we have to do all one or all the other why don't we do 5050 and then we can see which one holds up and which one is better staff is happy to accommodate something like that further discussion mayor counc yeah I mean it sounds like this is all this is not general fund mes they you know they want staff butt like we needed to elevate or exped the conversation um so if we're going to have the same conversation in a week I think we should just vote on it and again um you know uh residents did take did go to visit the area where they had the tents and the pallet shelters pallet homes um put up and the the preference was the the visual preference was the pallet homes so if these are going to be in our communities and um we're concerned about neighbors and and their you know trying to accommodate their concerns I think we should honor um you know their their preference there and honor staff's requests for the pallet homes further further discussion seeing none uh the question before is proposal and uh for tense uh for emergency uh for I guess additional emergency shelter in addition to the day Resource Center during cold weather activation um let me uh call the RO on that council member Hills yes um council member Lawson yes uh council member gr yes C Gardner yes uh Council Mar to clarify this is whether we're we're voting on the tent option that you proposed yes yes okay then no I do not support the tent I support the pallet homes sorry mayor I thought we were voting on council member Mario's superseding proposal um let me call the let me because the motion on the floor is the coffin motion let me call the Ro again council member hilts then no council member Lawson no I misunderstood coun grber yes C yes uh C let's see council member Mario no uh bersin yes uh no say Council um member kums no counc Bergen mayor Bergen yes okay um it's 55 mayor vote Yes um Greg what are the rules on that uh you need six votes six votes to approve it when we talked about getting them on the board was five to get them on and six to approve um so I would say that that uh that fails and so then did not pass then the city manager proposal it passes correct the since my Amendment didn't pass then it's the city manager's proposal that passes correct good what is that yeah I don't think there is a I think that there are options by the city manager I don't think they I well let me ask city manager is there a proposal that that's correct there were options laid out for consider okay thank you thank you very well uh so do we on that do weot so uh um are there other proposals mayor council member Mar I propose uh the pallet shelter option which was the option overwhelmingly supported by our residents and has done an excellent job of laying out why further discussion question may Bergen then council member Lawson how many residents participated in that because we have a city of 3 86,000 or so from what I recall we had close to 300 people that came out in person to that engagement and then we also had a survey posted through um engage Aurora and I do not recall the exact number that participated in that survey we don't know if the 300 we don't know if the 300 were residents not they do indicate through engage Aurora if they were residents we certainly had some folks that um were not Aurora residents they came to check it out um from around the metro area um but there was um a wide range of folks that came including people experiencing homelessness would that would be the ones living in the different options C Lawson um Jessica if with the pallet homes how fast or can we get those if we if that's approved now because winter is coming so what's the time frame yeah so um they've had a lot of demand they have um 60 shelters they're kind of holding back for us knowing that this conversation is happening um so they're holding some back for us now that they have available that we could get in about four to five weeks um if we don't tell them yes or no pretty soon um it could probably be up to 12 weeks before we um got them in um y further discussion the question before is a marono motion uh to purchase um is there is there a number to that council member McConnell or I would just say I guess it's just the pallet home option put forward by staff Maro had computer issue but yeah I believe what was put forward by staff was 60 okay is there is there a further discussion on the mccon proposal and we'll have to wait for him to come back in um council member Maron are you back with us no his whole system shut down he's having to reboot completely okay well the time is now 12:20 I want to take a a 10- minute recess uh until we will reconvene at 12:30 mayor mayor yes may the lunch hour so I don't I think 10 minutes is not going to be enough for people to get their food can we if we're going to do this as the lunch break could we do longer or unless we're going to take that later okay no we can take it now um what do you you know to choose your food what how long does that take okay okay the time is now minutes maybe 12:20 time is on 12:21 we will take we will stand in recess until 12:41 [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] the workshop of the city budget workshop for the city council for um September 25th 2021 is back in session uh council member Maro you have the floor sorry mayor I dropped off my computer blue screened on me so I do not remember where the conversation left off all you just put forward a motion on the floor did you restate your motion sure uh so my motion was to um go with the staff recommendation for pallet homes there further discussion mayor Dave guber council member G I just wanted to point out the staff didn't have a recommendation or actually all of these are staff recommendations yeah further discussion mayor mayor uh council member KS um I'm not sure that we have everyone back yet so I think we might want to wait just a couple minutes very well okay I think actually so folks are are all here and if they're not in the building they're on their phones so we're good to go council member Mell you have the floor all right thank you mayor um so yeah my motion was to uh go with the pallet shelter option um again it was the most supported option um during our workshop and through engage Aurora um they are mobile uh and multi-purpose which is great as I mentioned we can use them uh for homelessness but we can also in the future when we have uh hopefully solved this issue in our city uh use them for other emergency services such as fires and natural other kinds of natural disasters um they do have a longer life and a long warranty which is great and they do also have uh heat and electricity uh for folks residing within them um so with that um I think that the pros outweigh the cons um they are a little more expensive but I think that they're a worthwhile investment uh that will last us into the future further discussion um council member lawon council member Gruber um council member Marano so the proposal that the staff had recommended was 60 for right now because we could get those are you looking at just moving forward with that or just looking at how they work and then are you proposing another amount I just want to make sure we're looking at what you're talking about I'm I'm fine with the pallets but I'm just asking do you have a number are you fine with the 60 right now or and look at it later sure so I'm fine with the staff recommendation as is um although I think I think we are all aware that all of the recommendations that we got here we actually have a larger unhoused population than this will serve so I think that uh you know this I think is being proposed as a pilot so I'm fine with under you know basically under um get getting less than we really need to fully address the issue just yet but I would hope that as soon as these are proven uh to be effective that we will very quickly turn around and actually get enough to you know have this population while the permanent Solutions actually come online um further discussion mayor Dave C gr yeah I just wanted again some of that was was misrepresented the uh staff did not have a single recommendation uh it was specifically asked uh if there was a vote or how many people from Aurora uh selected one over the other and those numbers weren't available so again I understand um I understand we're voting now on whether or not to buy these semi-permanent pallet homes but I think the way it was presented was misrepresented discussion counc okay counc thank you council member gber I would appreciate if you wouldn't misrepresent what I stated in the memo staff mentions that this was the most supported option by Aurora residents and that t were the least supported option by Aurora residents so I would encourage you to look at the memo that they sent over on the 23rd thank you further discussion and and it was subsequent to my conversation with staff that they put that that they changed their position to put forward two options uh and my understanding is neither one at this time that they're supporting and let me just say as a as a qualified uh instructor in the United States Marine Corps for winter Mountain Warfare I'm well familiar with tents and there are tents that will serve the purposes that are intended uh uh in this discussion uh further discussion seeing none uh the question before is a marono proposal um council member Hils I don't have a comment but I appreciate the continued offers no we're um I want to know how you're are you in proposal yes yes to pallet shelters okay council member Lawson yes to the pallets uh council member gr no okay council member Gardner no uh C Rio yeah council member bin no council member cono yes and council member yes and mayor P Bergen no okay um would there be objection to moving this discussion and integrating it with the discussion on October 4th is there objection to doing that uh including that in the arpa funding yes is it I'm sorry who's Council Mar um yeah so I object because we are already behind on being ready to have our cold weather activation and every day matters let me hear if I could hear from staff on this issue as to whether or not it could be deferred until October 4th and integrated in the broader discussion on arpa funds and homelessness I would defer to Jessica Jessica are you on the line in terms of the timing of the decision I I am and you know we need to move quickly on these even if we are going to purchase additional tents we need to go through that process with the pallet homes um they do have a patent on those and we were able to do a single source for those so if we were going to 10 option we would probably need to go through an RFP process and um that will slow us down a little bit so the faster we have a decision the better um you know if we need to wait till the 4th that's fine again we do have 3010 set up um