away [Music] yeah in I want to kiss you all [Music] [Music] over have to be alone together we can live [Music] [Music] I to feel holding you tight I to you little tend [Music] To Be Alone [Music] Together live [Music] you [Music] [Music] [Music] Al in [Music] [Music] everything [Music] everything [Music] [Music] everything [Music] [Music] matter what [Music] [Music] [Music] I feel children be that's what they [Music] [Music] [Music] any think [Music] [Music] [Music] another [Music] [Music] [Music] I think we're now [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] we e e e e e e e [Music] the f [Music] [Music] and [Music] [Music] [Music] you us [Music] [Music] will [Music] feel [Music] Str now gu [Music] [Music] l [Music] [Music] you I are [Music] are I [Music] broken last night and made it [Music] [Music] Al are [Music] [Music] are [Music] [Music] e e e e e okay uh the study session is uh Now call to order with the clerk please call the RO yes uh mayor Hoffman here mayor PM Johnston here council member Bergen here council member bersin here council member kums present council member guber here council member hiltz here council member Lawson here council member Marano president council member Modio president okay we are all here oh council member Gardner I'm sorry I missed you I do show you as being here my apologies and mayor we'd like to do a quick announcement about the public call-in number Patty can unmute the call in line anoun tonight city council study session if you're listening on the phone please note we are in listen only mode for the study session the formal city council meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. the city council welcomes feedback from residents during Council meetings on both matters appearing on the agenda and during public invited to be heard the process for commenting by phone is easy for those watching on Channel 8 please call 855 695 34 4 75 and when connected and for those already connected press star three to get in the queue to speak you will hear a prompt that you will be connected to an operator and then be able to continue listening to the meeting until the operator comes on to take down your information and what portion of the agenda you would like to speak on follows who would like to speak during city council for the public invited to be heard portion should call between 700 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. for the start of the meeting any calls after 7:30 will be placed in the queue for the end of the meeting and callers who would like to speak speak on a specific agenda item or during public invited public hearing excuse me should call between seven and before the item is called by the clerk depending on volume it may take a while to be connected to the operator but please be patient and stay on the line as long as you heard the prompt after pressing star three and can hear the meeting in progress you are in line to speak to an operator thank you thank you mayor you're muted executive session update we discuss labor negotiations and uh an agreement for uh plan design on Montview Boulevard there's no mayor's updates uh no issue update um are there any issue updates I seeing none uh um is any objection from to moving the consent calendar forward item 2A through um 2J uh seeing none item 2A through 2J we'll move forward uh items from policy committees uh number 3A fall supplemental uh staff Kirsten good good evening Council I'm Kirsten from the budget office um the 202 F supplemental will amend the 2020 budget this supplemental is very technical and includes many items associated with 2020 balancing efforts all supplemental requests have either been reviewed by Council for example because they were included in the 2020 projection as part of the 2021 proposed budget or they are technical technical items are typically in Net Zero amendments such as the appropriation of a new Grant or budget reallocation from one project to another um both Department representatives and myself are now available to answer your questions questions are there any questions um seeing none uh thank you very much for the presentation with C now pleas read the title of item number 3B um mayor I think perhaps we were looking for for some direction oh I'm sorry I'm sorry that's correct is there is there any objection to moving item number uh 3A forward um seeing none item number 3A will'll move forward with cl now please read the title item number 3B 3B uh this is an ordinance uh for the city council amending various sections of chapter 130 related to economic Nexus and uh Trevor vau yes um are there any questions of Trevor is there any objection U to moving item number 3B forward seeing none item number 3B we'll move forward with C now please read the title item number 3C 3C this is a resolution um approving the Second Amendment for a five-year extension utility cost reimbursement between lar Colorado and Adonia Metro District good even Mary instead of council Susan is there a way to um allow me to share the brief presentation uh yes staff will set you up with presenter abilities okay um so um can you see the PowerPoint presentation yes we can okay uh so yeah good evening uh this is a just a brief overview of some maps of the Adonia reimbursement agreement extension um for those of you who aren't familiar with reimbursement agreements uh basically they are agreements that we enter in uh with the development Community when they are building infrastructure larger than what they need for their specific development in accordance with our Master plans so if we have say a 30inch diameter pipe that goes through their development to serve properties um that extend beyond their development they're required to build that Pipeline and then um can enter into a reimbursement agreement for the oversizing of that infrastructure um so the Adonia development uh developed started developing back in 2005 um and as you can see in the graphic uh kind of the left side of the Adonia development which is uh south of I70 and east of 470 um is was about halfway developed in 2005 um and then in 2008 when development slowed down uh paused on their development um about 320 Acres of of residential development um they're constructing the rest of the uh development right now um in 2005 they entered into a reimbursement agreement with the water department they constructed this is this is a Donia um the location of of the development um the green line that you can see is a 30inch diameter sewer main that they constructed for our Master plans they also uh constructed a 30inch water M as well as some infrastructure in and along the storm water channel that will also serve other properties um so at that time um the terms of the agreement which is very consistent with the terms that we require a reimbursement agreements now um that they must use an aurora water approved design firm and construction contractor um they have to obtain multiple bids for the work uh to ensure that it's price uh competitive uh we work with the developer to agree on an eligible reimbursement amount um those reimbursement amounts have to be backed up with pay requests and invoices uh for all those eligible costs um and all work is warranteed um since this was some time ago that infrastructures that warranty has expired um but all reimbursement agreements we do require warranty of that work um so the original agreement was signed in November of 2005 um it was a 15 year agreement with allowance for a 5-year term extension uh if the area was still under development uh 20 years is the typical agreement term and um Adonia received reimbursements via fee credits as well as uh reimbursements of fees collected by other developments as they tie into that infrastructure uh the original amount for Water waste water and storm water can be seen um in the table below so about a million dollars for water 7 30,000 for Wastewater and 1.1 million for storm water um for fee reimbursements um and that they've received to date um the water reimbursement has been completely satisfied uh we uh still have an outstanding obligation of 568 th000 for Wastewater um and 772 th000 um for storm water infrastructure um so those so the the question for this is it's basically a five-year term extension on the original agreement um to allow additional reimbursements uh for the next five years are there any questions or comments see what excuse me just a comment oh council member ber yes I was just going to say that this was um presented to the water policy committee and we were good with it very well uh any other further questions or comments seeing none is there any opposition uh to moving 3D forward seeing no opposition I'm I'm sorry um item number that was item number 3C um is there any opposition to moving item number 3C forward seeing none item number 3C will move forward with the cler now please read the title of item number 3D uh mayor and Council this is an item uh for an intergovernmental agreement between the US Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management and the city of Aurora regarding the Trout Creek Pond uh questions uh Alex Davis I am prepared to give a brief summary of the item if that's helpful or we can just go forward whatever you would prefer mayor oh go um I think go ahead and give a brief summary please thank you um good evening for the record my name is Alexandra Davis I am the assistant director for water for the for water resources for the Aurora Water Department uh this agreement is with the Bureau of Land Management the Bureau of Land Management the BLM owns and operates Trout Creek Pond which is Upstream of spinning Mountain reservoir on the Middle Fork of the South plot the pond has been in existence uh for decades but in 2014 the Division of Water Resources required the BLM to begin to augment the evaporation and they needed to F uh they needed to find a source of water for that augmentation plan that they filed in water courts the city entered into an IGA with the BLM on October 18th 2017 which Council approved for three acre feet of augmentation use for the Trout Creek pond in exchange for cooperation and other um activities that we work on together on the river since that time the Water Court Kate has Pro case has progressed and a larger amount of depletions has been requested by opposers and the BLM is seeking an additional 6.85 acre feet of augmentation Supply we recommend that the city Supply that 6.85 acre feet of additional augmentation water to the BLM at spinning Mountain at a cost of $550 per acre foot um and until and if the BLM is to is able to negotiate with the city of Thorton to cover that amount of water uh in the future they the BLM is does have an agreement with the city of Thorton surrounding that pond and the BLM has reached out to Thorton to see if they will cover the 6.85 acre feet of water the agreement in front of council at the study session tonight is a 10year lease with the ility to extend it for another 10 years are there any questions questions comments by see none is there any council member sorry um so just you know following up we did also approve this um at the water policy committee and one of the things we discussed is that this is part of the recreational fishing um that happens in that area that we want to be able to preserve her folks as we're engaging in our water programs further questions or comments I seeing none is there any opposition for moving item number 3D forward I seeing none item number 3D for we'll move forward with the CL now please read the title of item number 13e 3E is a um resolution on firefighter certification and deputy chief Cindy Anderson Miss Anderson good evening I'm here to answer any questions regarding moving this process forward the resolution is just an update to a formal IGA that IGA was put in place in 1996 so we combined all the addendums cleaned up to current language and moving it forward through the process the rest is attached are there any questions to staff I'm seeing none the question before us is uh whether or not to move item number 3E forward um uh is there any opposition I see no opposition item number 3E we'll move forward with clerk now please read the title of number 3F uh this is an a new ordinance for the city regarding marijuana delivery within the side the city and Robin Peterson um is available