[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Uh the study session of the University Council for Monday, May 4th, 2026 is called to order. Will the clerk please call the roll? Here. Uh Councilmember Andrews? Councilmember Bergan? Here. Mayor Pro Tem Coons? Present. Councilmember Gardner? Here. Councilmember Hancock? Here. Councilmember Horton? Here. Councilmember Jackson? Here. Councilmember Lawson? Here. Councilmember Medina? Councilmember Wiles? Here. There's a quorum. There's no mayor's updates. Are there any issue updates? I see none. Uh is there any objection to moving the consent calendar forward? Item number uh 2A through 2C. Uh seeing none, the consent calendar will move forward on item 2A through 2C. Item number 3A, Connecting Aurora Aurora uh citywide multimodal transportation master plan. >> [snorts] >> Good morning, Mayor Council. My name is Wei Liang from the up. Principal Principal transportation planner and also the co-project manager together with Cardi Condoliano and uh Juan Braddock as the deputy project manager on Connecting Aurora, the city's multimodal transportation master plan. We have been working very hard in the last 2 and 1/2 years on Connecting Aurora. We have undertaken extensive public engagement process. We have provided regular updates to the Council Task Committee and uh we presented the final report to the Task Committee in March and with the full support of the Task Task Committee, we're here today to present the final report with the plan to adopt Connecting Aurora through a comprehensive plan amendment by city ordinance. So, with that, I'd like to introduce project consulting team project manager Keith Bosheim to make the presentation. Thanks, Wei Liang. Good evening, everybody. Great to be here to present this plan. Uh it has been a wonderful journey for me as an Aurora native to help put this plan together. So, I'm very happy to be presenting this as we move towards adoption. >> [clears throat] >> Our agenda today includes a brief project overview. Uh we'll review the timeline of how we got here, go over the project's vision and goals, uh a review of the community engagement that was performed throughout the course of the planning process. Uh we'll present the preferred uh scenario for the future of Aurora's transportation system, which is the place-oriented city, go over the plan recommendations, and then ask for permission to move this forward for adoption at the next Council meeting. So, Connecting Aurora is the city's first opportunity to conduct a citywide multimodal transportation plan. The city has conducted uh prior planning efforts including subarea plans and corridor studies, but this is really the first time we've been able as a city to put it all together into a cohesive plan for the next 25 years. Uh this would be adopted as an amendment to the city's comprehensive plan, Aurora Places. Uh and it really is intended to guide our investments as well as uh policies, programs, and projects over the next couple of decades. Uh we have informed the public uh and development community as we've gone on and this plan will continue to serve to inform those communities uh as we move forward with projects. It builds on recommendations from Aurora Places and the goal here is really to create a network of complete streets that serves all people no matter how they choose to move around the city. As Wei Liang mentioned, this was a 2 and 1/2 year effort. Uh we won't go into details through uh this timeline, but we have had about four major milestones uh where we've had an opportunity to engage with the public on this planning process uh beginning in early or late 2023 uh and then culminating in adoption here in the spring of 2026. So, the shared vision that was developed with uh the community and with some of the folks in this room is that Aurora safely connects all people to our places for a healthy, sustainable, and economically strong community. Uh the mission or what city staff are committing to do to produce that vision is that City of Aurora will provide a complete transportation system to meet the needs of all people. The city will engage the public in the delivery of plans, programs, policies, standards, and projects. The 10 goals on the right here really illustrate how the city intends to go about prioritizing projects, policies, and programs. Uh the first three are all about or the excuse me, the first four are all about the transportation system itself um and how well it serves the community. The next three are really aspirational [clears throat] for the community as a as a whole and how the transportation system will help our community achieve these goals uh community-wide and then the last three are really about how that system is built and integrated into our very diverse community here in Aurora. A review of our community [clears throat] engagement today I want to highlight just a couple of points here. We were able to reach the community in a variety of ways shown on the on the right side of the screen including attendance at existing community events gathering surveys and providing public notices. We reached out through traditional media as well as more new social media avenues as well. Through those efforts we were able to have over 1 million touch points with community members more than 10,000 people visited the website and we collected almost 2,000 surveys. The top transportation concerns that we heard are really focused on safety and congestion as well as multimodal access to destinations and making those destinations really accessible for people of all throughout the entire community no matter how they choose to move and then focused on transit really expanding opportunities for transit service and reliability in the community. We conducted a scenario planning exercise