already um so I just want to put out the option to to that we could purchase 20 or 30 pallet shelters utilize the 30 tents that we already have and sort of evaluate um in the next few months how that goes with the two different options okay further discussion mayor C mayor so couldn't we just I mean I know there's disagreement on the tents but you have 30 tents set aside couldn't we just add yes Jessica we can purchase additional tents um like I said I think we'd want to evaluate which tents we're purchasing so it's going to take a little bit more time to go through that process well let me ask you Jessica could you could you go through that process between now and October 4th to where you would have all that information so that they would expit so once then Council made the decision that you could expedite whether Council made the either the decisions to go uh in some sort of uh combined approach uh that that might involve both options or went with all t or went with all um pallet homes uh so you could utilize your time between now and October 4th could you not you could I think the dollar amount will be less enough we won't need to do an RFP we also have to consider that we will have to have some type of heating element to each of the individual tents so we would also need to look at the electrical costs and the electrical configurations and purchase of heaters and things like that to put into those tents um that right now they are set up but they are not set up with any kind of heating element um for the winter further discussion a little bit dist distressed this is Colorado I mean we knew in June that there's a winter coming and we are just starting to plan for our homeless uh now on on the 25th of of September um I I I I'm a little bit dismayed the staff wasn't thinking about this at the end of last winter and when they came up you know and would have more than a single alternative so I'm I'm not pleased about that further discussion mayor mayc sorry mayor counc um I was just gonna say I don't think I don't think folks realize that we would in addition to the tents have to purchase heating elements now I'm I'm worried about kind of a fire hazard and that additional cost I'm not sure folks were um aware of that I wonder if we might be willing to discuss again I mean it just seems like the easy simple and to go with the pallet homes all of that's already equipped and built in in terms of um life safety um there so I mean I don't know if we can revote I don't know if that changes anyone's mind but that's new information forther discussion mayor counc M thank you sir as Council miio said the pallet homes the one of the many advantages to those is that they already have uh Fire and Life safy Safety mitigations already in place including alternative exits in case there is an electrical fire of any sort in there um and honestly I would really like to know what are what are yall's you know objections uh to this I think I heard from the mayor and council member grber about the military tents um and I'd also like to discuss that a little further but in my quick search over our break I think I found a range of cost between 5 to $10,000 per tent that's a huge range so I'm not really sure why uh that is um and like uh Jessica said she would have to she and her team would have to begin uh research a new while time is of the essence um but from the folks we didn't hear from I would really like to understand your rationale a little better thank you further discussion CES um yeah so do we have information from the mile high Behavioral Health Care folks who have had to do tents or from um Salvation Army or other folks that have had to do tents over the winter of how that goes um because they're really the ones that have to provide the service in this situation um or from Denver I guess for staff do we have any kind of feedback on how tents work compared to pallet homes in terms of the service Provisions So currently we're offering those wraparound services with folks in the tents um the Salvation Army um I'm not sure if they'll be willing to continue with tens that's certainly a conversation um we will have with them they've been very excited about the pallet shelter option along with Mile High just because um you know they feel like it is safer and um you know there's been um there would be less confusion just sort of about how to set them up with the electrical piece and and and all of that um the Salvation Army site does have the opportunity for people to come inside for services every site that we set up may not have that ability um the pallet shelters lock that's something that um clients that have been staying there have really um been interested in um so there's certainly pros and cons to both um both service providers have expressed a lot of interest in utilizing the pallet option um and felt like clients would be you know safer and more secure um and we have been working on this so if you recall we did our Outreach in May to the community to work towards what our alternative shelter option would be and that's where we had the recommendation of pallet so we've been working um you know down that path we also did not know what would be happening with Co and thought that we would be able to hopefully utilize the day Resource Center for up to that 200 people and that that has not changed um has Co had started to increase again in the middle of the summer so we have been working on Alternatives um the service providers that would be providing service to these locations um have supported the pallet shelters um and you know I'm sure they will support the tents but um you know they're concerned with the different caveats around the the safety of those tents and then just to clarify in the tents these would all be individual tents um not large tents council member B did you have a proposal yes um we're spending so much time on this this is crazy um yeah I mean I I don't know why we wouldn't consider a 5050 split and that way we'll know how they work right it's not like we're buying a thousand of them you know let's let's try both of them and see how they work and move on from there Jessica what is the number again is it 60 that you were going to purchase that's correct and we can scale that back to any number so that so what uh council member bin is offering is 30 pallet homes 3010 is that correct council member bin that is correct yes very well discussion on the uh May okay so council member B to add 30 pallet homes and then and the tents right to add for comparison well she said we need 60 so would be 30 pallets and 30 tents okay and then uh I have a question on if we're doing this for cold activation are we are we really going to take them down when the warm weather comes Jessica we I would say if we evaluate what's going on and things are going well people are getting house so they're moving from an encampment in Aurora into a pallet shelter or a tent we're getting them case management we're getting them connected to um you know some type of permanent Supportive Housing and Workforce in medical and everything else and we're moving people through that Continuum I would say that we would probably recommend keeping them up until we have a larger brick-and morar shelter to be able to do that same type of process if we get to the end of cold weather and it's not working well then we will make other decisions um but the past three months have shown that even in the summer having these available um people are willing to come in from the encampments and seek services and then move on and how many people to a pallet home two um it's really one to four so our recommendation was buying 30 smaller and 30 bigger so if we said we'll buy 30 pallet shelters we would probably buy 15 smaller and 15 bigger just to sort of see how both options go okay thank you discussion mayor c yeah um I mean now now I'm I'm back on the we're going to have to heat the the tents like to me that I I understand like wanting to compromise like half and half we already have tents you know and with a potential concern at least that I have um with the safety of heating those tents and it sounds like it would give us less options because then we'd have to um figure out how to connect them to a like generator or power source I mean I'm I'm just also I don't know how that would be set up but now I'm just concerned that it's going to be less flexible potentially um and that there's any concerns um putting in an additional heater that the tent isn't necessarily set up to handle or equip so again like I'm I would love to compromise but now I I can't get over the the life safety concerns about the potential heater in aent and it to me just seems simple and I agree we got so much time on this I think we should just move forward with with the pallet homes and let's be and I would just ask because my colleagues have expressed some concerns about kind of the permanent status of this and I would just request um before any decisions are made that council is included in those conversations um so that we're you know part of the process um again I just want to be responsive to the concerns that some of my colleagues have stated and I don't you know I I understand that that would be a recommendation and that's something we'd want to move forward but you know I guess getting a guarantee to revisit the conversation before that's made final um would be I think helpful um I wonder if that's possible the discussion mayor to the proposal that's on the Flor well if the tents are a problem should we just not consider any additional tense and then just I mean maybe stay with the 30 pallot homes it almost seems like a pilot program like try them out um my my whole concern is that it's going to be a permanent camp and so that's where I'm coming from and and I understand trying to get people moved to another you know get them assistance get them resources and and get them into permanent housing but it it just I don't know if that's going to really work it's going to look like just a permanent a permanent Camp I was hoping I could get a um sorry you're muted I was hoping I could get Jessica to respond to my initial question which I think France swas was kind of also it was in the same line so it's not too terribly far off absolutely counts by Mario and mayor proen Bergen so the funding that we are looking at and was laid out in the memo is for one year so we won't have funding to go beyond that even with arpa funds we would have to make that decision later to continue it so we're looking at this process for a year to purchase whatever the asset is whether it's pallet or tense and then have the wraparound services for a year you all could make the decision to say we want to fund it for six months and see how it goes and then make a decision to uh you know continue it or not and um any of