good evening mayor and Council this is Robin Peterson I'm the manager of the marijuana enforcement division on November fourth the committee met with various stakeholders such as the marijuana industry license owners in Aurora social Equity Advocates and Etc to ex to discuss marijuana delivery and social Equity it was a robust discussion on what the ordinance should include from various perspectives on November 5th the amendment 64 committee convened to craft based on the conversation held the day before a delivery ordinance however between the four members they were unable unable to come to a consensus so two options were prepared for conversation this evening to remind everyone the first part of both options include the proposed change from the city's more restrictive background requirements to line with the state's requ criteria of ownership and working in a license facility as I said same are for both options also the committee agreed that deliveries by the Aurora stores could be made to Aurora residents and to other jurisdictions that have allowed delivery into their in in their jurisdictions also deliveries could be made into aora from other jurisdictions that have been issued a delivery permit by the state as well from the jurisdiction they reside in if required this is cross-jurisdictional deliveries and this is also the same in both draft or options so for option one this provides for a reduced fee for the transporter license and delivery permit if the applicants are deemed to be social Equity lienes as defined by the state however anyone not just social Equity licenses that meet the requirements could apply for the transporter license and delivery permit it is also the intent the committee believes the stor or said the stores will will be allowed to deliver marijuana using their own employees if the store receives a delivery permit they can also hire this third party as well option two provides for an exclusivity period in Aurora for a period of 36 months only transporter licenses with an approved delivery permit will only be issued to a company that is 51% owned by a social Equity license e all interested parties that meet the requirements for a transporter license can apply but the delivery permit will be held for social Equity license applications only for the 36 months during this exclusivity period the transporter license will be issued at a reduced amount for the first two years of operation then it reverts to the full amount of the license for that third year in that same breath stores will be able to apply for the delivery permit if they want to use their own employees to make those deliveries if stores want to hire a third-party company I.E a transporter with a delivery permit to make its deliveries only social Equity licenses will be available for hire in Aurora for the first 36 months okay question I'm not I'm sorry just a little bit more a couple things thank you thank you mayor um just a couple of things I want to keep in mind that only store licenses and transporter licenses can apply for a delivery permit the state does not have its process in place at this time however statute said they must start accepting applications January 2nd 2021 very few jurisdictions have weighed in on delivery and Denver is currently discussing delivery and they have also been discussing delivery and social Equity Council you were provided um four additional information items receiv received from staff from stakeholders since the two meetings took place and I believe you also received a a communication directly from Kristen Tom Thompson on behalf of Medicine Man starbirds starbuds The Green Solution Colorado Harvest in Rocky Road these companies represent 10 of our 24 licensed stores and this item is also dual listed staff's question to council is which option do you choose and are there any changes or amendments to the options that you do choose okay um questions and comments question um council member Co um so Robin I just got a number of questions about not explicitly spelling out the transporter licenses in the initial sections where it saying saying that delivery is permitted which I believe is section A and of course I just lost my page in escribe um but so do and I know I've asked this before and it seems like your answer was since transporter licenses are spelled out in the state law they don't need to be spelled out here so I just wanted to clarify do we need to explicitly state that transport license Transporters can deliver in that first clause or is that covered by what's written in there um I'll defer to legal but I believe it is covered in the language that we have further questions yes mayor uh council member Bergen um I have a question on the I know we're trying to stay in line with the the state policy that we reduce felony uh convictions that our our code had said in the past 10 years and now we're matching the state to 3 years immedi immediately proceeding his or her application date um so there's no are there no exceptions to that and my I guess where I'm getting at is if someone uh was Distributing drugs illegally drug dealer and had a felony conviction would they still qualify under this three-year date I believe it would depend because we have other other things to look at and not just a federal uh drug drug felony um you look at good moral character there's other things you take as a whole package to take a look at this so that being said if it was within the three years it would allow us to look at them but that doesn't mean we have to grant that does that make sense well no okay um what if it was I I guess I'm trying okay so if it was if we change to the three years yes and so if if they had a felony four years ago for drug distribution illegal drug distribution they would still they would under the new law be eligible to participate in marijuana delivery servicing that is correct they would be eligible but again there's other things that we can look at that that may decide that they're ineligible but that's not the only thing we can use that for the four years or the three years excuse me okay and then my second question you mentioned that the state does not yet have any processes in place for the delivery services that is correct I talked with them today and they're still working on how the logistics and and how that's all going to play out after they receive their applications on January 2nd so is it your opinion I guess opinion that the current um model that we have with uh the operators in our city that have invested a lot of time and money into doing a very you know proper um operation very high quality that they would we would start with them first as far as delivery services to ensure the the quality process I'm not sure we would are you talking about giving delivery permits to the stores first I don't think there was any um first on who would would be able to deliver if they apply to the state um and they meet all the requirements then they would be um issued a permit and we would look at that too there's a lot of things that have to happen after they even get the application State's going to have to go in and and and um inspect the cars and make sure that they have all the gis all of the safety measures they have to look at the the stores to make sure that they have the um process in place for um to take the to take the delivery um to take the delivery um opt you know um oh I can't think of the word to to take that um the uh ah can't remember can't think of that word to take the the the order and then process it Del you know process it in the way that it is supposed to be processed so there's a lot of things that so the state isn't going to be issuing these things right on the first or the second they have a process they have to go through in order to say yay or nay and so we have we have that ability to to take that time to make sure that we marry up our process with what the state does just so that we are not providing another hurdle or a you know obstacle in their way then if they're if they're ordering from what they're doing a delivery order like you would right now with like a door Dash you give your credit card but that's illegal right you have to get use cash no they can use credit cards yeah can okay yeah okay thank you mayor council member Coons um so sorry Robin I had just another kind of cleanup language cleanup question so in e um section e it talks about the agent of the store yes um delivering is there do we know what that means is that the employee or is that meant to Encompass everybody um I can defer to legal but our conversation was that agent is going to refer to the store owner and also the transporter that they may want to hire because that transporter would be an agent of that store to make its deliveries for them okay so that employee that that is employed by the the store they would also be an agent of that store to be although they're an employee but but they're both considered agents on the delivery and so that that is why legal used agent in there and not the specific language of you know transporter and all that so as long as we understand that and that and we make sure that people understand that's what we mean our intent in the is using agent Robin go ahead I'm sorry can we go ahead and have just like a definition somewhere just so that's clear um what the agent is um and then in section d i just wanted to make sure this is like a list of the different types of product and how much is permitted so where it says no more than none of those Clauses are modifying each other it's just a list right in correct okay yeah those are the state limits okay further questions or comments um Robin um in terms of your best professional judgment uh is there a staff recommendation for the best option um I'm I'm not going to no there isn't we can do either one of those options okay the council member Gardner thank you um I want to talk a little bit about uh the exclusivity piece um for context for the council members that weren't at uh the amendment 64 committee meeting and then also talk a little bit about where the idea for the discount um discounted fee or or what's kind of morphed into a grant where that came from um so there's a there's a a legal term known as disperate impact um essentially if you have a policy in place that um impacts a protected class um more so than other classes you have the risk of legal action being sued right um and and at our amendment 64 committee meeting one of the things the attorneys advised against was um a exclusivity for social Equity applicants now um most people are probably aware uh the social Equity definition is race neutral um there's no mention of race or or any other protected class as it pertains to um the definition in state law however if we were to um only allow for 36 months exclusivity for social Equity applicants um there could be protected classes that are negatively impa acted and um could the city could face legal action for that um that that same concept exists in lending and and housing and a lot of other areas um so one of the ideas that I had I had thrown out at the um amendment 64 uh meeting was essentially doing a discounted fee for social Equity applicants rather than allowing or or giving us exclusivity to one group uh using that fee to incentivize the um activity that we want to see um so if we want to see more social Equity applicants uh discounting that fee fairly significantly um and I think the proposal is 75% um and and instead of running the risk of of of the the legal action through exclusivity using that fee to incentivize the action we want to see um of the two options proposed I'm in favor of the first one I'm not in favor of the second one because the second proposal essentially does exclusivity and then also discounts the fee um and really what I was was was aiming to do was use the fee to incentivize social Equity applicants um so I just wanted to clarify that and why those two options exist um in in in these in these proposals for for the other council members who weren't there further questions or comments Council Ms actually I'll let bins go first because she's been waiting to go for a while sorry verions thank you yeah as as chair of the 64 committee we've been working really hard on this I mean for months we've been working hard on it and uh last week we had