where we examined possible futures for the city of Aurora. These possible futures were intentionally extreme but it really steered us and bookended our possible futures and allowed us to identify this shared vision for what the city of could look like in the future as a place oriented city. The place oriented city would increase the number of convenient affordable and safe mobility options emphasize the need to simultaneously concentrate those destinations within our neighbor in their neighborhoods so really neighborhood focused city. And it imagines investments in walking biking and transit infrastructure to make those destinations more viable and more safe and accessible for everybody. Through that place oriented city lens we developed a visionary network and it's really a layered network that examines how the city can improve pedestrian access bicycle access transit access while still recognizing that majority of Aurora's Aurora's are likely to continue to drive so making sure that we continue to make improvements to the street network to make it that safer and more convenient for everybody. All that laid on top of our base network which is base map which is really all the destinations that we've been talking about. The visionary pedestrian network would ensure ensure that every city street should safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian movement. Couple of examples on the bottom of what that might look like with detached wide comfortable sidewalks and places for people to linger in the public realm as they go about their daily activities. The visionary bike network would include separated bike lanes shared use paths and new crossings. The city has been making investments in these categories in the in the recent decades and the visionary bike bike way network excuse me really imagines expanding that network throughout the city. The visionary transit network imagines service expansion higher frequency infrastructure improvements and high capacity transit investments throughout the city. These are focused on our larger roads for the most part where we have the opportunity to provide that transit in a convenient way. Finally the visionary auto and freight network imagines capacity improvements and freight enhancements acknowledging that those movements will remain important especially to Aurora's economy as we move forward. Uh really focused on safety enhancements as part of this plan including roundabouts or protected intersections that's a protected intersection on the left where you give people space no matter how they choose to move. To realize these visions the city has identified policies programs capital investments and partnerships. Want to emphasize the partnerships here. Uh to make this happen the city will continue to need to invest in its partnerships both at the regional state and national level. Five new or updated policies were identified. I'm not going to read all these but they cover the gamut from complete streets policy to how we go about building our transit corridors. 12 different programs were also identified. On the left side here you see policies that are geared towards multimodal movement for bikes and pedestrians and on the right side we have transit programs as well as expansion of maintenance resurfacing and management programs. We also identified nearly 900 individual project elements running the gamut from intersection improvements that are focused on safety and accessibility for vehicular movement up to 20 multimodal transit corridor improvements. So there's a long list of projects that would help the city to achieve its vision. These maps show those projects. These are going into a database that city staff will be able to track and measure its progress as these projects are implemented. I do want to highlight that this plan dovetailed with ongoing safety initiatives including the Adams County safety action plan so those recommendations that came out of that safety action plan are included in the connecting Aurora plan as well as acknowledging that the city could should continue to expand its existing traffic calming programs. The short-term projects include intersection and crossing upgrades complete streets street projects including safety and technology and widening bike ways sidewalk gap projects and micro transit. Micro transit is a on-demand service that serves a large area or excuse me a smaller area within the city. Those are shown shown in the shaded yellow areas here which really would allow the city to subsidize and move forward with transit access where it currently doesn't exist. Our plan adoption timeline is shown here. We did present to planning commission in March as well as the taps committee and here we are today on May 4th and hoping to move forward to the regular meeting on June 8th and the second reading on June 22nd. That is our presentation so we have this question to pose to city council. Does council choose to support moving forward the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to the next available regular meeting? Thank you all. Questions of staff. I have a question mayor. Uh Council member Jackson. Thank you for your report and going into the details. Um I have a group of residents who are pretty mighty. There's like 30 of them. They live on Beeler Street in Ward 1 and they have a lot of difficulty with some of the traffic in that area. How would you advise a group to be able to submit some feedback or it sounds like you've mapped out some hot spots to try to increase safety. How would they know that their street is included [clears throat] in this report? Yeah really good question. So the report is posted online. Um commenting I believe is closed at this time but I I would encourage any residents to reach out to city staff and I can I can go over