those options are fine and I just want to be clear on this we're going to be providing three meals a day and doing their laundry uh without any requirements on the um uh on those experiencing homelessness staying in these um shelters am I correct so mayor there are meals provided um there are vouchers to go to partner laundromats within a a provided at least at the one currently at Salvation Army um we have those um at the day Resource Center as well um and that is something else that could be negotiated with the um operational contract is you know certain things that would be required they are required to sign an agreement while they're staying there related to um you know just behaviors and things like that and participating um in sort of basic activities happening um so that that is certainly something that would be negotiated through the service provider agreement so you understand the concern about permanency versus temporary I do and within that service agreement you we could also say you can only stay for up to 60 days or something like that as well I mean people are moving through the process we've had 82 people through the 3010 in the past three months at Salvation Army um so there could be a time limit as well put on the length of stay okay uh back to the the B um C B's proposal Is there further discussion on the B's proposal mayor counc thank you sir I just want to point out that restoration Christian Fellowship has already um expressed interest in having pallet homes there so if we are going to have them um Jessica has the intent to place those there and then find another host for the TS I guess if we're going to split the baby so to speak yeah I think all that is up for consideration at this point um it you know it might be 15 and 15 15 at Salvation Armory 15 at restoration and then 15 remaining 10 stay at Salvation Armory or we increase to 45 over there it just that could all be worked out okay further discussion on the bur's proposal mayor C Ms I just want to also point out that people in encampments are already living in tents and the purpose of cold weather activation is to get those folks to somewhere safer and warmer and so yes these tents may be warmer if we can find an appropriate way to heat them but then we also have to look at that additional heating cost um whereas with the pallets we just connect them to electricity we don't have to be trying to find generators or something to then heat tents that aren't necessarily made to have heaters in them so I continue to be very concerned about this idea of more tense when people are likely to say no to that in a way that they're not going to say no to a pallet shelter um because they're going to feel like it's not really a difference from what they're already doing anyway and they have ways that they Heat their tents in their encampments already with clay pots and candles and things like that which is also not super safe but it's the safest option that they have so we're going to have people continuing that not so safe option when we can just provide them with a safe proven option mayor further discussion mayor bersin council bers thank you I was just trying to to come to a compromise so Jessica can go on and get these ordered um but it doesn't sound like that's I don't know I guess we'll have to vote on it but it was just a compromise to get things moving so we could have these ready on cold weather mayor thank you um Council b i sh your frustration um frankly I feel like we are undermining the effectiveness of actually addressing a problem that our constituents have been asking us to address for well over a year at I mean longer than that but you know it's become a major issue really since Co hit and I don't understand where the resistance is coming from I think that staff has laid out an excellent rationale for their proposals in the memo that they sent us I think our constituents uh have reached in and let us know I think we got decent participation obviously we can always do better at the open house um and I still would honestly really like to understand for the folks who haven't spoken up why they're against the pallet shelters um given that they address a lot of the safety concerns uh and that folks seem to be more receptive to accepting Services if that's what they're going to be able to move into instead of just another kind of tent mayor mayor P yeah I'm I'm good with council member berson's proposal because I do think it is a compromise that you know and we can evaluate the effectiveness of those um and and I I don't know if you heard me earlier but my my concern was the the permanent nature of them so further discussion on the B's proposal mayor uh Council Lawson so you know we're we have unhoused people we're obviously not going to come to a compromise on this what I'm afraid of is that this is going to fail to do all of the because we we have one side that wants some tents we have the other side who wants the pallets and then at the end we're making people suffer so I guess what I'm trying to ask is because I might have to go another Direction here with because to get people something because all we're going to do is sit here and have a stalemate um and when we need we know that this is an issue we need to get people house so I'm asking people FR council member me Pro Tim Bergen um I'm just asking you guys are you totally against all of the pallets for 60 I mean are you against that I'm just asking yeah I just sorry to interrupt I just said I I am supporting um council member Buren's proposal so that we would get 30 I guess 30 pounds so you're not for so you're not for excuse me Council Mar I just want to finish and I'm sorry I me to take your time I'm just asking that because oh no I'm sorry I thought I did cut you off so I apologize um so because I'm just trying we have an issue here that's coming up and we have a a limited amount of time we need to get these individuals house and it looks like we're at a scalemate of who of getting all pallets versus not getting pallets versus it seems like there has to we might be able to get people to get into the middle I'm just asking the other side who's against the all pallets are would you're willing to do the compromise is that correct I'm just asking that if someone could just if you guys could just verify that with me I I don't think I'm asking much would you be willing to do the compromise I guess it's council member berson's proposal we'll have a vote in just a minute to determine that Council Lawson I think we'll have a vote in a minute to determine that um counil Mario uh thank you mayor Kaufman um you know I think we've talked that this is not going to be a permanent thing the the the funding is only for a year that was one of the the the ways that I know we were trying to make this work um in in the vein of compromise so um I I still haven't heard folks like I I guess again I'm I'm open to compromising we can't put this vote off that's been made clear I don't want to like push you know a critical decision if anything I would ask the mayor with his uh tiebreaking to be able to do that that's that's that's what that role potentially could be for instead of just siding with you know one ideological leaning or another um but yeah I mean if we want to compromise I still that what there is anyone else concerned about the potential safety around the the Heating units and the tents like them not being equipped for that use and we're just trying to retrofit that um I don't think people understood that that's what we would have to do to make them ready for cold weather activation um in terms of our standards um you know folks not being trained uh to withstand cold weather in that regard so I you know I guess it's that's more of a rhetorical question not necessarily asking for an answer but that's that's why I'm having a hard time compromising one number or another I mean if we compromise can we just reduce the amount of pallet homes what if we did 50 pallet homes for example um you know like I I don't want to like reduce staff's capacity by too much but if if if the it's a negotiation of numbers you know can we can we talk about that further discussion mayor uh coun Gardner thank you so a couple of things um as far as the temporary or the permanency um of the program I had stated earlier you know that's why I'm opposed to doing um the all pallet homes because I think that's I don't know permanent Andor semi-permanent um you know frankly I've aware of very few government programs that come in and then go away later we can say that there's a one-ear time period but um I think we all know how that works um as far as I guess the the safety aspect of or the the potential fire aspect I think um that doesn't concern me because there are tents that are designed to have heat piped in um Hunters ice Fishers I could go on and on of people that use uh tents with heat piped in during cold weather applications so know that I mean certainly there's a risk but there's a l a risk in a lot of things that we do in life life and um it's just it is it is what it is but um I would be willing to accept a compromise on both because I think that will allow us to determine um what's a better what's a better path forward I think um you know again I I recognize that there are people people currently in tense um but I'll go back to my comment earlier the people that we're seeing in tense that's a Colman tent below and underpass that is not what we're talking about here we're talking about you know tents that are designed for more long-term cold weather usage in a in a safe place that's supervised and meals are provided and things like this so this isn't you know taking people from One um tent not designed for this use and putting them to another tent not designed for this use this is a this is much different what we're talking about um so again I you know I would be supportive of trying out what council member bersin is is uh proposing further comments mayor uh Council mes as a alternative proposal to address the uh permanency question and issue would folks be willing to compromise with having the um tents taken down or the pallets taken down at the end of cold weather Activation so would you consider that as a friendly Amendment you know no because I just want to get this vote as so Jessica can order order what need we have people that need shelter and my proposal is 30 and let's vote mayor so the question before is is the berson's proposal uh to divide it up uh between um the pallet homes and I believe uh it's 15 smaller ones 15 larger ones and then 3010 uh um is there further discussion to the B's proposal um see none is there objection to the B proposal mayor I was going to see if we might amend that to 4020 40 pallet homes 20 tents we already have some tents council member B Amendment no 30 30 the question