a meeting two meetings back to back and we heard from the community we heard from legal and we talked about a lot of different things and um we do understand how how um new people want to get into the business how they haven't been able to get into it um and we did talk a lot about social equity and how we need to help them everybody understands that um but when legal came in and told us you know we're really putting the city at risk by giving uh an exclusive contract to one specific group of people um that probably wouldn't be a good thing so as uh council member Gardner said you know he came up with the 75% discount um and and the first the first option when we first talked about it was absolutely free you know just give them the the license for free and then we thought you know then they won't have any skin in the game you know if you're starting a new job you want a little skin in the game so a 75% discount came about um which I think once we talk talked it over everybody kind of agreed if you're going to give a discount 75% is pretty good uh and give that for three years but to just limit it to a certain group honestly we don't know um how many people how many Transporters we're going to need we don't know are we going to need 24 are we going to need 12 are we going to need 30 we just don't know and to limit that that section of people that of applicants would not be a good idea because we just don't know how many we need how many are going to apply so the option one was open it up to everyone but give the social Equity folks a 75% discount and then for three years and then hopefully they will come in right away and put their name on the list and uh as Robin said there are a lot of lot of hurdles that anybody has to has to go over to get this license it's not a done deal just because you put your name on the line and you know give some information they're going to be checked out so that's really how we came up with this um because I don't want to put the city in any harm or in in any any way shape or form open to litigation by only allowing uh a certain group to get in so I just wanted to share that but it's not as complicated as it sounds it sounds really complicated but it's really not you have to pass you have to pass the rules you know you have to hook up with a retail you just don't go out and say hey I'm G to do it you have to hook up with the retail store um and I would suggest that the people that want to do it the social Equity folks get in there and and get with the retailers and start working with them and come up with a negotiated package with them uh you know before they come to Aurora you know business is all about negotiation and I think this is a good way for people that haven't been able to get in in business to to to get their foot in the door further questions or comments council member May so I want to cover a few of the things that were stated with respect to social Equity first of all is that the state already considered these legal questions in creating the definition of a social Equity applicant and they created those definitions after looking at other social Equity programs throughout the country and which were found to be illegal and which were not and only Ohio's was and so they didn't use that model um and one of the things that they looked at and have talked about and has been discussed on this subject um in the year and a half that other folks have been having the conversation before we got to it in Aurora is that in Massachusetts they tried a program like what's being discussed without the exclusivity namely giving incentives but not having an exclusivity period and they found that almost no social Equity applicants were licensed on that basis and so that's the reason for looking at the exclusivity period is because simply doing the incentives has not been shown to work in terms of promoting social equity in marijuana in other programs throughout the country and so the intent is to create that exclusivity period to ensure that people both are able to address the access to Capital issues and the structural barriers that they faced and that's what those definitions in the Colorado law are intended to do is to address the structural barriers that have prese prevented social Equity applicants from having businesses in our state thus far um and so that's the reason to do both and again the legal questions have been addressed in the 18 months of conversation that went into implementing the state's definitions of social Equity further questions or comments ber uh council member ber um so I have question on actually I I don't I don't like uh giving favoritism to anybody I think everybody you know can apply and and if if you I think as council member uh Bon said negotiate with the stores I I don't think the city should be involved in showing favoritism that's my my opinion I do have question on the fees because if we're looking at a 75% discount for three years what what is that amount can staff answer that Robin we we haven't really landed on that we did talk about a $2500 fee um the state has I believe a $10,000 fee so there's still a heavy lift there so our our fee for for the delivery service would be around we're looking at 2500 so then it would be 75% off of the 2500 yes that's what we discussed yes then I guess there's discussion as fees are often considered a way around taxing so is that why the ordinance now says grant instead of fees yes it is council member so it's just a way to get around that I mean are we not We're not gonna get challenged well grants are easier to defend than reduction of fees Grant think of it like a scholarship it's easier to give scholarships to universities uh for people who have grown up in any disadvantaged manner uh but to reduce the fees is to say well this fees get challenged more than grants and grants are easier to uh defend for the city so the reason we're offering a discount on the fees or or the exclusivity of of no no other competition in the city but just all people for 36 months to have exclusivity is is because there's a barrier to entry so they are you is the is the barrier the money that they don't have the money to invest in a business I mean that's there's no loans out there in the marketplace I mean that that's the policy decision for for the council to make I mean obviously you're talking about two different things you're talking about one the financial aspect right the exclusive aspect um one thing to state with the state the state did come down um did create and spend the time um doing social Equity however the state didn't Define the benefit other than a financial benefit so the state um in this very last section states that if you qualify as a social Equity licensee you may be eligible so it doesn't even say you are eligible but you may be eligible for incentives available through the Department of Revenue um including but not limited to reduction ction and application or license fees uh the state does not exclude anybody in there so if we do exclude in ours we would be going beyond what the state has as far as a social Equity benefit if you want to stay with the state that would be some sort of fee aspect and you would go with uh in in within our uh legal discussions we've determined that the grant is an easier form to defend than a a grant program to give benefit to people who are who have been economically disadvantaged okay so you mentioned social Equity um that the state has defined it what what is the definition I mean how are we defining it in this particular situation for the marijuana delivery so we we did adop the state meaning the state's the one who makes the decision on social Equity if the applicant qualifies and they did um put down um a list of what you have to qualify by and one is you have to be a Colorado resident um you can't be have a license that is under some form of suspension um and then you've demonstrated go ahead yeah I get what you can't be but who are you like who are the people that qualify under and that's and that's the was the next thing so you've demonstrated at least one of the following so one one out of one out of three aspects um you have to have resided in one of the the disadvantaged areas um and that's determined by the federal government and and it's what we would be consider now an opportunity Zone uh from 1980 to 2010 you have to reside for 15 years and you would have to provide some sort of documentation that you resided there um that is one and you only have to meet one of the three the second one is you have to have some form of um um legal trouble from from marijuana uh marijuana PHS convicted conviction or uh was subject to civil asset due to um due to the uh the applicant or the applicant's parents so so if the applicant or the parent has been arrested has had convictions due to marijuana um then they could uh apply as a social Equity applicant and then the final one is the applicant's household income in the year prior to application did not exceed an amount determined by rule of the State Licensing Authority and that would be uh they'd look at their taxes so so those are one of three that they have to qualify for but then there's an there's one last and that prong is the social Equity licy or collectively one or more lenses meaning um multiple ones could could hold the same license hold at least 51% of the beneficial ownership of the regulated marijuana business license and so they would also have to have 51% ownership so there's there's quite a few Hoops to have to jump through to qualify for as a social um social Equity licy so but you the second one you mentioned was again the legal trouble which I kind of alluded to earlier so if you had a conviction for distrib distribution of illegal drugs you're you would be able to qualify under so not only do you get to get in the business even though you distributed illegal drugs with a felony conviction but then you also get to have a discount or favoritism on on either exclusivity or the discount in the fees so it would be it would be just for the marijuana and not when you say illegal drugs it would not be for all drugs it' be just for marijuana and I I suspect I was not a part of the discussions with that I suspect that is because marijuana is now legal and they are looking at it as if it's now legal we're gonna we're gonna give some breaks to people who have been arrested due to marijuana in the past okay well that that would make more sense but I the way I read it it it didn't specify just marijuana conviction it said any felony you know beyond I mean with if you're within three years and you have a felony you you can't participate but if you have a felony beyond the three years you would be able to and in you're talking about the earlier part of the uh amended St amended code correct yeah I guess I'm getting confused on I get it if you because marijuana is now legal that that wouldn't count but I guess I'm trying to get clarification if any felony in the statute it talks about marijuana conviction in the statute okay yeah all right in the rules excuse me in the rules that are interpreting the statute and I guess we're talking about two different things if you're talking about for social Equity it's just marijuana got it if you're talking about our changes Pryer up in the ordinance for who can apply for um licenses and employees working and so forth we are getting more in state line with their criteria now that is that is separate from the social Equity discussion okay thank you Mayor Johnson mayor PRM Johnson thank you um I was I was gonna address some of it but I think um C money did because I want to make sure we're talking about those two different things I've been on the amendment 64 committee me policy committee for several years and wanted to get rid of that requirement we actually don't even allow we didn't even allow someone with a misdemeanor to be able to to qualify for a license and when we were talking about favoritism we've done favoritism we said if you have a misdemeanor no you have to have an absorbent amount of capital to be able to to be in here and there were all of these hoops that went through and there was the War on Drugs where with a marijuana conviction it was disproportionately affecting community ities of color so with all of that having an exclusivity period which is what I