that a little bit more. Carly Kempe is on the deputy director of public works. Residents with specific questions can reach out to staff using access Aurora. It's a really good tool to direct them to and they'll be routed to someone in our traffic engineering group most likely who can help answer specific questions. We can pull up the connecting Aurora study let them know what's planned what's planned long-term and then if they have anything they want us to evaluate in more detail like a specific intersection or if they're interested in traffic calming then we can provide them with those resources and let them know as well. Okay great and and quick follow-up the signage is that included in this? Yes yes absolutely that goes to our traffic engineering staff also. Great. Okay um further questions or comments? Council member Bergan. Uh Council member Bergan. Thank you mayor. Thank you for the presentation. Just a question are you looking also at um problem areas where you did put bike like lanes in and they actually I've had complaints from residents on Gartrell Bridge and then also like inspiration. Um so do you also in this study look at where you put them in and maybe they were not designed uh to maximize you know safety with the with the with the road traffic? Um I'll take a stab at this and Carly if you wouldn't mind. So the plan does include multiple corridors where we've identified a need to upgrade existing bicycle facilities. So that is included. I can't speak to the specifics off the top of my head of the Gartrell and Inspiration Drive but there are many upgrades to existing facilities identified as part of this plan. I I would also say Council member this is Carli again. Um So, the plan um goes over different types of bicycle facilities that are needed by road type, by traffic volumes, and um recommends other types of facilities that might be more appropriate for higher volume roads. Uh so, on Inspiration, for example, it's a it's a collector, but it's a higher volume collector. And so, maybe in the future, instead of having a the standard bike lane out there, maybe it would it would be better if that type of bike lane was buffered with like a separation, or maybe it would be better if it was off-street. So, that those are the type types of things are included in the plan as recommended projects. Even if bike lanes currently exist, there might be a project to upgrade or change those. And then our safety plan, if there is if there are any uh documented crash patterns or anything, our safety plan will flag those as well in the more detailed level. Okay. Yeah, I just I think it's important to go back and look at some of the um roads where bike lanes were put in that that actually caused more safety problems than than good. Um or some like some of them the bike lanes are so wide, and then what you know what's happening on Inspiration, then people just drive up they literally drive their car on the bike lane. So, I was just [clears throat] thankful um that you are looking at maybe reevaluating those for future, and I hope maybe changing some that can be changed. Gartrell Road, I don't know anybody that would in their right mind ride a bicycle on that. Further questions or comments? Um seeing none, is there any objection to moving item number 3A forward? Seeing no objection, item number 3A will move forward. Item number 3B, shared micromobility license program update. Uh Councilmember Horton. Uh yeah, um this went through taps. Um very excited for the opportunity to think about the ways in which there could be multiple multi multiple transportation. Um I'm piloting in areas that I believe there will be um predominantly a lot of use in Ward 1. Um so, to staff. Good afternoon, uh Mayor and Council. My name is Tom Wicker Braddock. I co-manage this program along with Scott Baumann, uh who is here uh with us today to provide any additional questions or comments. I am here to present an update on the shared micromobility license program. Um today we'll go over uh the background of the program, uh where we've been in Aurora regarding micromobility, uh the current program rules and regulations. We'll dive into a little bit more details on the parking restrictions for the devices, and then we'll have some time for a discussion and question for Council. First, I want to uh set the baseline for everyone of what we mean by shared micromobility, and uh generally we're talking about single-person devices that you can rent from one location within the service area, and take to another location in the service area. And generally, these are uh e-bikes or e-scooters, although traditional bikes have also been used in the past. Uh Aurora has had some type of program for the past 9 years. Uh city staff regularly updates and changes that program based off of lessons learned in Aurora, as well as changes throughout the industry. Uh operators apply to have a license in the program. The city does not go out and solicit or issue RFPs to attract operators. Uh city staff reviews uh the license, and if appropriate, issues it. And it is a revocable 1-year license, so we can revoke that at any time. Uh we have we as city staff has access to real-time data um as a condition to that license, so we can see how many devices are out in the city, where they're parked, how long they've been there uh at any time. If a citizen uh wants to make a complaint, we issue those to the operator, and the operators have 4 hours to respond to that complaint if done during the normal business day. And then when it comes time to renew those license, city staff looks at the performance of that operator, and decides whether or not to renew it. Um the some version of this program started in fall 2017. In 2019, we updated the program to include all devices, uh including uh e-bikes and