before is bers this is not due to we're not trying to compromise here then this is procedurally you can should the BS proposal fail then you can certainly introduce another proposal um further discussion to the B proposal mayor uh mayor Pim I I do see it as a compromise because the the tents failed and the pallets failed so I think council member berson is trying to compromise further discussion to the bers proposal by saying none is there uh let me call the RO then uh council member Lawson I'll go with the B's proposal council member grber yes HS yes but when we vote on the 60 I'm also voting yes for that I just don't want to see nothing it it will be a subtle question uh I mean if this passes and this is a proposal that will go forward you just say that council member could bring forward a proced fails if if it fails if it passes it's a settled question if it fails then another proposal can be brought forward so you would rather procedurally force a total failure and help no one than to vote on the compromise last this is a compromise also I wouldn't mine be considered a substitute motion The Proposal on the floor is is B's uh um is there somebody from the city attorney's office pres okay man' you're in a study session so the formal rules on how you make motions and do all of that really doesn't apply Council also agreed at the beginning of the meeting that you would put on the table if five people agreed to a proposition you would put on the board and return to this at the end of the meeting okay okay so so all the votes we had we will return to at the end of the meeting if it if it gets six votes isn't that a settled question again at the beginning of the study session about is putting things on the board getting them there and at the end of the meeting you were just going to run through the list and if there aren any OB objections you're done if there's more discussion then there's more discussion so then if this would have pass then is that a yes or no at the end or is can somebody move to move to amend it at the end of the meeting and and it's a yes or a no at the end okay um so then is I'm just going I'm just staying with the procedures that we normally use otherwise so then is a would a substitute motion be in order at this point in time and if you do our regular procedures you can do substitute motions okay very well um council member Mario so we're trying to compromise I was pretty hard on the 60 pallet homes I don't want no solutions to be brought forward um so my substitute motion is to compromise on the amount and do 40 pallet homes and 20 tents even though I still have concerns um with the tents I'm going to hope that our staff is going to do you know the proper research to to help mitigate that that concern but the substitute motion is 40 palah hones and 20 tents mayor um there is so we're we're not doing parliamentary or you know whatever you call it the uh the regular voting that Dan Bradman uh well not we're not doing substitute motion mayor Pro I think the mayor just said he's going to erir carried through like that that was the process for this one vote and you know I I agree that wasn't the process but we've already spent so much time on this I know I mean can we just vote on marshes and then I don't know whatever comes next I would like my substitute motion to be in uh City attorney I guess I'm I'm trying to parallel procedure as as much as possible even though this was an informal process I thought I actually already started voting U and then uh the the the council member Mario after several votes were taken came up with a substitute motion so again under a normal procedure under your formal rules once you start voting you follow all the way through that vote if if it had been done ahead of time you could have under our normal rules you could have done a substitute motion before voting starts okay so I took three votes uh council member Lawson council member guber council member Hils we will continue the vote on the B's proposal and should it not passed then I will go to the uh morio mayor so first of all the substitute motion was made prior to the voting you just didn't select the procedure and in that case um I'm going to say no okay that's the procedure that you're moving forward with I just wish that you would be consistent throughout I didn't I did not hear it um city manager did you hear that there was a subst motion prior to my um calling the question mayor excuse me mayor with the uh all the discussion I don't recall when the substitute motion I'm I'm sorry mayor can we restart the process because I we're switching processes in the in the middle of the vote I would just if we're g to some people who might have already voted might want to potentially vote for the second option I don't know but um I did ask before you just move really quickly between calling for the vote and then asking you asked for a compromise didn't stay substitute I'll go I will take your word that you put forward a substitute motion prior to the vote uh to uh the Mario substitute motion for 4020 split council member Lawson mayor Dave gr council member gr gonna be silly on this I'd like a substitute motion that we go with 20 shelters and 4010 I mean we can do this all day there we can do this all day and I'll come up with another substitute motion mayor so this is all about one side winning is pretty obvious um you know the the proposal to do all tents failed the proposal to do all pallet homes failed um when we talked about a half and half split a 3030 split that's a compromise um and then to come back and say well no it actually needs to be 4020 that's just about other side winning if if if you're okay with a 4020 split then there's an acknowledgement that that might be a possible solution to tent homes and so it doesn't make sense to me why um we wouldn't move forward with that it it's in the middle of what the two groups voted on and and that to me seems realistic so I won't support the 4020 split may I respond you know I'm gonna call the vote I'm calling the vote on this we already so Mar motion council member Lawson how do you vote well mayor first of all what am I voting on am I'm gonna stick with the one that I voted on with council member bers I'm sticking with not going to all this other confusion this is the Mario then I understand you would be a no vote on the Mario question yes I'm not going what I voted for no vote council member on the bers I'm voting yes on the mar on Mario on the b b is what we're voting on we voting on Mario as a substitute I've got a substitute motion on he has a substitute oh my God okay City attorney come on uh do we uh can you do a substitute to a substitute no you can't do a substitute to a substitute there of those that you can do and and at this point mayor this is under your discretion as the presiding offis we are voting on the Mario uh question the 604 six I'm sorry 4020 a split between um Al homes and Tents customer lawon voted no council member guber voted no council member Hills how do you vote um I'm gonna vote Yes and also I have a question because if we're following standard procedure call the question requires a vote of six so I'm just not sure why you're you know skipping back between what procedure and I'm asking our mayor as the inal it's informal procedure and I'm the chair so council member Gardner how do you vote you don't have to be consistent that's just council member Gardner how do you vote on the Mario question I'm a no council member Mario how do you vote I vote Yes but mayor you've been in this role for a few years now I implore you to learn the council member you I vote no council member Mard how do you vote Yes counc member how do you vote yes C Bergen how you vote no mayor votes no motion fails to the bosen's question uh council member Lawson how you vote I'm voting yes council member um grber how you vote Yes council member HS how you vote Yes council member Gardner how do you vote Yes council member Mario how do you vote Yes so that we're not leaving people unhoused council member B how do you vote uh yes and that was the whole point to go ahead and order to not leave on so was my compromise council member moo how do you vote Yes mums how do you vote Yes and can we not do any more that council member Bergen add vote Yes motion passes further discussion on how the Housing and Community Services uh budget as amended saying none is there any objection to the Housing and Community Services budget as amended seeing none uh the Housing and Community Services budget will move forward um Greg uh uh budget office is discussion on the the budget for the budget office city council or non-departmental um I'm sorry uh for city council a discussion of um on the City Council budget is there objection to moving the City Council budget forward seeing objection the City Council budget will move forward uh uh non- Department non depart the non- departmental uh budget question about process uh please receive um will we do the city council contingency portion separately from the city Council budget or is that where we should be having those questions uh you've been spending um you know we set aside 500,000 so the the contingency is in the City Council budget but it's but we're spending it kind of throughout um we set aside half a million one time and half a million Ono and we're now at about $1.8 million one time and $2.3 million ongoing but if you want to make any additions or changes it it it would be at the city council Point okay so if we have requests that we want to make from that budget today we would do it for the City Council budget yeah okay then I do have a couple okay thank you and they're both for arts and culture um for one I would like to get it onto the study session on October 18th because it's somewhat time sensitive um I've received a request from um Rick Crandle Colorado Freedom Memorial to do a projection art project along with the luminaria um program that happens on the on Veterans which would be November um and the estimate at this point is between five and 10,000 for the production so um I would like to request 5,000 for the Colorado Freedom Memorial um for a projection exhibit at the Veterans Day um event and then we'll bring all of the details with the specific so essentially we'll be setting aside that 5,000 um today for allocation on the 18 and and you're actually talking about spending that money in 2021 correct um so it's for this um octo for this November is when the event is okay so does that have to come out of somewhere else well it yeah because we're actually affecting the 2022 budget which actually doesn't go into place until January 1 Greg yes may I offer I have budget and can cover this request if Council so agrees any objection to uh covering the request uh in this fiscal year uh from the partial Rec budget is that where