support option two with council member kums um we're we're trying to counter some of the the the the policies the systemic issues problems that that we put in place in the first place so I I want to say there's a lot here us as amendment 64 committee members got to do a deep dive and had a a study session in August this is raring to go however there were some potential confusion from the intent of what the amendment 64 committee had discussed and then what made it into our packet and we've had different stakeholders reach out to council today talking about different amendments I while I'm while I'm clear um I am not comfortable with having this dual list listed um for a floor boat tonight I already have a little discomfort when it comes to dual listing when that happens I can feel that it's appropriate if it's very timely and it's the same basically the same ordinance that council is seeing at study as they see on the floor for a vote the same night this is not there um I would propose not going back to policy but just getting this all ironed out today we still have to discuss some proposed amendments making sure we're clear on either the exclusivity or or the other option um with with opening it up but get that all ironed out and then go to get final language and go to the floor for a vote on December 7th thank you mayor counc so as far as the the legal issues um apparently council member has different legal advice than I do because the the email have from the city attorney's office today says any program of exclusivity has the potential of a disperate impact claim um and furthermore even the risk assessment that was submitted by the color of cannabis also states that now they call it minor but they also agree that there's a risk of a legal claim um so I I do want to point that out the other piece I want to mention um I've talked to a couple of operators that have concerns that by giving an exclusivity period we are essentially creating an arbitrary cap uh won't allow them to do delivery in a timely manner they have concerns that there will not be enough social Equity um applicants ready to go once the delivery period starts now I will acknowledge there's other operators that don't have that same concern um but I do think that's something that we need to think about um you know in context of our you know we we place an arbitrary cap on licenses which I've gone on record of saying I don't agree with I think in this case we would be doing the same thing um I think we need to let the market determine how many uh licenses um are needed but if we want to um see certain applicants we incentivize that activity okay mayor council member and we ought to be able to at some bring this at least in terms of having a direction council member just with respect to the legal issue again um Massachusetts did after not having any benefit from their prior uh social Equity programs for licensing businesses did Implement exclusivity for delivery and has not faced any legal challenges in their delivery exclusivity okay um further discussion we we it looks like we have we have to make a decision uh on two options and then uh mayor PRM raised an issue in terms of uh we ought to vote on it mayor council member Bergen yeah um I I I do not like the the idea of it being dual listed tonight where we really you us who've not been on the on the marijuana committee are having to digest all of this and the two different options and and we have emails from different operators it it would be nice to have a little more time okay so let me let me ask this question first uh is there any um is there any objection um uh for dual listing it tonight is there yes Pro 10 uh further object I I object further objection gr objects okay further objection Gardner okay okay um a majority um have risen uh so then the the the next question then is uh what option that we have two options before us I thought that's why we were not du listing it so that well don't we have to don't we have to make that decision now though yeah we still decide which version of the ordinance is coming forward to the floor on December 7th so we we have to decide a version uh council member gner well I would move for version one okay is there objection to version one object object would like to speak yes I council member bin thank you I would like to know I getting back to what council member Kum said I would like to know that for sure um because legal our legal has said one thing and council member Coons is saying something else that our state legislature will promise that we will not be sued we will not get into any litigation and if we do the State Legislature will fight it for us and pay all the bills because I don't believe it I did not say that okay well uh basically but I don't believe that they are guaranteeing that we will not open ourselves up to any litigation if we if we only say a certain kind of people can get in here and get these license and anybody else any we are such a diverse City we look at look at the different languages the diversity and if somebody else wants to come in and say Hey you know I want to get into this I I'm a diverse person and we say nope sorry can't do it can't do it we are opening ourselves up to litigation and I just don't understand why the state thinks that it's not or or the legislature think that it's not an issue for for cities we're a home rulle City we should be able to make our own rules and have our own legal decisions I I just don't understand how the state is saying this okay further comments May coun the state didn't say that we have to do X Y or Z but they've been through a lot of discussions vetting these definitions is the point and similar programs have been implemented without legal challenge I'm not saying the state said you Aurora here's your legal advice that's not what I'm saying at all okay I I misunderstood then because I thought that's what you said and I mean Aurora Colorado is not like Massachusetts or Los Angeles or whatever you know no two cities are the same okay thank you forther forther discussion on whether to move option number one forward for the discuss G council member gr so the point I want to make is that we should never put ourselves in a situation where we know we're setting ourselves up to be uh sued that we're going to be this will be litigated uh I I think that restricting that competition would do that to us and I find that not to be a very prudent move for the city to make very well um further discussion on option number one uh is there objection to moving option number one forward mayor I object johnon member mood I object to option council member HS KS Maro in case you didn't catch me objected as well but she's muted oh okay uh CIO yes I object but we don't have okay [Music] um so I have council member kums council member marono council member Johnston council member Hils council member Morel in opposition May Lawson n Lawson she's muted though she just raised her hand again nope okay you're still muted sorry Angela Angela can you okay yes okay opposition one okay um then is there opposition to to uh the second is there opposition to the second option yes okay um well let me put it matter okay um well um those in opposition to or those who are in opposition to uh option number one supportive of option number two uh council member kums is is that the case I mean I support number two yeah I can't speak for everyone else council member Marano yes I support number two May Johnson yes I support to uh council member HS yes council member Mario yes counc member Lawson yes I support two option number two will move forward may may I have a question for legal uh yes thank you um Mr money should we have broken that down into two different questions I mean shouldn't we have a question do you support delivery number one and then the second part instead we've just thrown it all into one I mean you could do that you couldn't you could divide and pass delivery and do the social Equity piece later or you could do it all as one so really is up to the policy makers mayor Dave grber C grber we also haven't discussed the uh inter city transfer of of product to allow Denver to sell product into Aurora and Aurora to sell product Denver or other cities uh to sell product into Aurora uh Aurora to sell into other cities uh the impact on medical marijuana on the city and and issues like that to say nothing of uh um as mayor proam Johnston had said we've received many comments just in the last few hours from the industry saying that they have concerns about both of these that we have on uh the agenda tonight I I think both of them um if we're going to go with option number two there are just deeper issues that that um may take quite a while to resolve tonight mayor um I thought I thought we were not do a listing it tonight okay we're not so we're looking only at the exclusivity version to move forward to December 7th and and we have a lot of disagreement on the legal action I mean there there's um trade group in Los Angeles California that recently sued the city um over its plan to to offer deliver licenses exclusive uh ex exclusively to uh social Equity so applicants so can we get can we get a cost to the city um if we are sued and what attorney fees and all that would you know so I'm concerned about being sued but I'm also concerned that we won't even have um enough delivery services to meet demand well we we will have another option another opportunity to well we have we will have two opportunities to vote on it and two opportunities to amend it further uh going forward but uh with staff I mean U the majority have Arisen to move option number two forward yes I'm asking staff to give me a cost analysis of what potential legal cost would be to the taxpayers city attorney's office we we can uh look at some some claims um let's say if it does come down to some form of desperate impact claim we could look at what some other cities have had to pay in legal fees um any type of Damages and so forth we can we can track something down okay further questions or comments mayor Johnston uh Mayor prend Johnson um just given what council member guber said could we have Robin talk about the inner jurisdictional or um cross jurisdictional delivery so we can solidified sure you want me to explain what that is okay um what the what the committee had agreed upon I believe was that Aurora stores could deliver to Aurora residents and also to any other jurisdiction that allowed delivery into their city now the next one was that okay since we're delivering into their City we said okay you guys can deliver other cities like Denver for example could make a delivery into Aurora because they have allowed delivery in their city and we're stating that they can come into our city to deliver to our Aurora residences does that does that make sense and clear but again it has to be they excuse me I'm sorry go ahead well there are two two questions on that so the first one is tax related as far as how you know how do we ensure that the tax are taken care of and the second is medical marijuana since we don't have that in Aurora from what I understand from legal is that we cannot accept any deliveries of medical marijuana into the city because that would be a sale because we'd be receiving um sales tax from that sale the sales tax is given to where it is delivered so if Denver delivered into Aurora that Denver store is going to have to pay Aurora tax and it would have to have a sales tax license it would have to remit those taxes on each sale that was given to our city and not just Denver it'd be Boulder it would be anybody that has delivery would have to do that and us also our people our stores are going to have to take on that responsibility just like every other um company that sells things into other jurisdictions they all have to remit tax into the other cities that they sell into okay is there is there any opposition to reciprocity which is what Robin just described okay see n well I have a question on the medical uh C so uh we don't do medical marijuana and but is medical marijuana taxed at a lower rate than recreational it's taxed at a um the regular rate it does not have a special marijuana tax typically okay so if um if Aurora I mean sorry Denver or whatever other jurisdictions delivered into Aurora could could someone order medical