e-scooters. In 2021, Bird uh had a program and operated in Aurora uh through August 2022. And right now, or in summer, we received an additional applica- or application from Lime, although that license hasn't been uh issued. This slide does a pretty good job of explaining the seasonality of devices that we've seen in the city. This is uh how many rentals we saw with Bird. Um we saw a lot more rentals in the summer, lot fewer rentals uh in the winter. Generally, these operators are pretty good about um matching the supply of devices to the demand. They don't want to leave the devices out there when no one's using them, exposed to the elements, exposed to vandalism. Um we have several elements uh within the current program. Uh for safety, on every device, we require a phone number uh to be listed, and that way if someone sees an improperly parked device, they can call the vendor with a regular phone. They're not required to have a smartphone, not required to have an account uh with that vendor. We can also impose uh speed limits on certain corridors, or no-go areas in certain corridors. So, if a device enters that area, the device would automatically slow down or stop. Um we require these devices to be to be deployed in Northwest Aurora and near RTD light rail stations. Generally, people use these devices as a way to access transit. Um and then uh we require uh parking enforcement. We'll go into more detail on that later. And as part of this license program, operators are required to maintain a uh 24 hour, 7 days a week um phone service, and they're required to rebalance the devices. If a device has been parked in one location for more than 24 hours, they have to go and move that device again to make sure these devices are actually being used. We have maximum numbers of devices that can be deployed. Uh city staff can also limit the number of operators uh in the city. We require operators to have insurance and indemnification, and we have a variety of fees uh for each operator, including a operator reserve. Should an operator suddenly go out of business, we have that fee available to go out and collect those devices. Going into a bit more detai- details on parking restrictions, um vendors are required to uh use parking incentives or disincentives to encourage their customers to park in the correct locations. We have clear mechanisms on what constitutes correct parking or incorrect parking. And if a vendor uh doesn't correct that parking, we have the ability to issue a fine for each instance of incorrect parking. Uh generally, uh in our experience, we have a good working relationship with our operators, and they've been very responsive about any concerns. Here's an example of the parking education that we would typically require vendors to use when conveying to their customers about the incorrect or correct ways uh to park uh their devices. We can also draw no parking areas uh down at the intersection level to not let people end their rental until it's outside that area. We've made several recent changes uh to the program. Uh we reduced the initial the cap of initial devices that an operator can deploy to the city. We've also reduced the number of devices in the various fleet categories. Uh we've increased the infrastructure fee, so every device that's rented within uh the service area, the city receives 5 cents. And then we've adjusted the operator reserve amount. So, with that, city staff is here to answer any uh questions, and to generally ask, does the Council support continuing the shared micromobility program? Uh questions to staff. Uh seeing none, um is there any objection to moving Oh, uh Councilmember Bergan. Yeah, just I I thought we made a decision as Council to not have these e-scooters anymore, because we were I thought we were having problems with the vendor was not picking them up, and they were just like thrown they were not parked properly, they were thrown into you know, just all over the place. So, d- did we end did we end a license with um Bird or or with Lime? I thought it was Lime. Uh we we did not end a license with Bird. Uh Bird exited the city in August 2022 or 2022. Uh Lime submitted an application uh to the city, but when we provided an update to TAPS in fall 2025, there was some uh questions related to the overall program, and so that's why we're bringing this program back to the entire council for discussion. >> But maybe can anybody I thought we we voted in that policy committee not to to pursue um the e-scooters. Mayor. Was that not a decision made? Uh Council member Hancock. As as I recall, I was uh chair of TAPS at the time, and the thing we found in flames. Nobody wanted it because of the reasons that you had outlined about the scooters being deposited in places where they shouldn't be, like in neighborhoods. One ended up in front of my house. Um and where in the city would they be feasible to run? Um I understood at the time that uh uh the navigation or not the navigation campus, the Fitzsimmons campus did not want them over there, which would have been the most logical area for them to be because that's more walkable. The suburbs the suburban areas didn't want them either, and they certainly weren't wanted out in your ward. So, that's why we just said no and just left it, you know, decided not to move forward. So, I'm just wondering where this where where this is coming from and why we're looking at it again. Let me Oh, let me just go to staff for a second. Hi, Laura Perry, Deputy City Manager. So, at the TAPS Policy Committee that was referenced, uh this item was brought at from staff as an informational update. There was no formal agenda item. It was an update that staff had received an application, and previously there's been a lot of conversation with the council about concerns about the program, about