it comes from Brook I assume it becomes from yes have vacancy savings I can easily cover okay very well is is there objection seeing none then um par will proceed with uh funding the request um to your second uh request yes and so um council member b or mayor proen Bergen please feel free to weigh and also um mayor proam Bergen and I were approached by someone who has interested in doing an Arts Festival in the city of Aurora similar in size and scope to the Cherry Creek Arts Festival but also to include Performing Arts um and have it be more Community focused on local artists unlike nationally focused the way that the Cherry Creek Arts Festival is um we need to have more discussion on that as well um it would be in word one so more conversation with council member Mio and the businesses and partners there so the request is again for a set aside in 2022 so not a confirmation of the budget now but a set aside of $10,000 in the 2022 budget for an Arts Festival okay $10,000 one time one time yes and mayor yeah so um as council member K said we met with um a local um artists that has come up with this um concept it's really quite intriguing so we'll learn more about it but it would be for next year for September 22nd through the 24th and this would be um obviously we're only asking for 10,000 but this is actually going to be a huge budgeted item which and that sponsor would be getting um would be partnering with other organizations for the rest of the fundraising um to make this happen and uh um again something similar to the Cherry Creeks Art Festival but just encompassing more than just the visual arts but the Performing Arts as well and murals as well as having even um exhibits and uh and uh different vendors further discussion on the C proposal mayor counc yeah no I I mean I just want to say I wasn't approached before this conversation came to light in this today um out of respect for you know my constituents I'm not going to vote against uh dollars potentially going to my district so I will support but to me it is a little concerning that that didn't happen ahead of time um you know I know council member Bergen would let me know if I didn't do the same for her District um and I would just ask for that respect and it you know it reciprocated um additionally I know Council mcco was involved as well um she did text me ahead of time but day of so I just wanted to say that I I'm not going to vote against um dollars potentially um funneled towards um my district and I would love to continue to work and make sure that this is truly engaging the local um artists I know there are other festival types that we've tried to get going and um I just want to make sure that we are um using you know again local vendors we have our rural culture arts district which is I'm which is I'm assuming the reason why W one is the area but been working with a group of businesses and nonprofits um the last uh supplemental budget conversation um uh we allocated for monies towards uh a grant and a power washer because we had this ongoing communication and Forum with that group so I'd love to engage them as well um in this process if we do um move it forward question council member K's point and clarification uh is your proposal specific to an area I mean the AR district is in North Aurora um so although there is a possibility to have other things in other areas of the city you can't really have an Arts Festival that covers the whole entire city so it would be concentrated in the arts district and that is kind of what um what was asked by the person who brought this to to us is that the focus would be around the arts district specifically so your proposal is $110,000 and that that the event be in the arts district or do you want to leave that to staff to decide mayor think we need to have a study session on all of the details and we need to have more Community engagement on the specific details we're not asking full approval of the $10,000 today we're asking to set aside $10,000 and to actually bring the full disc discuss forward before that money is finally approved okay so it's a set aside of $10,000 with no other details other than it's an Arts Festival am I correct mayor C mayor appr well I mean because I I was equally I mean we were together on this council member kums and I and I apologize to council member Maria but we were the ask came to us in in terms of the concept and we were having uh discussions it was not necessarily intended to just be in one Ward it was a discussion of how can we engage the entire city um obviously we can't have it everywhere so location you know kind of went around what where we already have some Arts but we did talk about even like the Havana bid District as well and so the concept is not fully vetted but we were looking I mean there might be popup events right that are in other parts of the city even in possibly Southlands was discussed as well so I want to say that this was the approach to this was to put Aurora on the map for having a a an Arts Festival that we could grow and um advertise in the future that would be something like the Cherry Creek Arts Festival because as was presented in the CABC report from one of the subcommittees were lacking in arts and culture and this was also just kind of a good idea to kind of bring that together as well to reserve uh in the budget $10,000 um uh for uh an Arts Festival uh details to be determined later am I correct council member tomes um so final proposal to be brought forward later um the details certainly did of the conversation that we're hadly did include specifically district and the Lowry film school as places of interest okay but those details to be worked out later okay uh is there Obed is there any objection to what I would call the The ksbg Proposal mayor I have a question uh council member Hills um I think so is this going to be an addition to the normal contingency fund that we have because we at any time during the year can make an ask and six people on Council can say yes use that bucket of money for something so is this in addition to that or carving some of that out because I think we usually have a surplus at the end of the year already I thought it was part of it yeah was to carve it out of the $500,000 onetime monies just to say hey we're planning to bring this forward okay further discussion mayor Dave grber counc gr okay so anytime a discussion starts with hey I know a guy and I I get very concerned we have uh arts and public places uh uh commission we have visit Aurora we have our parks and our parks department I think that before um we go forward with a um a oneman proposal to certain council members that uh all three of those should be involved arts and public places should be involved Pros should certainly be involved as well as the um and I would recommend if it's going to be like Cherry Creek which is a major tourist draw into the Denver area that visit Aurora be involved so I I don't have a problem $110,000 I don't have a problem uh saying that that within the the money that we've already set aside for special things we're going to set aside we're going to have a super super special set aside of $10,000 but before seeing anything go forward I think that we need to bring the community in through our Arts Council we need to bring visit Aurora in and certainly Pros needs to lead the mayor visit Aurora has already been approached by the individual and mayor let's have everybody be recognized mayor yeah and this is not an art in public places proposal at all this so I mean this happens where an outside organization comes forward with an event being proposed so we're we're only asking for $10,000 to be applied towards this big event it's not not it's not the city that's running the event so I just want it's not like you know we're we're saying this the city is doing this Arts Festival it's it's putting money towards kind basically a sponsorship mayor uh council member G um council member Bergen just answered my question that that was what I was gonna ask I thought I had heard earlier that um basically this this group that's planning this event is going to go out to essentially the private sector outside groups things like that to fund the event and this $10,000 is essentially a seed contribution a sponsorship um that kind of thing and to me that's really how Arts um that that's a great way for the Arts to to thrive is if there is um buyin from you know the private sector that can sponsor some of these events and so I prefer that approach I prefer the approach of of getting sponsorships and things like that than um using um you know city city dollars completely to fund to fund an event because as we talked about um well as we've talked about what was fire or homelessness or any other topic there's a lot a lot of needs and so to me um if we can you know provide that seed sponsorship but then you know really use that as a way to get the private sector involved I think that's the best approach further discussion uh uh seeing none is there objection to uh the the kums Burgen proposal I seeing none uh the kum's uh program proposal will move forward uh further discussion on the City Council budget uh is there objection uh to moving the City Council budget as amended forward I seeing none the City Council budget uh as amended we move forward uh non- departmental uh non- departmental budget discussion I seeing none is there any objection to moving the non departmental budget forward see no objection the non departmental budget we'll move forward marijuana tax revenue for okay um is there are there any is there anything we need need to side Greg on number three uh only if you want to make changes to either the the marijuana tax revenue fund or or in the capital projects fund okay uh discussion is there is there um is there any objection uh to moving forward the marijuana tax revenue fund and the capital projects fund review budget but seeing none it will move forward all right um transportation impact fees with with that mayor I think that we've gotten your changes to the budget um we we've got them all all down there and we should be able to uh to afford those those changes okay um are there any other decision items not as far as the budget goes from my perspective very well um uh is there any objection to moving the um the budget forward as [Music] amended uh seeing none then the budget will move forward as amended um 4 a hello mayor this is Cindy cup from public works and we have economic and plan planning systems and felsburg hon oliv here to give you an update on the transportation fee study that they've com um been working on it's in draft form right now um as a reminder back in 2018 um Council directed staff to look at all of the capital impact fees with the exception of Transportation because we were working on the um meat study and we