Good morning.

Welcome to the City of Car Springs regular city council meeting for November 10th, 2025.

Will the clerk please read the roll call?

Councilmember Bailey.

Here.

Councilmember Crow Iverson.

Here.

Councilmember Donaldson.

Here.

Councilmember Gold.

Here.

Councilmember Hendriam present.

Councilmember Line Weber.

Here.

Councilmember Rainey.

Here.

Councilmember Risley.

Here.

Councilmember Williams.

Here.

Online present.

We'll move on to the consent calendar.

We will now consider the consent calendar with those items that will be acted on as a whole, unless a specific item is cost called off for discussion by a council member or a citizen wishing to address it.

Is there anyone wishing to pull anything off of consent?

Seeing none, can I have a thumbs up?

Voice vote.

We need a motion.

Councilman, I have a motion from Councilman Bailey, a second from Councilman Risley.

It was all in favor.

Thumbs up.

Moving on to recognitions, will the clerk please read item 4A into the record.

A resolution honoring November 11, 2025 is Veterans Day.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President, and what an honor to read not only this resolution, but uh hopefully anyone who's also here who is a veteran and want to say some words later would share those words to include my colleagues here on the dais who've also served in uniform.

You know, I did some reflecting a little bit on you know this resolution, and I think sometimes, you know, we do resolutions and it's another holiday and it happens every year, and people just kind of look at it from a sense of, well, it's just another resolution.

Um I will tell you, we're at a very unique time in our nation.

And uh the one thing I do take great pride in is when I see our young folks stepping up, raising their hand to serve our nation.

And whether they are going down to joint base San Antonio Likelin for Air Force basic training, uh whether they're going to Paris Island, whether they are going to Fort Mark and Fort Jackson, whether they're going to Camp May uh for the Coast Guard training, whatever that looks like, and when they are done with their training, they are raising their hands to serve our great nation and protect those uh liberties and and those values that we set as Americans.

And no matter what the political temperatures are, whether that's local at the state level or federal level, we have men and women out there that are serving and uh protecting uh our great nation.

Uh and I can't uh say uh a lot more uh about doing that, being able to uh take the oath and knowing whether it's you serving two, four, or twenty or twenty-nine years in the military, uh the fact that you are gonna wear that uniform, proudly represent the American flag and serve those uh every day um is something extra special.

And I'm quite sure a lot of you in the audience and those online, uh you probably if you're not a veteran yourself, you probably have uh a spouse who serve right next to you, or you've had uh relatives who served in the military.

Um with that being said, I will go ahead and read this resolution and then when we bring it back up to the dies, I would like to uh have uh some of our council members uh chime in on that.

A resolution honoring November 11, 2025 as Veterans Day, whereas the United States Congress declared November 11th, Amnesty Day on May 13, 1938, to honor World War One veterans and was renamed Veterans Day on June 1, 1954 to honor veterans of all wars, and whereas Veterans Day honor all those who have served the country in war or peace and in time for us to pay our respects to those who have served.

And we affirm our sacred duty as citizens to express our enduring gratitude, both in words and in actions.

And whereas our country has the best trained and the best equipped military force in the world.

And we need to make sure that we have the most supported and respected veterans in the world.

And whereas the city of Colorado Springs is a proud home to over tens of thousands of veterans and has recognized what has been recognized with numerous awards as a top location for veterans to call home.

And whereas may we sustain veterans' lasting contributions to our nation's progress and carry forward their legacy by building a future that is stronger, safer, and freer for all.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the city of Colorado Springs.

The City Council honors November 11, 2025 as Veterans Day, dated 10 November 2025, sign City Council President Lynette Crow-Irison.

Back to as requested by Councilman Rainey, if there's any veterans in the audience that would like to say something, maybe Jesse Kimber in the corner.

I see her looking at me, looking down away from me.

Thank you, Madam President.

I think it's so important that this council recognize the sanctity and celebration of Veterans Day, given that we have such a high population of veterans in our community.

Approximately 90,000, their spouses, their dependents have all sacrificed to make our country and our community safe.

And I thank you again for this proclamation.

Thank you.

Seeing no others, I'll move it up to the dais.

Um Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thank you, Madam President.

And uh I appreciate that uh Jesse pointed out the uh sacrifice of families, uh family members, spouses.

Um that's especially true these days when such a small percentage of the population serves in the military, and you get deployed for years at a time.

I'm just one little example of that, but I spent three full years in Iraq, you know, year in, nine months out, year in, a year out, 15 months in.

And uh it takes a huge toll on families, wives, and and children.

Um I'd like to I'd like to thank uh veterans who served in all the different conflicts we've had, the different wars we've had.

There are still World War II veterans uh in Colorado Springs.

There were two of them at the Veterans Day Parade this weekend.

Um Ed Beck is the one I know best.

He he fought in the Battle of the Bulge in World War II.

Uh I want to recognize you know my wife's father, who would be 104 if he was still alive today.

He he was a 22-year-old lieutenant on D-Day in World War II, went ashore on uh Utah Beach and uh and fought through to the end of the war.

He was in the Battle of the Bulge.

And that was truly what they call well, that was a quiet group of men who fought in that war.