enforcement of the bikes themselves, and so that prompted staff to let the TAPS Policy members know that an application had been received, and there was a conversation of concern in light of this application, and a determination was made that we would bring the program back to the full council to provide guidance to staff regarding its parameters and this particular application and how it moves forward through the program. And so, that is what prompted staff to come back to the TAPS Policy Committee, and then TAPS Policy moved it forward to the study session for conversation by the full council. Uh the shared Oh, sorry. Council member Lawson. >> can go ahead. The um the shared bike program, to me, was a failure. But is there reason to believe some of these other modes of transportation micro-transportation would be better? Uh if I may answer, uh our Rose initial experience with uh shared micro-mobility was with traditional bicycles. Uh some of you may remember the yellow bicycles from Ofo, the the green bicycles from Lime. Uh those were traditional bicycles, not electrical powered. Um there was really no incentive for those operators to go and collect those bicycles because residents could use them even if they were out for a long time. With the e-devices, such as e-scooters and e-bikes, there's a lot more incentive for operators to go out and collect those devices, make sure that they're being used uh and collect those devices, if nothing else, to recharge those devices, make sure they're they're being used. Um also, uh with the e-devices, there's a lot more geofencing capability to let city staff know, let operators know the specific locations of those devices, and whether or not they've been used uh recently, whether or not they're in areas they should or should not be. Any further questions to staff? Uh Council member Lawson. Um so, [clears throat] thank you for the presentation. So, uh you know, just working in Denver and seeing how these scooters have been operating and where they're located, the um how they go in front of cars, the accidents. I mean, Denver is a very transit place, so I understand why they're there, how they're in front of buildings, how they don't cooperate with people who are riding the roads, with Denver has very slim streets as it is. Um I'm not for this. I'm not voting for this. I don't want this in Ward 5. My question to you, though, is um and maybe some residents want it, but I don't want it in Ward 5. I'm already dealing with the the bikes that we have to get motorized and getting complaints from residents on those. But my question is, especially if this is going to be at a transit station at 9 Mile, for example, um they're going to come over into the Cherry Creek State Park. So, with that, and we've dealt with the multi-jurisdictional, maybe this is a question for Jason. Um how will we deal with that if they're all laid over there? So Um I'm asking Jason. I'm not asking [clears throat] you. No, I know, but I'm thinking maybe the geo-mapping it >> I was going to say minus Okay. that the operator would essentially allocate where these devices are allowed and not allowed. >> shouldn't be allowed there because we're dealing with a lot already over there. So we did. So, I I I'm not for this, and I guarantee you, I hope I hope that when my residents call me, that you guys pick them up in front of the neighborhoods. I can see pure point, I can see along Parker Road, I can see over at the Cherry Creek State Park, um many issues. So, um that's my comment. Can Can I just finish my comment? No, I'm just going to finish. You're just interrupt I just want to finish my comment. Um so, I hope that we can uh come up with some type of plan, especially for that area, because it's right across underneath the um intersection. Okay. So, so real quick, I just to kind of reset where we are. So, this was just the update. So, we're not we're not there's no vote today or direction to whether or not we continue with this program or not. That's in city code. So, if there is a if there is support to minimize or get rid of this program, we'll need to bring that with legislation later. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. So, we're not debating whether or not we have the program today. It was just an update, but But I can say it for Sure, of course. Yeah, yeah. I'm just saying that's the process. Yeah, for the record, yeah. Mayor Pro Tem. Um I think with respect to Cherry Creek, we wouldn't actually have the authority to allow the bikes in there anyway. I think that would have to be with the state. Um so, geofencing that we would approve wouldn't be allowed to include that. Um but I do think that there's significant benefit for access to transit. Um right? If people don't want to use them, they shouldn't use them. If people don't want them in their neighborhoods, there's already clear requirements for things to be picked up and complaints to be addressed. Um but I think that there are areas where specifically these electrified micro-mobility devices are going to be much more useful than the bicycles that we had in 2020 that were strewn all about, right? And there are a whole lot of lessons that have been learned by these companies since those things took place at that time, since people were leaving the devices parked in all kinds of inappropriate locations. Um so, yeah. There's just I think it's much more sophisticated now, um and it would be a shame to push away operators that want to provide a service for our community. Is there uh is there a change of heart at all in the Anschutz Medical Campus in terms of allowing these, or what what's their policy right now? Yeah. Uh to clarify, uh Fitzsimmons Innovation Campus, which is certainly north of Montview Boulevard, does allow e-devices on their campus. >> Does