were working on a five-year Capital planning cycle so uh Brian duffany with EPs and Elliot suski are here today to present the draft findings and U Matt kison and I are here to answer any questions of staff so I'm sharing my screen can you all see it yes yes yep quick audio check uh this is Brian duffany with economic and planning systems here in Denver can you hear me okay yes great um I we will roll through this I know you have a lot on your plate this afternoon so I will try to be try to be brief um and at the end and we're looking for some direction um so you know this is a this is an impact fee study um we are job here as the consultant team is to um conduct the fee study and um present to council the information on where the what fee levels the fee study would allow and then as the policymaking body the council has the discretion to to move forward those with those make mod make some modifications to the levels charge um it's Etc which we will we'll get into so um quick background definitions for some of you who might be new to this um I know I know several of you were in the in the 20 2018 2019 process so are generally familiar with this but it's good to good to refresh so impact fees are charges on new development to pay for Capital costs that are that are needed because of growth um you can spend impact fees on only on improvements needed to serve growth so if we're talking about Transportation it's really capacity projects we'll get into that um you have to under the law in Colorado you need to spend them within a reasonable time period um on projects with CommunityWide benefit um this is an important distinction they are not um a source of funding for maintenance and operations or to upgrade existing facilities it's basically New Roads capacity expansions to serve to serve new development um there needs to be Provisions for providing credit for developer funded improvements that that are within the impact free program and then some changes in state law a few years ago allow communities to exempt affordable housing from Impact fees next slide Cindy um one thing more um a little bit more background um I think a lot of people a lot of communities see imp impact fees as a supplemental funding source for Capital they rarely are sort of a Panacea or silver bullet for for funding capital projects because they are subject to Market cycles and and real estate development um but they are you know they're they're sort of a good and common tool to have in the toolbox for Capital um so Cindy gave you most of this background here um so this is an updated study for the transportation piece um we are this is an entirely new methodology that was used previously by the city before that last update um and so there's as you're going to see there's pretty significant differences in the fee that we're that we've calculated in study um and the again the next study calculates the maximum justifiable fee that that is established by the Nexus and the proportionality um of the of all the mathematical calculations in the fee study then Council has a discretion to adopt something lower um not at all or the phase in increases over time next Cindy so the fee is based on um the cost to provide a vehicle mile of capacity um this is kind of technical information which we won't go into depth on unless there are questions um you know an example the the simplest example I could come up with would be like I need to build a shelf in my house and I need to buy a piece of plywood to build that shelf but I only need a six inch wide piece so I I'm only it would be nice if I could just pay for that six inch wide piece of plywood and not the entire sheet so what what this fee does is looks at how much it costs to provide capacity in a roadway system um so you could say that let's say that a road has a capacity of 10,000 vehicles per day and a single family home is going to generate five or six trips today with an average trip length of X and you convert that to a cost to provide that that equivalent amount of capacity used by each type of land use um and so the the fee is based on a cost per vehicle mile capacity of $533 um we adjust for uh there's a bit of outstanding debt on hog Hogan Parkway that's paid for with um uh general fund revenues and after adjusting for that so that there's not double paying the fee is based on a fee of $524 uh per vehicle mile travel and we we'll show you what that means in the next slide or a few slides down go ahead so types of projects you can spend these revenues on um arterial Road capacity projects um the city most cities really don't um uh put do capacity projects on local roads and on collectors those are usually developer responsibility so these are Citywide you know Regional Mobility projects um getting people from one side of the city to the other on the major roadway system um wide New Roads connections extensions to these to these types of Roads um widening adding Lanes major intersection improvements um matching funds for some seop projects you know there are some State highways that are classified as arterials in the the city that se do participates in um new multim molder projects um the the cross the road typologies that we're using to develop these costs include a full multimodal cross-section so that's Vehicles sidewalks multi-use paths Etc um and again local roads and collector roads are not not eligible for funding from this program those are typically developer responsibility next okay um so the current Transportation impact these by the city are 67 $667 per single family residence um and we will get into this more the city does not currently charge fees for commercial or non-residential development um so the fee study has resulted in a maximum justifiable fee of about about $5,800 per single family unit um which is off obviously a significant increase from what the city charges today um and all this is information is in your in your packet we're going to I'm going to kind of cruise through and we can get to kind of recommendations and Direction um go ahead Cindy next one um so impact fees are widely used um when we're looking at what the fee study results in in terms of a maximum fee um it's common for fee studies and for for cities to look at what what their neighbors are charging um that's often something that people want to know in terms of competitiveness or cost of you know what does it cost to build here versus there um many many communities across the Front Range charge impact fees especially for transportation you can see that Adams County has a pretty new road impact fee that they've implemented arapo county has a rural transportation fee that they implemented a couple years ago that is um I think it's just I think it's everywhere east of Gun Club Road um um Castle Rock um you know really fast growing suburb uh they charge impact fees for AI variety of things including Transportation um you know other other large suburban and urban communities as well um so widely widely used across state and across country next please okay so um this shows where the where the maximum fee calculated in the study compares to other communities I want to focus in on a few of these because um there's been some evolution in the way that Transportation impact fees are collected in administrator over the few year over the last few years and so the I'm focusing on the communities that have done more recent Transportation impact fees so that's Adams County Castle Rock Fort Collins Greenley and Windsor um and you can see that the $5,800 single family fee that the study calculates is fairly in line with what's being charged in Adams County Castle Rock um Fort Collins grey you know it's kind of in that range of roughly four to $6,000 per unit next um let's see what is the next one here Cindy um so the the big policy question I think here is uh for for for Council is whether to move forward with non-residential impact fees so that in the study we we calculated both impact fees um to provide you with the information on on both options so you know as I said today the city does not collect currently uh in any any Capital impact fees on non-residential development uh most other communities do however um and some communities um have made some discounts to the non-residential fees just for economic development policy purposes um obviously it would generate substantially more funding if the city were to adopt non-residential impact fees as well this table is just a very simple sort of look back at the last 10 years of development um if you just took that the current impact Fe and applied for the last roughly 10 years of residential construction generates about $8.3 million now we didn't go back and you reconcile this with actual C actual you know impact fee Revenue receipts this is just sort of a planning level um planning level figure decision support um if you took the current fee um plus non-residential impact fees on two just just two very common building types so mertile use in the city is basically a retail or commercial building storage use is is a warehouse and a number of other industrial Light industrial type uses so if you just appli it to those three categories it would have generated over hundred million doll potentially over the last 10 years so obviously that's a that's a major increase in funding that would be available for transportation projects next I think we've got about three or four more and we can we can take questions and comments um so this fee study has resulted in a um in a retail in a retail fee this is for a 10,000 foot building um so what we're what we're doing here is comparing it to each community on on a 10,000 square foot building the fee would be uh $125,000 that that's a little higher that's that's higher than several of the pure communities um Castle Rock has you know has made a pretty big policy adjustment or policy discount to their fees um this is um a little more in line with with what Fort Collins charges for um for retail and Commercial um it's still about double what what G What gy charges um you know and there are there are a whole host of tools that communities use to incentivize retail other commercial development even if they do charge impact fees those include things like sales tax share backs property tax rebates um um paying paying uh incentivizing or paying back fees in in a rebate program through a development agreement public Improvement fees tax incurment financing so there are you know a whole host of other ways to sort of help help uh significant projects um and and unique projects offset those development costs next um actually this one is just worth a quick glance this is a a Less Direct comparison because the communities have different land use categories so um but but on a 10,000 50,000 foot Warehouse building the fee would be about $58,000 or so next