His kids never even knew it until they found uh some German stuff in the in the attic.

They found the Luger.

Luckily, it wasn't loaded.

Um, I want to recognize my own father who served in Vietnam.

And there was a war in between those two, the Korean War.

There's a lot of of uh former military members who fought in that war, and that's kind of it's called the Forgotten War.

Most people don't really even know anything about it, and it came shortly after World War II.

Um, and then conflicts we've had recently, and some of them are small police actions.

So you know, uh today I think it's can like less than one percent of our population serves in the military.

So this was pointed out that Veterans Day parade.

And and in the you know, whole country, there's five percent veterans.

Uh so a small group carry a pretty heavy burden.

It's an honor to do it.

You know, I'm I'm I'm really thankful for my time in the Army and uh uh the things I got to do and see and serve the country.

So thank you to uh Councilman Rainey for bringing forward this resolution for veterans in the audience and those who are just related uh as kids or spouses.

Uh everybody's contributed, so thank you.

Councilman Williams.

Thank you.

I just want to take this opportunity to thank all of the veterans and their families as well.

They're a piece of the puzzle that makes this great nation.

We have our constitution, which we stand on every day.

We have our veterans that have kept us safe and will continue to keep us safe for almost 250 years.

Plus, obviously we had to get here somehow.

And then we have the citizens.

So there's a lot of different branches of the tree that get us to the place where we are today, where we peacefully sit here and agree or disagree and voice our opinions.

Our veterans are a huge piece of that puzzle.

Both of my great uncles uh were in the military.

Uh they were drafted.

One one volunteered, he lied about his age just so he could go fight.

And I appreciate their service.

My dad was also drafted in the Korean War.

I appreciate his service.

My brother went voluntarily.

He went to West Point.

And at the end of your service, you have to pick um where you're going to serve, and he picked the infantry.

And of course, my mother had an instant panic.

She's like, Oh my god, you you could have done anything.

My brother just said, You didn't raise a coward.

So I appreciate the fact that there are people that serve.

And then uh my boyfriend was in the Navy, he was a Navy SEAL, which is something I could never do, but he could never do politics, so I guess that's why we make a great couple.

But I thank everybody for all of their service, and even those who don't volunteer.

You're in the audience today, you're participating, you're gonna speak or not speak on the issues that we're dealing with today, and that's important as well.

So I just want to say thank you.

Councilman Gold.

Thank you, Madam President.

You know, Veterans Day is probably one of my favorite holidays because I get to celebrate one of my favorite people, which is my mother who served in the United States Army for 32 years.

And as I reflect on Veterans Day and think about the sacrifice and the service of all those who served, um, it's a reminder to me that it's not just that time of service, whether it's four years or 30 years or anything in between.

That it's that's not just your contribution.

By serving, you are literally changing the trajectory of America and your families and your extended families.

So your service is amplified in so many ways in ways that you can't even imagine.

It is generational impact, and so truly from the bottom of my heart, um, from somebody whose life trajectory has been changed with my mother's military service.

I want to thank all veterans per in person and listening online and those who even aren't listening.

Thank you, everybody.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

Just one last comment.

Um, as I look at our dais, uh, I just want to say I know there's times uh within the unique nature of city council and the politics within, uh, we can have our you know back and forks, but uh to have Councilman Donaldson who served, uh Councilman uh um I I barely I'm having a Lynette moment.

I just want to say thank you for your service, and it is an uh uh an honor to be up here on a dies to serve next to you and the fact that you've also served uh in that uniform.

So thank you.

Seeing no other comments from the dais, we have a motion from Councilman Gold and a second from Councilman Risley.

Let's vote.

And then motion passes nine to zero.

So we'll come down for a celebratory picture if um Jesse Kimber and any veterans in the audience would like to join us up front.

That would be welcome.

Moving on to item 5A, um mayor's business.

Thank you.

I do have a couple updates for you today.

Um, first, you probably saw in the newspaper last week that we did uh successfully raise the monies needed to expand our ability to house our homeless residents in extreme and severe cold.

Um so it's about a million dollars of investment from local philanthropy, so we're very uh grateful for that.

Um certainly not a forever solution, but helped us avoid a crisis this winter as the temperatures begin to drop.

Um, as councilwoman Henjam said, uh, we did have a very successful event with our state legislators.

We had nine of them present, as well as um councilman Donaldson, uh Henjam and Tom Bailey.

And uh what we were asking for uh through the mouths of business owners themselves were tougher penalties on those who commit crimes against these small businesses, especially shoplifting, and so um look forward to coming up with some solutions together with them as we address that.

Um finally some good news out of the airport.

Uh although we are all looking at the potential impacts of the um FAA reductions, which hopefully are relieved today.

Uh, we did see passenger traffic increase 8.7% in September over last year, and so good to see those flights coming back.

In addition, I have to do an advertisement if anybody feels like going to Cancun.

Those flights are back with uh dates in November, December, January, March, and April.

So fly COS and use our new international flight.

Thank you.

Moving on to 9A under new business, will the clerk please read item 9A into the record.