marijuana and then not we would not get the same tax revenue no because they couldn't deliver the medical into Aurora they can't they can't order it because it can't be delivered okay okay okay is Council um Robin I do have a question so I understand that wherever the sale takes place that particular jurisdiction or that store will get the tax um with the transport piece is there anything and they come from Cross jurisdictional is there any Poss is there any fee that we would get as the city like if Denver came into a to Aurora to give to a consumer you know they're doing the transporting or is there any fee that the city would get from that or is that on the onus of the of the of the store to take on that I'm sorry if I'm complicating the question I'm just trying to understand that sure um now this this the store say Aurora delivers into Denver Aurora is gonna get a dollar for our enforcement the tax on that sale is going to go to Denver my store in Aurora is going to have to collect Denver Tax and remit it to T or remit it to Denver and vice versa to anybody else that's outside that allows delivery but we get whoever if you don't get the tax you get a dollar search charge now we could probably do something on top of that if you wish um but that is by Statute $1 for the enforcement okay but that could be negotiable with the jur dition if they wanted that particular to be up I believe it could yes oh okay you believe that it could um Dan Dan May Dan may I yeah I believe I believe the statute says that if we want to go beyond the $1 we can we can raise that okay thank you further questions or comments Dave grber Council grber so the stores that I talk to have a concern about the Amazon model and that is is that um you know say say a a a large distributor doesn't have a a storefront at all and sells purely uh via delivery like Amazon does so that would they would be able to come in at a lower price given the fact that they don't have a brick and mortar store per se and they're selling everything via web and uh they would be able to undercut uh the stores in Aurora you know we're going to have that debate I you know we we'll make this but we are opening up the door for an Amazon model of marijuana distribution within the city from a distributor outside the city so yes we'd be able to collect the tax but at a cost to the businesses in Aurora that may be very high Robin I I want to make sure that you know you a store you can't have a virtual store you have to have a location somewhere you can't it's not like I I can run my you know deliveries out of my house you have to have a licensed premise if I could mayor yeah so so again the point is is that yes you could have a licensed premise but it would be an Amazon store it you know so in other words it wouldn't be you know now as you walk throughout the city we have our marijuana stores distributed throughout the different Wards uh We've limited them and and so on and a competition between them is is based on their best business practices uh and then also the way they treat their customers so their customers you know may leave their own ward in order to go to a different Ward because they like the store there better than theirs what we're setting up here is is a way for again like an Amazon delivery where where you would yes they would be able to meet all the legal requirements of the city of Aurora but they'd be able to distribute throughout Aurora throughout Denver throughout the other cities uh and towns surrounding Us in such a way to significantly undercut um um what the uh businesses in Aurora have done I see that's good or bad you know that that's a debate some of the companies I've talked to are very concerned about it but I just want to make sure that as Council proceeds down this decision that we consider the impact on on the businesses in our city Rob CC so just to clarify at this point what we're looking at is that our currently licensed stores can deliver and can contract with a transporter to deliver is that correct that's correct correct okay thank you mayor if I could but we're also saying that at the same time we just made the decision that we will allow uh uh stores from outside of the city to deliver into the city if the city delivers in you know if if Aurora stores can deliver into that City whether it's Denver Commerce which whichever the surrounding cities and towns so there could be a store and and I'm going to make this up but say in Brighton or say uh far out east where the costs are are much lower and they could deliver uh uh if we delivered into strawberg or you know I'm making this up but but if we delivered into that area they would be able to deliver into Aurora and and because their cost of businesses are lower because their storefront costs are lower then they would go into the Amazon model where there're a distribution Service uh from a warehouse through a uh uh just a front end a web front end to the households in Aurora perect welcome to competition is it okay um I'm sorry did we make the decision on reciprocity is this going to I I believe there was no opposition to well council member grber is opposed is there any opposition to reciprocity uh there's none okay uh are there any other issues left to discuss on on the marijuana ISS I there is there is one issue mayor and I apologize for stepping in here but the uh there has been with the uh different voices um of the stakeholders on where we put the social Equity do we put it on the transporter license we put it on the delivery permit and the the difference and why I ask is um anybody with a delivery permit needs a transporter license but a transporter Li LIC is broader uh and what they do uh than a delivery permit they have multiple actions under that transporter license they can provide Logistics they can distribute uh they can do delivery and they can do storage and so if we put the exclusion the the 36 month exclusion on the transporter license um it would affect possibly those other actions versus on the uh on the delivery permit um and and there I know those seem like small distinctions but I have heard requests for either the transporter license or the permit aspect and I think how we have it now is we've put it on the the delivery permit that we are issuing from the city so as long as everybody's okay with that um I have just heard other I believe I've heard other voices saying put it on the transporter license and if is there is there um you're saying put it on the permit well it if we put it on the license The Transporter license it it would affect the transporter license has is a broader uh broader action than just delivery and so are we looking to give social Equity to the uh to the deliverers the delivery permit are they are we doing it for the transporter license and for those who are um such as council member kums who have been very involved in this I am unsure of what her direction if she wants to transport a license or delivery permit and if she understands uh I'm the distinction I'm trying to make because I've between the stakeholders I feel like I've I've heard different um okay soes let me clarify because if we put it on the delivery permit that would actually prevent the stores from getting that so we don't want it on that because we want the stores to be able to get the permits otherwise we can't do the delivery so it's specifically on the transporter license not the delivery permit is there any objection to having it on the transporter license okay saying none it will be on the transport license are there any other uh uh issues that that need to be decided staff nope I think that's it very well okay um then um item number 3G will move well uh is there as we've discussed uh in 3G in its current form is there opposition to moving item number I'm sorry 3 F4 is there opposition to moving item number 3F forward in the form that we've discussed seeing none item number 3F will move forward with the STA please read the uh title of item number 3G mayor just I would like to H clarify 3F you guys had asked for that not to be dual listed tonight so forward to a future meeting that's correct the next item is uh Trevor Von with the state sales tax and use simplification okay this is an IGA with the state and I can give an overview if desired otherwise I can defer to questions are there any questions of Trevor I seeing none is there any opposition to moving item number 3G forward but seeing none item number 3G will move forward uh items from the city manager item number 4 a um with the staff please read the title um this is just a discussion with the fire rescue fee for the 2021 budget okay um Chief gray Chief gray good evening mayor and councel uh we're actually gonna have a presentation if that's okay mayor well please okay uh again we'll try to condense it as much as possible uh Miss Barkman could someone give uh Matthew wasserberger uh presentation rights yes Patty will you set up Matthew with that it should take just a second to click over okay and for the sake of time just to give a quick overview um Mr wasserberger is actually the assistant director of Management Services for aori rescue uh he's going to go through a presentation that will basically uh delineate uh you know our approach to actually implementing the fees uh you'll see that we actually have a g chart for each one of the respective fees and also I just wanted to clarify um a couple comments that I've received from some council members uh one of the things that you will find is the fact that the title of the fees basically uh even though all of these are are common fees none of them are novel you will see different names used uh depending upon the jurisdiction so uh Matthew uh if you don't mind just go ahead and go through the presentation and we'll tackle any questions that might come up at the conclusion sure yes sir uh so I believe everyone can see the screen I'm hoping so this discussion is uh involving the uh 2021 uh adopted budget items for the Aurora fire uh rescue uh Department uh we had about $1.4 million of balancing impact uh proposals there three of which uh were fees new fees that we're looking to uh Implement and then one was a reduction in service uh to the msus which council did uh half that at the budget Workshop so this discussion will only go into our three fees here and kind of explain those uh further for Council and allow for any questions uh with our fire inspection fees uh the current model uh is that there is no first inspection fee charg by the city we only charge a $432 uh kind of reinspection fee uh when we have to come out after a failed first inspection uh the cost of the fire inspections program is about $671,000 of which we only recover about $5,000 in fees uh due to this reinspection fee in 2021 we are looking for a more accurate cost recovery of our services based on best practices where we charge a first inspection fee based on occupancy type and square footage kind of Ensure higher risk and higher occupancy uh units will pay higher fees uh we developed these fees uh based on industry best practices we looked uh you know for reference from uh the international fire code uh as well as looking at our neighboring jurisdictions of Denver south met West met as well as national uh best practice agencies uh to develop these fees we also received feedback from the uh Aurora business Advisory Board um by presenting those fees uh in September of 2020 and we look to have Contin dialogue with the bab uh kind of as we Implement these fees uh here you can kind of see the draft proposal uh of those fees and again in short as the square footage of in occupancy increases or the hazard increases or the uh occupancy load increases so does the fee uh here's a quick gamp chart to kind of show our anticipated uh launch of the new fees uh the blue color kind of shows the uh task that we've already done and this uh primarily for this fee uh is the public Outreach uh and the development of the fee and the fee structure uh the orange color is kind of Fe you know the next steps um really what that entails is uh looking at our own internal practi or our own internal processes um kind of setting up our own billing procedures working in the new asella program testing that uh in the beginning part of next year uh with hopefully going to launch on these new fees by the end of March uh