not. Yeah. Does allow. >> Yeah, yeah, between Montview Boulevard and Fitzsimmons. >> North. Uh Anschutz Medical Campus, uh between Montview Boulevard and Colfax Avenue, currently does not uh allow devices in. And so, uh when Bird was uh deployed throughout the city, we drew a geofence around Anschutz Medical Campus. >> So, with designated parking areas along Colfax Avenue, along uh Peoria Street, to allow people to ride the the perimeter of campus, park the devices, and then walk onto campus. >> Yes, cuz it's a really fragmented jurisdiction uh on this outside. You've got UC Health, you've got Children's Hospital, you got the VA, and you have the university. So, they I um is it is all of them opposed to it? Cuz I don't think there's a single governance for that area. Yeah. I can't speak to whether all of them are opposed to it, but we did draw the boundary around the entire Anschutz Medical Campus. Okay. Mayor. Um Council member Horton. Thank you. All right. Uh Tom, can you explain what geofencing is and how it works, just for educational purposes across the board? Uh the public would be it would be really helpful for the public to also understand exactly what this means, especially for neighborhoods, for businesses, etc. It's not just for the people in the space in this room. Um it's for those who are also watching. Okay. And to clarify, geofencing is where we draw basically a digital fence on a map around an area. As devices approach that digital fence, a GPS uh device or a GPS on that device tells the device uh to either slow down, or if it continues going into that geofenced area uh where we tell where we designate no devices are allowed, that device will come to a controlled stop. Okay. Further questions or comments? Seeing none, thank you for the presentation as an update. Uh item number 5A, uh City Council approval for certain types of contracts and agreements. Uh Council member Horton. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. >> [cough and clears throat] >> Excuse me. So, this uh ordinance or sorry, not ordinance, resolution uh is around moving the approval for certain uh uh uh businesses [clears throat] and government agencies to the scope of City Council um outside of the City Manager's office. Uh you know, this is demonstrably a booming industry for immigration detainment and deportation. Um and I and the consensus has been amongst myself and my co-sponsor, Council Member Ali Jackson, uh that that authority should um move to City Council so that there's diverse voices and perspectives in the decision-making. And that residents have a clear awareness um of any uh business uh happening with the city with these particular um agency or agencies in in Can you give me an example because the uh the MOU uh between APD and ICE uh went before the council and wasn't successful. So, what would be another example of something that did not have to go through council? Well, wait, sorry. Can you clarify the question? Um so, what what examples of contracts today could the city manager sign without going through the council? >> Without or going to Yeah, so generally, you have the limit, right? And any contracts that don't exceed a certain amount of Is it 50? Yeah, 50,000. Um but I think uh Jason and I looked at this. I don't know if we've had any agreements with the ICE facility, but in the future, if we do, I MOUs will always go for before council. They have to. Uh but any contracts that'll be literally less than 50,000 for whatever reason. I don't We don't have any on the horizon right now, but this would just put that in place that What would What would be an example of a contract that we would have with with a facility? I I agreed. I don't know. I mean, that's I They could maybe want to, you know, contract us to to provide a service, maybe trash pickup or something along those lines that we wouldn't otherwise do. And we would sign a contract with that. So, again, we don't have anything, but I think uh the purpose of this is moving forward that there is anything that council has has a say. Mayor Pro Tem. Um Mayor, so it states not only ICE and DHS, but also the GEO Group, CoreCivic, Air, and any of their associates and affiliates. So, for example, Denver voted back in 2020 to eliminate their contracts with CoreCivic and the GEO Group um for providing services in their city. Um detention services both for halfway houses and jails. And so, similarly, we would not work with those private prison groups um and other entities um that have been demonstrated to engage in a variety of ways. >> or comments? Sorry. Yeah. Uh Council Member Barger. Yeah. I I guess I don't understand the need for this because we don't we don't do contracts with the federal government um other than the MOU, which is approved by council. Um I And then the second Well, I mean, I guess we're going to move on to 5B, the same thing. Like, do we City Attorney, I mean, do we have authority over the federal government? So, we talk We'll talk more about that in 5B, but for 5A, this is something that council can clearly give direction to the city manager on uh regarding these type of instances. And again, I I don't know. I mean, if we had Again, I've always said if I had a crystal ball, I'd make a lot of money as a lawyer, but I don't. I don't know what the future brings. >> you did, and that's why we hired you. Dang. I Sorry, Mayor. I didn't mean to disappoint. So, again, this is just one of those that if there is something that comes up, I I don't expect this to happen ever or rarely, if so, but it's a safeguard council can put in place that says, "Look, if we want to look at these contracts for these anything related involving these things that council should know they're coming and have a say at them. I mean, and that is your clear ability to give direction