An ordinance admitting Section 101 vehicular traffic limits of Article 27, park traffic offenses of Chapter 10, Motor Vehicle and Traffic Vehicular Traffic Limited Code of the City of Colorado Springs 2001 is a minute pertaining to park traffic offenses.

Good morning, Brett.

Good morning, Britt Haley, the director of the City of Colorado Springs, Parks Recreation, and Cultural Services Department.

It's good to see you, President Crow Iverson, President Pro Tim Risley, and Council members.

So today we are following through on a commitment that I made to council earlier in the spring, and that was that I would look to ways that this parks department could be a little bit better partner and have more capacity in terms of enforcement, which our citizens were asking for, and we definitely needed ourselves.

So you heard a presentation at work session where Eric Becker, our operations, our maintenance and operations manager, uh presented kind of the plan that we've had up to this point.

And Eric is here in the audience as well, ready uh to respond to questions.

But essentially that was the first step was taking our urban trail ranger program and getting the authorization through the Colorado Springs Police Department and standard operating procedures to be able to post abandoned homeless camps so that they could be cleaned up more rapidly.

I have a question from Councilman Line Weber already.

Oh, thank you.

I just want to take a moment and really get to the heart of the issue.

Um you have done such great work over the years with parks and while on vacation, I got notice that you will be retiring at the end of this year.

And we first need to recognize the fact that you have done such tremendous work and with your legal background and stuff like that.

I think it just really helps weigh into this whole effort that you put forward.

But I wanted to first recognize the fact that you have just been amazing and really elevating our parks and rack department in a way that just has gone beyond um possible.

I think we have one of the best in the nation.

We get awards all the time.

And it's really because of your leadership that uh I just wanted to really first recognize and just really thank you for your service.

Oh, Councilmember Woodline Weber, thank you.

I appreciate that.

Best question that ever came.

You may continue.

Thank you.

So the second step that we've taken under an authorization from the Colorado Springs Police Department is to be able to start work on writing uh parking tickets, which are often a thing that uh we should be able to address right away at the various properties that we have, and we really shouldn't be calling our police officers to do that work.

And sometime in the early spring we will be uh endeavoring to get all of that work underway.

And then the third piece really came around motorized use, is that came to be a important issue for our uh community but also our park system.

And so I started working with the office of the city attorney to address that need within the city code for the parks department.

And some of us were operating under a misunderstanding that the in Chapter 4, which is the Parks Code, there is the TOPS provisions, the Trails Open Space and Parks Ordinance, and within that ordinance, there is a statement that motorized use is prohibited.

And so we thought, oh, it's already not allowed, and therefore we should be able to enforce against those motorized uses that we do not want within our system.

But unfortunately, the way that that was written and the place where it was located in the city code wasn't exactly right for doing that activity.

So luckily we have the city attorney's office to help us out, and our city attorney that is assigned to parks, then went into the city code and identified the proper place for that language and also uh connected it to the magic word that you need to have in the city code, which is unlawful.

These uses need to be unlawful.

So you will see that there is a fairly limited surgical approach here to an amendment that would fall in 10 27 101 of the vehicular traffic code and within the parks provision of that to make it unlawful for vehicles, motor vehicles, well, actually, the changed words of motor vehicles, off highway vehicles, snowmobiles, farm tractors, golf courts, or toy vehicles.

Now, I don't think we'll be enforcing against very many farm tractors or snowmobiles, but we will at least have the capacity to do that should the need arise.

It will, however, be very meaningful all across the parks department's vast inventory of different kinds of properties to be able to pursue those cases where we do have the kind of use that does cause damage through motorized use.

So I am happy to bring this forward.

Now, during our work session, we had a request, particularly from Councilmember Henjam that we meet with the president of the citizens' uh transportation advisory board, Jerry White.

And we were able to do that last week.

And when I say we, that was myself, our trails development coordinator, Emily Duncan, and then Lana Thielen, the manager of the design and development and the TOPS team.

And so I think I now understand uh some of the concerns that Mr.

White uh wanted to express.

And while I I don't want to preempt his comments, so I'm going to not say anything further specifically about what we learned from Mr.

White, but we do have our attorney here ready to respond to any of that uh should the need arise for any clarification or understanding there.

So, given all of that, someone hinge questions.

Uh thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Brett.

Um, and I really do understand you would like to follow through on your promise probably before you leave.

Um, and and thank you for meeting with Mr.

White.

I I do need to say that while he is the president uh or the chair of the Citizens Transportation Advisory Board, his comments will have to be as an individual citizen because the the committee did not have an opportunity to meet.

And the request was really to bring this to CTAB, but because there was a desire to really get this moving, you you did agree to meet with him, and I'm grateful for that.

And I look forward to hearing his comments and questions and hopefully um be able to address the the concerns.

Thanks.

I do have um Gerald White signed up for public comments on this particular topic at this time.

I am happy to stand to one side and be ready to help out later.

Thank you.

So, Mr.

White, please uh make sure the green button is on so we can hear you, state your name for the record, and you will have three minutes for public comments.

Thank you.

So, Gerald White, and uh I'm speaking just uh for myself, although I'm the volunteer with a number of other organizations has been mentioned.