please so as as I noted um uh so what we've got here are sort of two options to consider and there there could be other options as well these are just this is based on what how the impact fees were implemented in the 2018 2019 study um they were phased in over three years I think Public Safety ones uh took took place immediately at the maximum calculator by the study but the other fees were phased in over three years so so two options just for for discussion purposes here would be a three-year phase in on the residential transportation fee because it is it is a significant increase over what's being charged today um and a three-year phase in on non-residential we we think it's especially important to give the if the city were to move forward with non-residential fees to give them give the market time to adjust because it it is a new policy and would be a new fee and a new cost to developers so uh for non-residential development the city could consider a three-year or a fiveyear or or other options for for phasing in fees um it is best practice in in all cases to include automatic inflation indexing um in Impact fees and I think that was implemented with with the prior impact fees as well um next Cindy and I think we've got two more and then we can move to discussion so this is what it would look like for residential if it was phased in over three years so by 2024 it would get to the full amount of 5,800 bucks which is an increase to 5,120 uh next another a lot of number to digest here so we can come back at any time there are questions um you know residential fiveyear phasing it's the same thing it just tapers it out over a little bit longer period and let's look at the non-residential right so if let's let say if you were developing a retail building these fees are per square foot um if you wanted to convert them to per square foot number you could divide by th um but that would be a this would be a threee EXC communication channels to manage here um that's what it would look like for a three-year pH in on on retail next and again per 1,00 square feet so divide by a th000 to get the full fee would be $12 a square foot roughly um a fiveyear phase and gives the would give the market a little more time to anticipate that and adjust for it um and then the last slide is a good just a segue for direction and discussion um you know the in Impact fee studies there's the the you know the consultant does the study um the next step is for for Council to consider the findings and the results and the fee levels um and to you know direct staff and the consultant whether they would like to look at other options or whether to move straight ahead with a with an ordinance and and here um staff is suggesting potentially some Outreach with the development Community as well may yes go ahead for sorry thanks um I understand the need um you know for transportation but how how does this affect the housing prices because it I mean that's a it's very very substantial increase um for single family and we know how how much um affordable housing is in the news and that that um you know people are very concerned that they they can't afford housing wouldn't this in drastically increase the price of housing um let's I'll handle that in two parts um for affordable housing so legally deed restricted you know income qualified housing the city could choose to completely um exempt those types of developments uh from Impact fees yeah I didn't mean subsidized housing I just meant you know there's houses going up right now for 350,000 450 550,000 absolutely so I I think that is a that is a debatable the answer to that is debatable um some argue some argue that that fee yeah goes straight on top of the cost and increases the cost of home owners others argue that it that it comes out of the land value paid for the development um I think if obviously if you have a project starting you know tomorrow and you've had the land for a while um you know you haven't been able to sort of build in that new fee structure into your into the land vales and into your cost structure and that's why a lot of communities will will phase them in over time um to allow to allow the market to adjust I mean I just think they'll pass it on to the consumer but um most of the housing built especially in my ward are Metro District homes I mean the homes that are in a Metro distri so don't they already build the roads um they build yeah they they build some um and they build all the internal roads yes they build all the internal roads the and then they're responsible sometimes for some of the collector that that's correct um the impact fees are own this is these are for you know project of Citywide benefit right so it's major roadway system arterial roads not the internal collectors and local streets that a developer is responsible for let me do we know um how much more are we going to be getting from the highway users trust fund uh given what the state legislature is just done I don't know the answer to that okay yes mayor Matt Callison yeah Transportation plan supervisor uh the the estimate uh mayor and Council over the next 10 year period of time for the uh Senate Bill 260 is approximately 30 to 32 million for that 10 year life of additional hutf funds over and above what we received today thank you mayor Dave grer council member grber so Brian I have a couple of questions um you know for the last almost 20 years we've had a uh Ari M Levy uh an aurora Regional Improvement M Levy in our service plans for the Metro districts as a result of that the every new house that's built has a 1 mil uh charge uh for I think it's 20 years and then following that there's a 5 mil charge for an additional 20 years a one mill charge and the numbers are rough but a 1 Mill charge on a $500,000 house is about $500 so every and and the Ari is specifically to support Regional roads that are outside of the Metro District so the uh the Metro District then has the ability to decide to uh keep that money itself to pay for regional improvements to join another Authority uh to make regional improvements or to turn those funds over to the city for the City to make regional improvements my point is is that every new house in Aurora say at the $500,000 point is paying and again this I'm I'm just using rough numbers so the assess value and the sale price are different I understand but say uh $500 one mill on $500,000 is about $500 Cil we're actually this is Jason so with the Gallagher rate 7.2% a $500,000 house would have a an assess valuation of $36,000 so it's actually $36 a year for that one mill and then when they go five times it'd be about $180 so $36 for the first 20 years and then so so just so we're keeping the order of magnitude correct okay thank you but my point is is that we have already assessed a a a a regional travel Bill onto every house that's that's been built in aora um since the new service plan was implemented so we we are already charging an impact fee to every house that we that we already have and um I I'm just concerned that we're piling on to the new homeowners uh for and and a lot of times the the roads if the roads are only going to support the new home areas I can see that but if we're taking any of the impact fee money from the new home areas and using that in other parts of the city where new homes are not being built there's a disparity there because we're taking money uh from from new homeowners uh to support existing homeowners so how do we how do we make sure that that's fair uh across and well I guess question number one did you cons consider the money that's coming in as a result of the Ari and then number two how do we how do we ensure that um that that it only pays for uh roads in that area of the of where the new homes are going sure I'm just Jing on some notes I want to make sure I catch all of your um all of your points there um those are great questions um we we thought about that and we've looked at it um our our assessment of the Ari so one of you know you're like you're spot on in in in in looking at and considering this one of the things in Impact fees is you want to ensure that you're not double charging you're not paying for the same Improvement twice and our our evaluation of looking at the Ari and and the and Arta as well the aerot chop Regional transport Authority is that the impact fees wouldn't raise enough money to build those to build all the projects that are needed to serve those areas so impact fees are a supplemental Source on top of you know on top of the M Levy um and debt that's that's being used in those in those areas um and then in terms of you know direct sort of direct benefit for feed paid impact fees are a little bit different um in that there they're they're intended to be for projects of CommunityWide benefits so if I live in southeast Aurora let's use our favorite example and I'm going to go to In-N-Out Burger you know I'm traversing or or or an shs Medical Campus I'm traversing almost the entire City's network of roads and I'm having an impact on on the city's roads know across across that scale and so impact fees are intended to you know pay for Citywide capacity improvements one one issue that um some communities try to set up kind of Zone systems where they'll you know they'll say okay we've got four zones in the city and all the fee revenue and each of those goes to just to projects and those um and what what can happen is that if you know certain areas are slower growing certain areas are faster growing um some some areas won't generate enough fee Revenue to do anything meaningful with and then the city the city is stuck with a problem of trying to find a you know find a use for those funds with all the all the restrictions that impact these have I don't know if that totally answered your question but I give it a shot okay so mayor if I may okay so I guess what I'm concerned about is say your point is exactly right but if we go the other way and say that um um to use the southeast example again the the um uh southland's mall is in the southeast part of the town and if someone from another Ward drives down to that um to the Southlands Mall under the impact B we're only going to be charging people that have built and at the major building areas now I mean there there's some going on in Ward um Ward six and Southeast but most of the major major growth is up in the Northeast area um so so what we're saying is is that people moving into Northeast Aurora would be paying for someone uh who lives in W 3 W one W two or w w 1 3 or any of the other WS to drive to Southeast aora so we're we're charging people in one part of the city for the road improvements but the road improvements are going to be serving everybody in the city so I I I'm just concerned again about the equity side that that we're charging all of the new homes that are being