and then of course we uh do anticipate some future uh public Outreach and coming back to council uh to to kind of go over how these fees are going um and we always promise a continuous Improvement by evaluating uh the process uh the seam mitigation fee is our second fee uh the current structure there is that pretty much Aurora fire rescue charges no fees right now for motor vehicle accidents uh despite the fact that Aurora fire rescue plays a number of valuable roles on the scene of a motor vehicle accident we ensure uh scene safety provide patient care uh clean up the roadway we get it ready to be operational again so that cars can pass uh and we dispose of any large scale uh hazardous waste products uh that were due to the to the vehicle crash um we do get reimbursements from these large scale hazardous waste cleanups um when we use a third party vendor so that's kind of our current model and and how we base this fee in 2021 um so this would be kind of a more broad fee uh charged to all motor vehicle uh collisions and vehicle fires uh that will be charged kind of uh a time and material contract you know fee uh we plan on waving these fees for Aurora residents feeling that Aurora residents do pay uh taxes for Aurora fire rescue response um and that we could wave these fees for those individuals uh the industry the car industry uh car insurance industry is uh beginning to cover these fees so we think that's um going to continue here that uh these fees that we do charge uh a responsible party uh will be covered by their car insurance uh we do see this happen with our Hazmat billing uh where a large portion of our Hazmat uh reimbursement bills are covered by the responsible parties insurance company here are the metrics on motor vehicle accidents in Aurora um and kind of getting to how we got to our 3 or $375,000 cost recovery number uh you can see at the top that uh the average time on scene of a motor vehicle accident is about 24 minutes 24 seconds there's about 3,000 motor vehicle accidents per year uh in the city of Aurora we did a rough estimate that about 70% of these motor vehicle accidents will involve an aurora resident so the fee will be waved um and that only 30% would be n residents eligible for the fee on average uh it's about $520 per hour plus materials uh for our response and that's how we got to that $375,000 number uh Council was uh very uh interested in kind of what neighboring fire and EMS agencies do um in response to these fees so we conducted a phone survey of our neighboring agencies to kind of see what they're doing and so this is uh kind of the feedback from from the seam mitigation fee and as Chief gray mentioned number of agencies call things different terms so it was uh somewhat difficult to try and narrow down what they're doing but from what we gathered uh Evergreen fire is very close to the model that we want to get to in 2021 uh which is a $500 fee for residents outside the district um for the first 90 minutes um and then a lot of the agencies closer to us like North met South met um benett uh charged for HazMat so when there is a large scale hazardous waste cleanup and maybe a third party is contracted to to provide that clean up then the city will try and recover costs in those entities or city or District just a quick slide of the uh C mitigation fee uh since it will be charged based on time and material this spe schedule was included in the 2021 uh feed packets that you get and just kind of highlights how we would go about charging that fee of using the the labor costs plus the cost of the equipment that respond uh to the seam and right here is a Gant chart uh for our seam mitigation fee and again uh we've kind of just begin the initial stages of uh looking at Best Practices from other agencies narrowing down what our fees look like uh and now we have the heavy lifts uh coming of looking at aring procedures kind of AUD ating our internal billing uh to see how the city could go about charging these fees most likely what this will result in is a thirdparty billing uh contract needed um so we would just use some sort of RFP to evaluate thirdparty billers uh and what value they can provide the city uh in terms of billing uh we would then you know review things incorporate our RMS uh so again this fee has a larger la date you know going out into mid year um and that's based on kind of our new RMS system uh we're looking at implementing a new uh Records management system at the the end of this year um and that's for the patient care side uh with uh the fire you know reports and motor vehicle reports happening in the beginning of the year so we kind of think it's a good opportunity for us to uh to marry a billing platform with a new records management system making sure that those truly integrate um and are efficient uh and then finally we have our treat no transport fee uh the current structure is that Aurora fire rescue does not charge for patient care um we are usually the first to arrive on the scene We Begin patient care uh and we pretty much maintain uh medical control for those patients uh through the duration until they're transported to the hospital uh the only person that charges is the thirdparty vendor for ambulance transport uh and they charge only if the individual is transported to the hospital this Fe in 2021 the changes to that would be that we would initiate a uh $175 fee for patients that are transported medically or that are treated medically by the uh by aora fire rescue Personnel uh but are not transported uh we'll again continue to initiate all patient care in the city this slide here shows again how we got to our $450,000 cost recovery number uh for a treat no transport fee uh the average time on scene of an aurora uh EMS call is about 30 minutes uh we see approximately uh 3,500 no transports annually per year um everybody in would be uh charged or be looked at for that $175 fee um however we are considering waivers for financial hardship um and then some of the questions that came across in our Council questions during the budget process was is lift assist included in this and the answer is yes so of that 3600 treat no transports about 1600 per year are lift assists uh and under kind of this proposal to council we were considering a lift assist to be a treat no transport uh that would be responsible for the fee um and so again that's about $450,000 a cost recovery uh again we looked at neighboring EMS agencies and jurisdictions to uh uh who was doing this and again there was a number of different terms being thrown out there but what we saw was again Evergreen fire um Bennett Watkins and North met were charging uh a fee for treat no transport and then the three agencies that you see at the bottom there uh provide more of a hybrid model where uh they're sending out a arm car or a advanced resource medic unit uh to patients that consent to this type of treatment so again this is relieving The Strain on the uh the 911 system uh but they're again going out there and billing uh for these consensual V visits uh through you know a third party you know through your insurance provider um Blue Cross Blue Shield or Kaiser and then uh our kind of launch date on this spe uh is a little harder to pin down but we're hoping for a a mid 2021 uh date at the best uh case scenario again we're just in the initial stages here of looking at what uh we need to do for our internal processes uh for billing uh once we're a billing agency we really need to make sure that our data is secure um and following Hippa guidelines uh so again a large portion of this process will be uh ensuring the protection of patient data um and then also working with a thirdparty Biller uh and getting the systems integrated uh our internal systems with uh with that uh and then again hoping to uh to launch this fee in mid 2021 with that is there any questions yes I have questions yes uh Council Bergen yes uh thank you and I know you guys are going to present at my town hall also um because I've had some questions from constituents so first on the inspection fee so we currently do not charge until they fail an inspection so the first one is free and um I didn't really get the cost I couldn't tell from the chart can you tell me what the cost is I know you said it's based on square footage but what is the minimum and what could be the maximum my first question sure uh so yes it would be based on square footage and occupancy and then also type so there would be some uh types of occupancies that would only need to be reinspected every third year um so again those costs would vary and if I if you allow me to go back in the slide uh you can see here that uh I know it's it's hard to see so again uh let's just look at you know General businesses a retail store a retail store sure so a retail store of 500 square ft or less would be $15 but a retail store of 50,000 square ft² or more uh would be a base charge of $115 plus 250 per 1,000 square feet so again there a little bit of math so why the 115 plus 250 why not just a flat fee a flat on the big like a Walgreens that I guess that's would beig 50,000 um I guess yeah I believe the thought was again these were based on some industry best practices what neighboring jurisdictions were doing so we I can have those answers to you I'll ask our life Safety Division why they okay but so current I just want So currently um it's only after the failed inspection corre you so if what if they fail three times do we currently not charge for any of them um I believe we just charge once they pass so on their final okay okay then my second one is on the scene mitigation fee and you said when you showed the chart of the other jurisdictions I really didn't see anybody charging except for um unless it was a big hazardous cleanup mess correct yes only we would be the only one in our area to do this uh correct yes most are only doing it for the large scale Hazmat or if a third party vendor uh is contracted for cleanup which is Castle Rock fire you said uh that car insurance will cover it or may cover it they again it's based on how well the records are taken but yeah with a new records management system with training uh that yes we anticipate that uh you know our billing would be would meet the standards to where a car insurance company would pay that but every car insurance company would pay it I guess it would depend on a individual's policy right it would most likely depend on yeah each individual agen type on of their car insurance cor then of course there might be a deductible that that would have to be paid correct okay then then my last one is on the treat no transport and so I hear a lot of residents that are like why are we paying taxes my taxes cover the cost of having firefighters and and fire services and so I am concerned on the treat no transport um because currently fee I understand you know you have abuse in that situation um but why why don't we say first time free and then a second offense a third offense you get charged I mean I I feel like you're penalizing people if they you know first time they ever use a treat no transport and and and it's part of our taxes and again the deduction will be in their health care cost the dble I mean uh correct yeah these will be build directly to the individual um again we did some research in what other agencies charge and I actually have not seen kind of that waiver for a first defense or even though it's not an defense it's a actual call of need um we there are agencies within the metro area that do charge a subscription model um where you would pay kind of to have a lower you know a lower fee and then could use it for the whole year so if you knew you were going to have the potential for multiple responses to your address uh you could charge you know there was that subscription model right well again we're we're looks like nobody else does this except for very small fire um departments like Evergreen correct and Bennett and of course they have limited resources so it makes you know I can see why they would have to they don't even probably get the same tax revenue that we do um but would you consider not charging on the first time the first call for service is that possible or is this in stone I don't believe this is in stone I think we can look at that because again uh this billing mechanism is going to be based