Uh I know that CTEB hasn't had a chance to meet since I met with uh Ms.

Haley.

Um so the ordinance addresses a need, absolutely.

Uh and there's some things in the existing ordinance that need to be fixed, and there are some things in the amendment that uh that the we need need to happen.

But these changes don't do that.

Right.

Um I'll just say a few of the things.

First of all, uh the existing ordinance talks about unlawful to drive any vehicle, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And vehicles defined in your ordinance, and would include bicycles.

So a kid riding their bike to North Junior High School or a kid riding their bike to Panorama Park would be doing something unlawful, and that's something that's in the existing ordinance, should be fixed, and was not fixed in this iteration.

Uh snowmobiles are definitely a change, but they're not a problem at the moment uh on the trails.

Motor vehicles are an issue.

But we see a lot of these new sorts of motor vehicles.

The uh the writers of this, I believe, have taken uh an easy tack.

And I I quote uh Albert Einstein that things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

And this is too simple.

It doesn't meet the needs that we have currently uh to regulate the wide panoply of new motor vehicles, electric one-wheels, high-powered scooters.

This this is the time to do it, and we should do it correctly.

So I'm asking that you postpone adoption of this ordinance until it can be rewritten to fix the existing deficiencies and add in descriptions of motor vehicles that are consistent with what we see on the trails now, and we would don't want to happen.

So there is a second issue, and that is this is strictly about parks, but there are a great amount of infrastructure in the city that looks like a parks trail and acts like a parks trail, but are in the public works department.

And sometimes on a single trail, Shooks Run Trail, for example, you can be on parks property, and then you're on public works property, and then you're back on parks and then on public works.

We also have uh places along the New Centennial that are side paths that are in public works, but look to users as though they are parks trails.

This is a ordinance that applies just to parks, but a city council should have a view of the entire city, and the ordinance should apply across silos and not just within the parks.

People need to be using these vehicles across different departments in the city and not have rules that change department by department as you transit the city.

Thank you for your comments.

Councilman Hingem.

Thank you, Madam President.

So thank you, Jerry.

And um you you did raise a number of issues, and I would appreciate if our attorneys uh could um answer some of these questions, because I'm inclined at this point.

I would like to make a motion that we postpone to a date certain January 27th so that um these questions and concerns can be addressed um with our citizens' transportation advisory board.

So I I am making that motion actually, um, but I certainly want to hear from our attorneys.

Uh good morning, Keelan Molenhauer, City Attorney's Office.

Um what question can I address for you?

So you heard uh Mr.

White suggest that um uh motor vehicles are identified or any vehicle and that a bicycle is uh is defined as a vehicle.

So can you um address that concern that the way this is written, it would suggest that um you know unintentionally, no doubt, a vehicle would be um considered uh unlawful.

Okay.

Um so that is correct that the vehicle definition does include um bicycles, includes quite a few things.

Um but I would direct your attention to the second half of that first paragraph that we're we're changing things in.

Um there's a lot of exceptions here.

Um one of those exceptions is other areas as may be specifically designated as driving liens or parking areas, right?

Parks manager.

So um areas where Britt is allowing folks to be, right?

Think of those trails within um the parks.

She's saying those are areas that um bikes are designated to be.

So um we wouldn't be issuing a ticket for someone um on a bike or on a uh a bike trail within a park.

Can okay.

Um can you speak to the the uh parks trail um and public works differences, the the sort of the challenge we have um in in our city with with the with that perception and reality.

Um so it is true that this section of code that we're changing um is applicable to parks.

Um right parks is the department that came to me for this ordinance.

Um I I did not work on any piece um of public works controlled property, or I think that would just be a sidewalk technically, so I was not asked to draft an ordinance for sidewalk.

Um council has an appetite to do that.

I think we could work on something, but it is true that what is being changed here is applicable to parks.

Okay.

Um you know, I think the reality is I would rather not have this conversation on the dais while we're getting ready to vote on something.

I mean, I think Mr.

White uh raised some questions that are viable.

I haven't myself really had the chance to fully appreciate and understand all of the nuances and the different parts of city code, um, what what covers parks, what covers.

I I'm totally supportive, and I'm really appreciative that parks wants the ability to um to enforce all different kinds of vehicles that are showing up and and showing around that are not safe.

Um I I absolutely want them to have that ability.

Um, I just don't feel this is ready.

And and and you know, we can bring Ms.

Haley back for when we vote on this.

Um I I just would really appreciate it if we um if we would postpone.

So those are all of my comments right now.

And and I can't support it without without the opportunity to go into this more further.

Councilman Lineweber.

So um my first question is just um with the rangers themselves.

Um my understanding is they're not really currently authorized to write citations.

So how would that actually work?

Are you working towards getting them to a place of being certified to be able to write citations?

Um I can talk about the yeah, okay.

Eric Becker, Parks Maintenance and Operations Manager.

Good to see you.

Um good question.

I mean, our our park rangers, you're you're absolutely right, don't have the capacity to write tickets, so we'd be working with our CSPD officers to do conservation patrols are called, so we'd have a designated um day and time to be able to go out on a trail that we observe you know behaviors in and be able to work alongside them in conjunction with them.