to the city manager for us to do that. Okay. But likely likely they would not even come to us for a contract. Correct. >> I As of right now, we have nothing pending. They're not bringing anything to us. So, I again, things could change, right? If something happened with the federal government, they're not providing certain things that they need from a service level that the city provides, it could be snow removal for I mean, it could be a variety of things, right? I But not Nothing's pending. Okay. All righty. Council Member Lawson. So, Mayor Pro Tem kind of gave an example of the associate or affiliates, or maybe you did. So, if there's a contract, like a subcontract, that goes to GEO, for example, even though we're not contracting, is that an associate affiliate? Like, they might that company may be providing some other service, like as a sub contract subcontracting. I Because I'm That's very vague, like associates or affiliates. So, I think >> pretty broad. Yes, ma'am. So, I think what we would do is any contracts I think Jason's uh would would say, "Hey, Pete, can your team look at this to see if you think it matches uh the language of the resolution?" And I'll always err on the side of if I think there's a nexus uh between what the spirit of this resolution is intending if it passes, then I'll bring it to council. Again, it it would be on something that would be on the consent agenda uh that could be pulled on on a regular council agenda. So, it's you know, again, it's it's adding a significant amount of time to the council. I don't see that just based on what we've had in the past, but again, moving forward, I have no idea. Uh Council Member Hancock. So, is there a financial threshold where this would be or would be any? If it's $5,000 or $50,000 or So, the city manager's authorized to sign contracts. There's a few different um There's a few different uh caveats within that it whether or not it's been out for competitive bidders and other other things like that. But typically, for for simplicity's sake, items under $50,000 don't necessarily need to go to council. Anything over $50,000 will appear on the weekly report that goes to council. It's also made public. Um and I think this would raise that that limit from being on the weekly purchasing report to including going to a council meeting for approval at a council meeting. Yeah, via resolution on a on consent agenda. Only pertaining to the items in the resolution, correct. It's We're not changing Yeah, we're not changing the ordinance. No, it's just it's just specific to as defined that my office drafted in the in the resolution. >> Pro Tem. Mayor, just to make sure we are clear on that, can we say any and all proposed contracts in any amount or something like that that just clarifies, right? Cuz that's already implicit, right? That it's for amounts that are below the typical threshold, but can we just refine that language? >> Absent that, that's how we'd interpret it, but clarity is always good. >> to add that, we can. Great. You know, lawyers, we like to look at things and go, "Oh, that makes sense." But yeah, to somebody in the future, totally understand. We can add that. Uh further questions or comments? Um is there Oh, are you going to offer an amendment on Although we Well, it's a study session. We'll get it We'll get it added for It doesn't seem there's any objection to that. So, we'll get it added for the for the council meeting if this moves forward. I'm sorry. Is there um objection Any objection to moving uh 5A forward? I I object just cuz I don't think it's necessary. It's performative. Okay. Okay. So, uh seeing the majority have arisen support. Um just just to be on the safe side, all those in favor of moving it forward, please uh identify. 1 2 3 4 4 5 Okay. Does it require six or just five? It's just a majority of those present, but I see Rob's Rob's on there, Council Member Andrews. I think it's Council Member Andrews, do you support moving forward? Council Member Gardner, do you support moving forward? No. Council Member Andrews. He's not unmuted. How many do we have? >> I think it failed. Okay. I know. You can still bring it forward. You can still bring it forward, but it but it it won't move. I was on Okay. He said yes. Okay, so that's that's six. Very well. Uh 5A will move forward. I've number 5B. Council Member Horton. So, [cough] 5B [clears throat] is an ordinance uh uh looking at the detention facilities, uh just tightening up It's really straightforward about refinement, tightening up language, clear uh process and expectations, making sure that, you know, those who are uh being detained, uh be that in any private or public facility, uh that the actual occupancy standards are to the best of our ability as a municipality. So, you're referring to our detention facility here. I'm sorry. >> Yes. Yeah, for our municipal our municipality. So, it's detention facilities. But that's under Isn't the occupancy standard under the current state So, yeah, so basically, what this does it is any detention facilities we have in the city would be subject to this enforcement inspections, which would include the GEO facility. Okay. Um but >> We don't have jurisdiction over that. Correct. And I I think I'll go back with with Council Member Barger and now the mayor is bringing up. Correct. We could show up at the door and say, "Hey, we're here to do an inspection." And they could say, "Bug off. Kick rocks." Whatever you want to say. Um but at least we would have we would have some sort of you know an actual decision by the group telling us that we're not able to do that and then we could regroup and figure out what our what our next steps are if we decide that we need to do that cuz I know there are some we've been hearing there are some issues with with health and safety inside