on a third party most likely a third party biller um and so they would have experience throughout the country and providing this service to other uh fire agencies so we could look at if they have that opport you know option um and how easy that is to track and again with the new fireal records management system and patient care yeah we data should be fine- tuned to where we can see those reoccurring addresses F questions on okay further questions on 4 a mayor mayor uh council member Gardner thanks uh so I think it's important uh not only to look at the comparison to other cities um but I think we also need to take into account how our EMS budget Compares in Aurora to some of these other agencies um I understand that tax dollars go towards the fire department however if our EMS budget based upon the size of our city is lower than these other agencies then I think it's perfectly reasonable to find additional ways to supplement the budget also if we do make any changes to these fees I would have a concern are we going to be asked to make further cuts to the fire department budget you know one of the reasons why there weren't additional cuts required of that department was because they came up with these fees and um I certainly would be opposed to making any changes uh and then having to find further Cuts within that department further questions or comments uh council member thank you um so I also heard from many of my constituents about the treat no transport fee so I'm just curious um I thought we had had this discussion actually when you know way back when when when this was first brought up but what would the cost be to um basically treat treat no transport in the same fashion as our accident mitigation where we wave it basically for Aurora [Applause] residence um again I guess we haven't really run the numbers on how many of our local or these treat no transports uh that you see here with about 3600 a year are Aurora res so we could go into the data there and try and figure out uh how many of those are our residents sure um I appreciate that because the you know I heard from a lot of folks that they are going to be less likely or willing to call the ambulance you know call 911 if they might get charged for receiving some kind of treatment as it is I know people who don't even call 911 who get a lift or an Uber myself included frankly uh when I've gone to the hospital because of Falk fees so I don't want to have that chilling effect on people's uh medical needs so I'd like to know how much that would cost what the deficit would be or the Delta rather and um I think that you know we did appropriate uh funds during our budget Workshop uh to plug uh some holes um and I'd like to see if we can maybe you know discuss where we can move some of that money with my colleagues uh to make up that Delta because uh you know um I think council member Gardner kind of hit on it a little bit but you know y'all aren't in the business of making money this was all done to you know close uh some budget deficits I'd like to see if we can do that without discouraging people from calling 911 when they need emergency help so thank you further questions or comments mayor Dave grber council member grber I actually agree with council member Marano on this I'm concerned about the impact the fees would have on our citizens on our residents uh I'm concerned about the uh the cleanup costs uh What uh insurance will pay what insurance won't pay uh and the you know the double whammy of you know the worst day of my life these things happen to me and then three weeks later I start getting bills from the fire department or the aural fire rescue so I would also like to try to find other ways to deal with this other than um um taxing and it's not just I realize that our residents are waved in in many cases but taxing people who are in accidents ta taxing people who uh are hurt in aora further discussion uh seeing none um is this this do you all need um we don't move this forward right is this just informational at this point in time uh it's my understanding that this is in the 2021 budget so yeah we did not have a question to move this forward we were I guess leaving this open to more of a discussion with Council and and seeing what motions you would make but mayor council member berer so I had asked if we could look at not charging on the first call for service on the treat no transport so can and then council member Marana also alluded to the budget so can we have that information first before what this is implemented yeah so let's make this informational only and if and if uh Aurora fire rescu can come back to answer some of the questions that we've had uh before we make a decision about moving them forward uh is there any objection to that okay that's what we do so it'll be scheduled for another study session with the answers uh that have been brought forward by by council members are there any further questions of Staff okay seeing none thank you for the presentation uh item number four B uh public call in line discussion Susan bargman yes uh good evening mayor and Council this is an item um we just wanted to follow up with you on so I'm going to go ahead and share my screen real quick um so the as you all know we've been using the public call-in line um since early August and we've gotten some feedback and um heard some of the comments that you all have shared um that you're receiving from constituents so we just kind of wanted to touch base and have um a quick conversation about what's going on with the public calling line and some of the improvements that we're um making in how it kind of functions so um with that I wanted to just start and let you know that there are a few different ways to if you're not sorry if you're not uh me can you please mute yourself because we're getting some feedback there um there are some different ways to connect with Council for their um for for the public so one obviously is they can watch uh Council meetings through Aurora TV and Comcast channel 8 we are now to merge the public comment line with the listen in line so beginning with this council meeting all um callers will call the same number which is 855 695 3475 and when they call in they'll just hear the audio of the council meeting and if they don't press star three they can just stay on the line and listen to the meeting for its entirety that will start um with the opening of study session um if they wanted to do public comment uh for either a public hearing an agenda item or uh as a part of public invited to be heard they can call in and press star three we will still be screening callers starting at 7 o'clock um and so that'll be the time that if the that once they press star three then we'll start screening and so if they press it before then nothing's going to happen they will just continue to listen to the meeting um we have also gotten a couple of questions lately about interpretation um on WebEx meetings and how that works um we've been able to do some interpretation with the town hall meetings we have not tried a full interpretation but if interpretation services are needed we do ask that they help uh make those arrangements by Friday prior to the meeting this gives us the time to hopefully find the correct interpreter for the meeting or interpreters um who can be available during the meeting so uh we do ask that folks reach out ahead of time and we think that a big part of pushing the agenda to be published earlier will actually help allow for more time um for folks if they see an agenda item that they want to speak on they can also call on that um a little earlier as well um So based on the feedback we've heard uh we are going to do um we're making some strategies for improvement so the first one is consolidating the the two lines so now there will only be one number we will also be using uh crl and our our partners there to work with special study sessions as well so not only will we have one number for the meeting it will always be this 855 number uh that folks can call to listen in um or speak during the meetings and obviously during special study sessions and just regular study sessions we do not typically take public comment so we won't have that portion of of it available during those those those meetings but we would have it during the regular meeting we'll be doing additional announcements prior to the meeting and throughout the meeting so you heard at the beginning of the meeting Roger um came on and spoke about how the public line Works he'll come on at the end of study session and speak again we'll go at the beginning of the regular meeting and then um we're going to try to kind of pilot tonight actually taking um a break before resolution ions and before our ordinances to make an announcement and then give people a five minute kind of window to get those early calls in for early items so that that way um folks have a little additional time to call in um and we'll be making those more coordinated um announcements with the crl staff so it won't be um a Clerk's staff member anymore um the graphic on the previous page um will make available to council for you all to share on your social media sites as well as um the city website and city of social media um we're also on Aurora TV we're going to have a Graphic available in between study session and the regular meeting and if uh we're running a little late coming out of the executive session it'll be on then too and then on the bottom of the screen periodically the number will scroll um throughout the broadcast so that will also be available to help people um know that that's what number and how to call and everything like that uh we do ask for folks to have just a little bit of patience as we utilize the system um it is not a press star three and you instantaneously speak with um a representative or um a screener if there are a lot of folks who are calling at the same time um we we don't typically have the screeners to speak with everybody at once so we do need a little bit of patience from folks but as long as you hear meeting you are on the call you are in there and you are um you haven't been dropped off of the line or anything like that the last thing I want to share with you all is um some data that we've got received so far um so the First Column and I apologize my titles are a little hard to read there um the First Column here is the number of callers uh for each meeting so you can see our last meeting on November 2nd was Far exceeding the number of calls we had received for any previous meeting um since the beginning of August you can also see the number of callers who've entered the queue the number of callers who were screened and the number of callers who went live so at any point um if folks have a cell phone that drops off um the call or um they opt to leave without commenting um they would not show up they would kind of fall out as you went through that process a little bit um we do know that just from watching on my side I can tell you we do have callers who absolutely um have been on the line for a long time and then they kind of tend to drop off so if you're calling for an ordinance don't feel like you have to call right at 7 o'clock you just need to call before the item title is called um that's where we're kind of seeing I think some of that fatigue that someone has been on the phone for a long time um we did get some of the feedback about some of the dropped calls and things like that um we did review uh the Diagnostics of the system and there was not really a pattern um of how the calls were getting dropped it appears as though um the participant was getting disconnected either by a dropped cell phone call um or they were hanging up um if they're hanging up um you know certainly we we want to try to get to everybody as quickly as we can um but it does have to kind of come in the order and we do uh take the callers um in the order that they're screened as well so we definitely uh ask people to have a little patience and hang in there and again if you are hearing the meeting then you are on the line um and if you have been screened already and you're back to hearing the meeting you're still um on the line and in the queue for um getting your opportunity to speak it just sometimes there's in the last meeting particularly we had a lot of people um