So currently we don't have that capacity, possibly at some point, but we'd have to be a CSPD officer that's working with us.

So and then what have you guys um analyzed like what would be the fee structure or cost of these violations?

Have that been kind of worked out, um, particularly um the parking piece.

Um what were you guys looking at um on that?

Or how how is that how's the fee structure going to be set for that?

That has not been looked at as far as I'm aware um to this point in time, so I I can't answer that.

Yeah, I mean I hate to see like a $2,000 fee leveraged against someone parking or something like that.

So um, but I guess that's my concern there.

I um I'm a little bit uh no, I I'm I'm in support of Nancy, and I I what I am in big support of this, really, really big, because I do see a lot of uh uses on our trails that should really be there.

Um I do think that uh the speed limit piece should be kind of incorporated into this also in some shape or form, because someone on a bicycle riding 40 miles an hour down the trail, which is completely possible, human-powered, um, is not safe, particularly when you have a dog with a you know 20-foot leash who just starts out, right?

Um so um I I'm concerned about public safety in all those regards when it comes around trails.

So the speed factor is one area that I think is particularly of concern for me in that.

And I don't think this really kind of addresses the speed.

Um and so um uh I think that I would like to see this go to the C to CTAB board also to give their recommendations on um how they have handled stuff in the past, and uh would probably I do support Nancy's um thing to delay this slightly and just get it right.

Okay, thank you for the comments.

So I have a motion from Councilman Henjam and a second from Councilman Lineweber to postpone um this ordinance.

Um let's vote.

Just one quick clarification, if I may.

You did mention two January 27th meeting.

Is that still your decision?

Well, uh I know it's uh ideal to have a date certain, so I wanted to give enough time um for there to be worked on it.

I'm open to a different timeline.

Um, but I that's what I have in the current motion.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Yeah.

I can would hope that that would be enough time for our CTAB to We have an opportunity.

We have the chair of CTAB here.

If he could answer when could CTAB address this issue and and have um a ruling, could you give us a suggestion on that, Jerry?

Yeah, go ahead, Jerry.

I mean, I I think this is why we have a board uh working on behalf of council to help us with these matters.

There's so many things we deal with that it's impossible for us to go into the detail ourselves, and that's why we have these boards.

Go ahead, Jerry.

Uh President Crow Iverson, uh, the date that councilwoman Hendrium has suggested would work for CTAB.

Do you have that clerk?

Okay.

Yes, just wanted to clarify.

Thank you.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks, Madam President.

And uh Eric or or Britt, other one.

Just a question.

Would would you prefer that we were to pass this uh ordinance today and then have parks work with CTAB on an amendment regarding speeds or something like that as uh without a deadline and without postponing this?

Well, thank you very much for that question.

When we talk about the other areas of jurisdiction for the CTAB, that's typically the roadways and the bike lanes, and of course there's an interface between our trail system from time to time.

And so when you think about what this ordinance is meant to do, it's park property, so it's our open spaces.

It's when a person chooses to drive their pickup truck into the middle of a neighborhood park and do donuts.

It is, you know, all of these other spaces beyond the roadways, bike paths and interface with our urban trail system.

So my hope was is that we could at least get the authority to address those stewardship needs that we have that we can't address today, because it's just not that component in city code that allows us to even address it.

And then to work on those interfaces, because I will tell you it probably will take longer than twenty January 27 to come up with an ordinance that is more comprehensive because it does have to address the area of our traffic code that involves bike lanes and roadways, which are not park property.

And so I do feel like it's a it's a bigger lift than it might seem like to people who don't do this work in the city code every day.

So my argument would be let's improve the parks component to it with the commitment to keep working together on the traffic components and don't let the the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Hingem.

Thank you uh very much.

And Britt, I do appreciate that perspective and that tension between getting, you know, moving forward and not letting the um uh perfect be the enemy of the good.

And I would also say that this council has seen uh numerous different ordinances that have not been done thoroughly and thoughtfully, and we're going back and cleaning things up later.

So um I don't know how much time you think would be appropriate, if not January 27th, but I would really prefer that we take the time to look holistically to not work in a silo and to um and to address everything at once.

So um how much time do you think then if January 27th is is too fast, how much time would the city need to address this comprehensively?

Well, a really important matter.

And thank you, Councilmember Henjam.

And there are no hard feelings whatsoever.

It's just a matter of um understanding that right now we feel pretty vulnerable because we cannot address on really the natural spaces anything until we do get this capacity in the city code.

So in terms of the question about how long it might take to get a more comprehensive version that would address the things that have been raised, such as speed limits and the definitions of vehicle and some of those things in the traffic code itself, I would think that it would take at least until March of next year in order to really have that conversation, make sure everybody is comfortable with it and moving forward.

Currently in the parks component, the realm that we have a little bit more understanding of, we have the parks board unanimously supporting this change in order to allow us, you know, it really came out of the e-bike conversation with motorized uses that we've now found ourselves needing to have this addressed in city code.

So I completely understand uh your position and uh would think that it would take at least until March of 2026 in order to have an ordinance and the coordination that goes along with it that is um addressing the you know the streets, bike paths, urban trails, park property, and then adding a speed limit to the park properties.