built again say in the Northeast for Road improvements that that aren't directly impacting them or supporting them but are supporting the entire city so is there a better way to apply funds across the city so that the entire city is is U um paying for Road improvements to support the city um you know a couple couple things I think I I neglected to mention at the beginning um impact fees are a they're sort of a growth pays its way tool right so it's you know it is it's only charged on new development so here in Aurora previous de previous home buyers previous Builders they've paid impact fees over the years right so they've paid you know what what the city thought was their share of the cost over the years and now you know as new as new development comes in um under an impact fee or growth pays its way policy you know new development needs to keep paying for its share and and and it's it's not that that an if I was building a new house out in Aurora Highlands I I'm I'm paying for my impact you know the Fe is calculated based on how many trips how many trips my house generates um and the length of those trips it's it's not sort of cross- subsidizing you know another Resident on the other side of the city it's it's it they're designed to just just mitigate the impact of that of each new increment of development can I ask a question because I don't I I feel like this is just um putting a burden on the velopments that do have the you know the Aurora Regional Improvement um mevy because we have surria in southeast Aurora uh council member grber just mentioned Arta you we plus we pay sales tax and that's supposed to be for roads um I know we get federal grants to try to improve you know major roads but it feels like double triple taxation here and if you're going to charge a mevy with Sera on top of then a new impact fee and residents in southeast they L literally do not travel up north like we're almost like a different continent from from the rest of Aurora I I I feel like that's just putting a burden on new development and and it's not necessarily benefiting them I I think it's really needs to be looked at um and I agree that maybe another way to do this but um I I don't believe this is a good way to go and I want to um just also be careful because you know I'm just a cons I want to make sure I'm just being clear that I'm a consultant presenting the study results so I want to be careful that I'm answering questions and not opining on policy so um sorry and I didn't really know who you were but thank you for clarifying you're the consultant thank you I'm I'm a consultant I'm not I'm working for all of you staff and Council and mayor very well um Council Mario HS oh Council M Hils thank you um I disagree that people in southeast Aurora don't leave Southeast Aurora um you know many people work and go outside of um they go to Parker that bubble I I disagree C member again um I think that does a disservice to the rest of the city um so but I do on the impact fees so our current impact fee structure is kind of in zones it's geographically located the difference is that those are capital impact fees and so they're not Transit related right so they are more about bringing services to that new area like police fire um Parks libraries Etc so I see the need to not keep this geographically um zoned because this is a about people who leave um their house and travel through the city or have to get to the highway or their doctor's office or somewhere outside of the island um and so I I do see the need for that I but this you know I think the number of the the cost of the impact speed was what surprises me because it comes within a few hundred of the full impact fees that we approved when when fully implemented in 2022 because we did that threeyear phas in um and I pulled up those and so for a single family detached that total is at 6295 um you know give or take a little bit for inflation we'll see so this is coming in at at higher than that on the residential side but of course the other impact feeds are not on retail or um non-residential so I just wanted to to share some clarification on our previous impact fees because they they are zoned um but I think the the total amount is what kind of surprised me on this one we can do that surpris me yes these you know we fully acknowledge these you know the maximum justifiable fee as calculated by the study is you know if I think effectively doubles what the current fees are and and you know again the you Council has the discretion and this this happens all the time in other communities that they have the option of saying okay the feast study is here our neighbors are here and we think you know we think we want to be here or here that you have the discretion to both phase them in and adopt them at a level below the maximum justifiable fee obviously the trade obviously the trade-off there is you don't recover the full cost of development and that's that's a policy decision um mayor mayor for you know I know we're supposed to end at 3:00 and I the the prop or the workshop that I approved did not have transportation impact fees on it it went from marijuana tax revenue to miscellaneous with the ordinances so I this is really more appropriate for a study session and I'm I'm just kind of like this is taking a lot of time and obviously requires a lot of thought so I don't even know how it got in here but in consideration of the time limit could we continue this on a study session May yeah so the calendar invite that I have from the city has a scheduled until 4:30 so do I have a wrong well as the mayor protim who sets the budget Workshop I ask staff to have it from 8:30 to 3 and okay so you told them that ahead of time when they sent out the four I did I think I think because you know you have to I think you have to block out for WebEx so it was just done automatically that way um I'm sorry council member Bergen you want you want to move uh the remainder of the discussion to a study session on this issue I think so I think we could be here another hour just on Transportation impact fees okay and it was not approved by me uh is it or objection to moving it to a study session I object I object we're here council member moodo um but I believe um I object let me go to the City attorney because it is the mayor pro0 that sets unilaterally I believe sets the agenda for uh these workshops um C attorney and that is correct under the council rules this is the role of the mayor protm okay and and mayor protm you're saying you did not no I have it right in front of me it's not what I approved very well okay um it is a it is a unilateral um decision of the mayor protm to set uh these workshops uh uh without by Charter without my input or the input of council so um it will be moved to a u study session uh I don't you just make sure the presenters are okay with that because we have outside folks who were there is a as I as I stated it is it is a decision of the mayor pm to set these meetings the mayor pm to not authorize this and so um I'm sure that we will they we'll figure out a way to accommodate them in a study session well I would like to apologize to staff that's I would like to apologize to the consultant but the staff should have informed me right they should have also been given a heads up when we as Council received this agenda and calendar invite um I think disrespectful of their time to to make last minute Friday uh 2022 pay resolution let me let me tell you a little bit about what's going on with all of the miscellaneous items these are just companion uh res resolutions and and agenda items that are associated with the the adoption of the budget um you've got pay resolutions you've got GS um you've got water rates in there and then in addition to that uh all those need to come forward and we be coming forward to to council assuming that you're all good with it in addition to that there is um the service fees which is more information only so however you'd want to carry these forward typically there's not a lot of discussion but it's up to you mayor mayor um I'm sorry I didn't hear what what Greg hay said uh mayor Greg could you repeat that I'm sorry absolutely all all I was saying was that uh this this this whole section that's kind of in that miscellaneous world and and all of these items are just companion pieces to the budget um and and typically don't have a lot of a lot of discussion uh but it's it's completely up to up to council whether they whether it wants to go individually or whether we want to just say does anybody have an issue with with these um okay so do we vote to approve them today all you're all you're saying is whether they should go forward to the formal oh gotcha I mean along with the adopted budget items right thank you for that explanation I'm fine with um moving forward unless somebody has wants to discuss something okay is there um are there any objections uh to well let me go through uh any objection to uh moving five a forward seeing no objection to 5A will move forward any objection to moving 5B forward we're seeing none 5B we move forward any objection to moving 5c forward saying none 5c will move forward any object to moving 5D forward see none 5D will move forward any objection to move 5e forward 5e will move forward any objection to moving 5f [Music] forward 5f will move forward any objection to moving 5G forward 5G will move forward uh 5H 5H does not need to be moved forward it's it's more information only okay um Greg do you anything do you just want to refer the members to uh the budget presentation uh the written budget presentation or do you want to um would you like to give a statement on this uh the only statement I would give is that this is actually in the in the backup uh to to the fees we every year we go through and and um what's our game plan when you're done I'm sorry Bruce you're Bruce you're unmuted you're muted uh every year we go through and and we look at the service fees uh we index them uh 2% inflation Factor this year is actually a little bit special because we're also working with consultant wan to take a more detailed look at our service fees um all of these items everything that we're looking at here has gone forward into MF and been approved to come forward to to full Council okay council member hilts is correct uh 2022 will be the first year that Capital impact fees are fully the three-year phase in is is complete okay um a discussion on 5H uh 5H requires no action um 5ii uh there 5 a i action I believe it does doesn't it does need to get moved forward to the full meeting is there any objection to moving five I forward but seeing none then five I will be forward move forward are there any other items you wish to bring out before the council none for me thank you mayor right well meeting is [Music] adjourned [Music] [Music] [Music]