there's a lot of people ahead of some people who were kind of more towards the end as well we do hope that um by providing more um instructions throughout the meeting and reiterating the information um at several different points and then also giving that break opportunity so just a quick five minut uh before the start of resolutions and the start of ordinances that that would help to um give people an opportunity to jump on to uh the call and press star three to uh be screened um and that is all I have so if there's any questions I'm happy to answer that yes Susan yes um so out of 170 on November 2nd only 54 got through and you you think it's because people just got tired and dropped off uh not necessarily so callers um that first number those are the people who may call and stay on the line um so for example I can think of off the top of my head we have a few callers um who seem to prefer to call in versus watching on television um and so if you call in and you just want to listen to the meeting uh you don't get you don't count towards those later numbers basically F question questions or comments well hang on um yes so they can call in just to listen to the meeting isn't their way to like have two different numbers then um we found that uh with the number with having two different numbers as we previously have it caused um a fair amount of confusion because people would call the not wrong number and then press star three and star three and get frustrated because they wouldn't be able to get through to the call in line okay it just seems like if they're just a whole bunch calling to just listen then it doesn't that make the queue longer for everybody else that does have a question no they do not go into the queue or get um put into place for screening so a queue to go unless they hit star three okay thank you further questions uh seeing none this is just informational I don't see the actions required that is correct uh with the cler please read the title of item number 4 C uh the next item on the agenda is a consideration for professional service um agreement from sister cities um Ricardo Gamba thank you mayor good evening everyone yeah I just want to present for your consideration approval a professional service agreement of $112,000 in 2021 between the C in Aurora sister cities International and I have Ken CH CEO of Aurora sister cities on the line in case anyone have any questions are there any questions seeing none I'm sorry uh coun no question just a comment of supporting the work that sister cities does for our community particularly our youth um I know that we all benefit greatly from the work that they do and absolutely support um continuing to have them do that work for us further questions or comments yes mayor Bergen uh councilman Bergen so um being on Council for five years when this comes up every year my first year I asked the question of uh this was supposed to be until they got on their feet and were able to uh Garner donations and grants so that they could be self-sufficient and I asked the question um two years in a row you know what have you done to um to get to that point and it it seems like we just continue to award the 112,000 every year we do offer office space and um Supply this nonprofit so I just my question is how long do we continue to support a the nonprofit when we were told that they would eventually be self-sufficient through donations so I guess I'm asking what Don have they tried to Sol solicit this year sure hi can can you all hear me yes oh wonderful um so this is Carlin hi um council member beran how are you uh yeah I just I wanted to mention that actually we have grown significant significantly so when we actually started receiving the funding um we received about the same amount we received the first year $105,000 from the city council and that grudo about 112,000 and has stayed steady uh for the Last 5 Years and but as an organization we actually have grown um and so at one point the uh City council's contribution consisted of about 80% of our funds and that has actually decreased as we've grown so we've actually grown our programming we've grown sort of the services that we offer and now um Co is a little bit of an outlier but it's actually reduced to about 40% of our budget and so we do receive about 60% of our funding from outside sources other than the city Grant um that's a combination of Grants we receive to support our youth program we do receive funds from Individual donors um we have a number of corporate sponsors um and we have a very minimal amount although we're we're working on a membership campaign um but we receive a minimal amount in uh annual memberships uh so uh over the years it has decreased um as far as the amount that supports um our programs and services further questions or comments mayor council member thank you yeah I just also wanted to uh give Carin um and everyone else on the or sister cities team um some props for the great work that they do for our youth our diverse populations and I think it's important to remember that our city staff have actually benefited from some of these trips as well seeing how um other municipalities uh in the world um offer services for their residents so this is a really great program I'm excited I'm you know on the board and I uh really appreciate being appointed to that position um and I just support the work that they do so thank you further questions or comments bersin uh council member bersin thank you um thank you Carlin for being here tonight I also served on your board for I don't know two three years and I appreciate the work you've done too um and it's good to hear that you've grown uh that's that's great out you know I I scroll through what you've done and and it's amazing you know how you started with just a few people and now you you've really grown but but the the question that council member Bergen asked really wasn't answered you know you came here what in 14 well in 13 you started in 14 and at that time Council said and you agreed to slowly back off of the City's donations that you would be going out and getting um getting grants and funds and individual donors which you have but at the same time you've grown so the city's portion has not gotten smaller and I see that as a problem because we were told we were promised that this would happen and I feel like that if you're going to grow you need to pay for your growth you know and not expect the city to keep putting in the same amount of money uh because we were told we wouldn't have to and now the city's $31 million short and it's still the same amount of money so you know I just I I'm it's it's kind of confusing how we were told one thing and it's not working I understand you need the money but when you grow you have to pay for your growth just I'm just saying it's confusing how this continues to be the same amount of money thank you mayor uh mayor um yes I'm seeing the time so I'll just be really brief um addressing that we have it it the amount being stagnant and the amount of Youth programming services to our we're most one of the most diverse cities in the country all of that we're getting more bang for our our buck than we did in 2014 and it's it's tough for nonprofits um it evolves it's a different Council then it's a different um nonprofit now so as long as the services are increasing we're we're we're reactive to our our community and the needs um being proactive rather I'm I'm supportive of this thanks further discussion or questions uh seeing none um the question before us uh is whether or not uh to move item number 4C forward uh is there any opposition uh seeing none item number 4C we move forward uh items from the city council uh Colorado Municipal League National League of cities council member Lawson mayor um the NLC is having their conference this week so that's what I have on that and CML is having their next meeting on on December 4th uh legislative update council member Lawson um due to the time I'll just send this update to the to the council members uh via email thank you uh Denver Regional Council of government no report V Simmons Redevelopment Authority uh council member bin no counc Hils okay uh E470 update council member Bergen just real briefly we had regular board meeting and discussed the Aurora Parkway IGA we also had a roadway committee meeting where we discussed toll plaza Redevelopment and then last day had a uh E470 workshop and discuss committees and calendar for the year I AO Economic Development Council council member B no due to the time I'll defer accelerate Colorado R council member c um just briefly we'll let folks know that the love your local campaign was very successful it resulted in increased visitation from the Denver metro area to a supporting our local businesses um and they had a very significant response to the various types of marketing that they did for this campaign um and I'll be happy to forward the full report to council our sister City's council member mono thank you I'll be as brief as I can so this Saturday uh the Aurora around the world in Aurora scavenger hunt uh kicked off uh for those of you who missed the launch on Saturday you are still able to participate through the 18th and you can learn more at Aurora sister cities international.org and that's all RTD reimagine council member Lawson I don't have a report for that RTD accountability board council member morio uh thank you um we are still in process for our first report by the end of the year to the state legislature we're looking at State statutes that could give uh the r RTD more flexibility to recover from covid um and working with our lobbyists through the city to um help connect with our state legislators legislators legislators excuse me um and I uh we were also able to um co-chairs myself and uh Boulder County Commissioner were able to meet with the new general manager Deborah Johnson who is the first woman and happens to be a woman of color um to be in this role which is really exciting and she um has consistently stated her emphasis on Equity um citing um the statistics you know in interviews around who is most impacted by um Transit challenges so um we are looking forward to um being an independent committee as well as trying to align as much as possible with the direction that she has um where it makes sense um we've also discussed potentially having conversations and revisiting recommendations from other committees such as uh reimagine RTD so um we'll be sure to connect with council member Lawson uh for her work on that committee um in the past um and continue to give updates thank you uh items from the city attorney are there any nothing this evening uh items from the presiding judge uh seeing none items from the court administrator seeing none call-ups of council policy committee items uh seeing none uh miscellaneous items seeing none items removed from the agenda if any I seeing none policy committee amendments seeing none um study session is Jour uh Susan how long do you need uh uh first of all do you want to go over the phone issue again uh at this time or at the beginning of the regular meeting at this point I think we can go um if we can take maybe just a maybe five to 10 minutes that would be great um and at this point uh we'll just go ahead and do the announcement I would just like to remind folks um who are calling in that we uh Council declined the Dual listing for item 13A which was the ordinance uh for introduction regarding marijuana delivery within the city uh due to the uh declining of the Dual listing that item will not be heard this evening um and um folks who call in on that item may speak during public invited to be heard um or may Reserve their comments if they wish for uh that evening we're tentatively looking at December 7th for that to come back okay um so you need five minutes Susan if you can give us five minutes that'd be great oh very well uh the um study adjourn we will reconvene in regular uh meeting at uh 7:37 [Music] your be the [Music] back it all let my down and then you pull the r I was scared kind it used to be so love but now the day bleeds and Day fall here me through it all my down and then you P the RO I was used to be you let my down you pull the R I was getting kind of used to being so you [Music] you can make a gr cry if you ever said goodbye never let you go