Right.

Well, without having a clue how my fellow council members will vote on this, um, because this is not something I've been working on behind the scenes by any stretch.

Um I I just would ask um if this does pass, that we follow through immediately and we plan um to to to do that next step and to make it more comprehensive.

Again, I preferred it all be done at once and not piecemeal.

I do appreciate the the vulnerability that you're expressing.

And we could have been working with CTAB over the last six, seven months, and we weren't.

So um I I appreciate the perspective and we'll see.

We'll see how this goes.

Thanks.

Councilman Lineweber.

Yeah, I still think that we could probably come together and have something to offer for January.

And if we if um we decide that the speed component, for example, needs to have a deeper look, then we could we can certainly bring that in later as an amendment.

And that might be the recommendation that comes forth from CTAB is that they said, don't deal with the speed right now.

Let's just get this one done because they know CTAB will know that we're we're wanting to make a decision.

I want to make a decision by January.

Okay.

We want to decide on some by January.

And I want to support this 100%.

I just want to uh I like Nancy feel like I just want I want to hear more ideas and more thought in this to just to get it right.

I don't think that through the months of November, December, and January are not high traffic months on our trails in terms of well, you know what I'm trying to say.

So I I think you know, waiting a simple three months, uh not even that is not horrible.

And so um, but I I do think that it we need to give it, let's just get this right and get a few more voices in on it.

And and then again, if we feel like if the speed, for example, needs to be looked at separately, um, then we could the we'll just direct CTAB in that direction that we want something we want to get something voted on in January, period.

And we will make we'll make that an absolute deadline.

So we have a motion from councilman henjum and a second from councilman lineweber to postpone.

Let's vote.

I don't have it on my tab.

And the motion fails on a four to five vote.

This isn't clean.

So I need a motion to approve.

I have a motion to approve and a second from council councilman Risley and a second from Councilman Donaldson.

Let's vote.

May I make an intervening motion?

I already have a motion and a second on the table.

So we need to vote on this.

I don't have Sarah Bruin City Attorney's Office.

You already have a motion on the floor, so you need to act on that motion before another motion can be made.

I and I don't have it on my tab, so the motion passes on a seven to two vote.

Moving on to 9B and 9C.

Will the clerk please read item 9B and 9C into the record?

9B and Ordinance Amending Section 201 General Penalty of Part 2, general penalty of Article 1, administration of Chapter 1, Administration Personnel and Finance and the Code of the City of Colorado Springs 2001 is amended pertaining to a police department technology surcharge.

9C and Ordinance Amending Section 106, failure to pay fine of Article 3, procedures of Chapter 11, Municipal Court of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs 2001 as amended pertaining to failure to pay fines, costs, and surcharges.

Good morning.

Is the green button on the that would help as well.

Um good morning, President Crow Iverson, President Pro Tim Risley, members of council.

On behalf of the Colorado Springs Police Department, I'm Deputy Chief John Koch, and I will be presenting uh two ordinances, uh two requested ordinance amendments today, and I'll cover 9B and 9C together because they're so closely tied.

Um does the clerk have the presentation?

Oh, here we go.

So what I'll be discussing with you today ultimately revolves around the departments continually increasing technology charges that we're seeing for all of our technology systems.

And as the departments looked out at ways to fund those as the police department continues to grow and these costs grow up.

This is one measure that we're presenting to council and requesting ordinance changes to be able to accomplish that.

So currently by ordinance, surcharges are assessed on all non-Avis and non-parking convictions for traffic and criminal municipal ordinance violations.

And as it pertains to traffic violations, there are two charges that are assessed on convictions.

One is a $35 pedestrian safety program funding fee that essentially pays for crosswalks and and pedestrian safety, things like that.

And another is a $5 information technology surcharge that goes to support the information technology needs of the municipal court.

The IT surcharge is also applied on criminal convictions, but the pedestrian safety surcharge is not assessed on criminal convictions.

Additionally, if people make an appearance in municipal court, there are $25 of court costs that are applied to that individual at that point in time.

And again, surcharges that we're discussing are not applied to AVIS violations, whether it's a red light camera or the speed safety program, nor are they by state law applied to any parking violations.

So current violation information in the city is that we issue around 30,000 traffic violations for municipal ordinance violations per year.

That's going to be a little bit higher this year.

And the reasoning behind that is that with the city attorney's office, we've focused on more municipal enforcement and less enforcement of county violations, unless there's a charge that's just something that exists in state law.

Those are generally DUIs, driver license violations, things like that.

On the criminal side, we have usually around 6,000 or so criminal violations that are assessed municipally.

And you'll see that there is a small difference in summons counts up there because there are some civil violations and things like that that are handled in municipal court as well.

There are two proposed ordinances the police department's putting forward today.

The first is an amendment to the general penalty under 1.1.201.

And we're requesting amendment of the general penalty to include the imposition of a police technology surcharge on any conviction in municipal court for a trafficker criminal violation that again is not AVIS or a parking violation.

The ordinance language is written specifically that the proceeds from the surcharge will be applied only to police technology systems used by CSPD for any response to or investigation or enforcement or documentation of traffic law or criminal law or ordinance violations.