the inside the facility that we may not we may not know about so again it's just again it's a wait and see we'll see what the >> What did Adams County do? Weren't they didn't they gain access? They they're cuz since they have the health department right since we don't we're not a county we don't have a health department I I don't know Jason did they make get access? I don't know if they were able to go in. Uh I don't think they are on their own I know that the congressional offices under congressional law have the ability to do inspections and so typically um I'm hearing about issues raised through the local federal official inspections. Mayor Yeah Mayor Pro Tem. >> So they were regularly going in for quite some time and then they were subsequently denied access. So they have in general been permitted to go in talk to folks identify illness outbreaks identify um issues within the facility and it's only recently that they've been uh denied entry. Um I will say though as well that um I have had some folks send me information about case law that says that federal contractors are not um able to use the supremacy clause that the federal government can use and GEO is a contractor not the federal government. Pete >> Um so I think that that's really important for us to take note of is they are not actually the government they are folks with a contract with the government and those are two different sets of entities and so we do need to dig in legally on if they say pound sand you know are is there recourse that we have? And and so what we will look at is again there are private entities that can take the space of the federal government depending on their contracts. So I have not been able to get my hands on the GEO contract it's up for renewal coming up so I think we'll get more you know more clearer on what that looks like moving forward. But yes if we could look at the contract language um you know and and we do get denied access and we have an ordinance that says that we should do this um we can regroup and see if we do go to go to federal court and try to enforce the issue but again it's a lot of unknown right now but the first step is to actually have the requirement uh in place if we if we are something the city wants to do and that's city council. So if you guys want to do that then this is the way to start. So it would be but it would be as to the federal standard correct? They would be held to the federal standard in terms of occupancy. >> Again it depends on their contract. Well it has to be yeah. I mean I would agree with you but again I don't know I haven't seen their contract. Councilmember Bergen Again can we just put this like on hold I we we cannot inspect a federal facility. We are we don't have a health department so we can't do health and inspections. I I don't even know what we're doing here. We're just wasting staff's time by by creating these these resolutions and ordinances that that we cannot affect. Okay. Uh any further questions or comments? >> Mayor Uh Councilmember >> we go to the federal court Okay. Well Councilmember Lawson and then Councilmember Bergen. If we have to go to the federal court to decide on this then that's taxpayer dollars right that would be used. Yeah but you see it would be lawyers from my office that would that would go to that. >> dollars Yes ma'am. that would be used. Okay thank you. Councilmember Bergen Yeah so kind of a similar line of questioning as Councilmember Bergen but what I'm hearing is that the county is already performing this function of course they're have the the health and human services function the city does not. Um so [clears throat] I guess my question is if we were to adopt this what would be the fiscal note for the city um the the staff that would be required to conduct these inspections? Um So the first step we would do is once council passes the ordinance we would then look at what the appropriate standards are as Pete said in terms of you know how are they set and then we would identify the appropriate staff to conduct those inspections whether that's our code enforcement officers who kind of do multi-family residential inspections whether that's our building inspectors who do new construction depends upon what those standards are. As has been has been mentioned here there's a potential some of these standards may be more health department related in which case we might need some kind of agreement with our county health partners to assist us in inspecting um these facilities. Mayor Uh Councilmember I I hear Um help help me understand. This seems kind of bass-ackwards to me. Why would we enact an ordinance that may require fiscal note without finding out what the fiscal note is before we enact such an ordinance? Of all the things we could be doing why are we spending our time and energy on this in light of the fact that we are in a budget deficit and we're going to add more potential cost to operation of something that we really don't really even have any business being involved in for what end? This just doesn't make any sense. Um uh Mayor Pro Tem. Yeah so the idea that we have no business in protecting our constituents and our community is absurd. But also the wide number of items in the last four years that have been improved approved either without a fiscal note or in direct contradiction to a $6 million fiscal note Yeah so the camping ban the camping ban the motor vehicle theft the OPT I could go on. Okay okay let's hold on. Um who wants to be recognized? Okay very well. Are there further questions or comments on item number 5B? Um um all those who support moving 5B forward please identify yourself for me. I Um Councilmember Anders Okay. Seeing a sufficient number of arisen in support item number 5B will move forward. Um we we will stand in recess until 5:25.