The municipal court under the ordinance is not authorized to waive the surcharge unless there's a compliance piece with the piece of municipal ordinance that I'll address next.

And the mayor would be responsible for determining the amount of the surcharge based on an analysis from the police department regarding what our contracts are, what technology requirements are, things like that.

I know in work session, Councilmember Risley had had a question about the mayor setting that fee.

That is consistent with the mayor's authority.

He also sets police records fees currently.

And so this is in line with that.

The second is a requested amendment to 11.1.306.

This is largely administrative currently under this municipal ordinance.

The municipal court can waive fines, but surcharges and fees are not included in what the municipal court is authorized to waive.

That's not in line with state law, and it's also not in line with practice.

The municipal court is waiving uh fees and surcharges along with fines based on you know the situation that's put in front of them individually, and we want to bring municipal ordinance language in line with state law in current practice in municipal court.

So why are these changes requested?

Well, as we've discussed with council and honestly publicly, uh there are a number of state law mandates that have changed for police departments over the last several years.

The biggest one that uh is out there for the public is body worn camera technology.

Every police officer in the state is required to have a body worn camera, but that is an unfunded mandate from the state.

Many of our other systems like tasers, digital evidence, uh, the list goes on and on are critical for either officer safety in the case of tasers or for the criminal justice process, discovery working with the district attorney's office.

And we also have, as you know, a number of disparate technology systems that they don't talk to each other.

It impedes efficiency, it causes duplication and triplication, and the list goes on of data that officers are putting into the system, and all of this takes away from the time that our police officers can be addressing public safety needs, traffic issues, whatever the case may be.

We have also seen that the cost of our technology continues to rise, especially with artificial intelligence.

And one example of that, when we look at our taser contract that ends at the end of this year, that contract alone is doubling from five years ago to the start of 2026, just by itself for tasers alone.

So we currently rely on the general city budget and grants to pay for technology systems.

Um, the general city budget, obviously, council is aware of the challenges we're facing there right now.

And the grant environment also has a lot of challenges that we're facing as well.

This is just not sustainable long term, especially as we look at the continual need to add technology and address some of these things for the police department.

Those are the reasons for those requests.

I want to just explain briefly to council kind of what we're facing.

So based on you know, payment rate and conviction rate and things like that, we estimate that the 2026 revenue from this surcharge, if it were set at 20 dollars per conviction to be right around 544,000.

And when you compare that to the systems that we're using, um, you'll see that the main systems the department uses per year is just shy of $4 million per year.

The bottom line, the taser uh 10 system that's coming in at 1.2 million dollars to start 2026, that again is doubling from the $600,000 charge that is an expiring contract for the city in December of 2025.

Um the surcharge again only applies to convictions for municipal traffic or criminal violations.

So I know there's concern about you know people paying surcharges and things like that.

And the solution to to ultimately not pay the surcharge of council work to approve it is to not engage in violations of uh traffic or or criminal municipal laws.

If council does approve this, we would provide public notice via a media release and other communication on our websites for a period of 30 days before we're implemented, and the surcharge can be implemented without need for additional information technology structure or anything like that, because we already have a process through the prosecutor's office with municipal court for imposing fines, surcharges, things like that.

That's all I don't see any questions at this time, but I do have a comment myself.

Um we um change people's behaviors and they stop breaking the law and the surcharge goes away.

How are you going to continue to fund these programs?

I mean, those are things that we're gonna have to look at down the line.

Obviously, there are discussions with uh council and the mayor's office about that.

Um, and and if we're able to solve all law violations, then that would be a good thing.

Yes.

Right.

A good thing.

But a bad thing.

If you're expecting this money to pay for these things, that's a bad thing.

Good morning, honorable members of city council Sherry McDaniel, Chief Financial Officer.

On one hand, that would be a good thing because it would actually decrease the amount of expenditures possibly that um would be needed as we handle the budget.

However, my main comment really would be that each year when we go through the budget prioritization process, as we did in this year, public safety is our number one priority, and I know it's a priority of the council and the administration.

And so what we would be doing is uh prioritizing that fund, the necessary funds needed to continue that technology.

It really has been a very important uh piece of finding efficiencies with the way that we handle the work of the police department and freeing up those resources to really be uh doing more on uh patrol and what they do rather than writing reports and doing administrative work.

So that's really a very big benefit to our community, and that would be prioritized as we move through that budget process.

Well, there's an attentive consequences to these junk fees that we see through come.

And also they go around TABER in my opinion, um, these types of fees.

But if we continue to go down this road with these, and I know some were pulled, and then last year we had some of these for safety, but as we see the states in trouble over these particular what they call in that world junk fees, it's gonna make it harder to pass a PSST tax.

And that's really what's gonna fix this problem with the police and fire department is more something very substantial, like increasing that.

Um, so I have a really hard time how this is going to be sustainable.

I would much rather go increase that PSST tax rather than you know, do these types of things that will lose trust with our citizens.

Councilman Risley.

Thank you, Madam President.

You actually took some of the words out of my mouth uh in terms of uh comments I was going to make.

I certainly support the police department and support public safety.

I think that's as you mentioned, Share, our top priority.

My concern though is that exactly what Madam President said, that I I believe that the more we layer on additional surcharges and additional fees, it's going to make it that much harder to put in place what I believe would be a much better permanent solution in terms of a public safety sales tax increase.

And so I would rather see us go that route as opposed to layering on more and more fees and surcharges.

And I'd I'd rather see something that's more holistic and certainly a more permanent um solution to the issue.

Councilman Hingem.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

So I appreciate you bringing this forward because we have all been talking about the need for more revenue to pay for the costs of public safety and all the other things in our city.

And in terms of these being junk fees, I I guess how I see it is if you are breaking the law and you pay an extra fee to pay for the resources that will keep our people safe, that feels to me like a very appropriate fee.

I very much appreciate hearing from this dais a need to bring uh the public safety sales tax to our the citizens of Colorado Springs for a vote.

That's something we absolutely need to do.

That is likely at least two years away from where we are right now.

This council's not had a conversation about when we might bring that uh to the ballot in any kind of formal way.

And um, and I actually don't believe that this would destroy the trust of the citizens whatsoever.

I think this is targeted to people who are breaking the law.

Public safety sales tax hits every single taxpayer who wants and needs to support the um the safety of our city and our police department, our fire department.

Um to me, those things are entirely different.

And um, and I absolutely support this.

I can't tell if I've made the motion and where we're at on the the thing, but I absolutely will be voting for this, and I'm seeing some head nods in the audience from people who are just here um understand we need more revenue to pay for these things, and um uh we're gonna have to pay for them anyway.

So if if the behavior changes, that is a win-win from my perspective.

We've changed bad behavior, we've made it safer, and the general fund is going to have to find a way to pay for these things, regardless, as the police department has pointed out to us.

So we'll we'll need to find other ways uh to to prioritize or address that revenue, such as the public safety sales tax.

Thank you.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President, and uh I want to echo just a couple of things uh that you mentioned earlier, and and I can't emphasize this enough.

Every time I've noticed we have a budget crisis, we try to find ways that are very unconventional to answer the problem set.

And that's not how we do business.

And and no city operates that way.

And I know my uh fellow colleague uh made the comment about junk fees, but this is a conversation we've been going around and around.

And I think anyone in this city knows how I feel about our police department.

Uh I love them the debt, and I'm always going to be there to back them and support them.

However, we got to get better.

I'm sorry.

We got to get better at managing the budget, and we got to get better at looking at things.

I'm sorry, technology fees.

You cannot tell me you did not see that coming three, four, five years ago.

You can't.

You just can't.

Can't even convince me of that.

That means that something effect ineffective and inefficient is happening with managing the budget.

And we got to get better at this.

So while I support our police, while I want to make sure that those fees are gonna go to those pertinent areas that will take care of our departments, we can't constantly go and do things and put the pressure and put the responsibility on our citizens to fix mismanagement.

So I I want to be very clear about that.

Is this has been a conversation ongoing, and we constantly do things like this uh in order to try to fix a problem when the root of the problem is finding better ways to manage the budget and forecast and see these type of things coming.

That's all, Madam President.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks, Madam President.

Um I will be supporting uh this ordinance.

And I think it's something that our citizens would support if this went on the ballot.

I think it would pass by a large margin.

Um citizens, I think believe that if you break the law, you should probably have a higher, you should be the one paying for some of the cer the technology for some of the equipment which our our uh police officers need to enforce the law versus a tax everyone approach um for when we can we can target it to the people who are incurring the costs.

I think that makes perfect sense.

That's kind of a free market way of doing things, the ones who use it pay for it.

And so uh I will support this.

Councilman Bailey.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I just want to say I agree with uh Councilman Donaldson on this that uh this is something that is putting the burden on people who have broken the law, are convicted of an offense.

And so instead of putting the burden across the across this uh with all citizens in the city, I would prefer this kind of approach to help act as somewhat of a deterrent to provide some consequences to actions that are that are uh deemed illegal.

I also very strongly support the um comments that uh councilman Rainey made about coming together as a city to figure out a way to address our budgeting in the long run.

We need to do that.

This can be a piece of it, but the broader uh problem of prioritizing how we spend taxpayers' money is something that we'll continue to work on from here.

Um but I can separate the two in my mind and support this.

Councilman Hingem.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

Um I just I just want to say uh appreciate both perspectives very much.

So I am a little dismayed to hear a fellow council member charge uh budget mismanagement.

I I think that's a really significant thing to say.

And I would say um, while there's always room for improvement, and this council is in ongoing conversations with the city about the budget and how it's managed, and we're having more and more conversations for which I really appreciate that is an accusation that I personally cannot stand behind.

Thank you.

We have a motion from Councilman Hingem and a second from Councilman Donaldson.

Let's vote and the motion passes five to four.

Moving on to nine D.

Will the clerk please read item I'm sorry to interrupt nine C needs a vote?

You read, oh, we have two.

Um, so we have a motion from Councilman Hingem and a second from Councilman Gold for 9C.

Is that correct in the record?

That's correct.

And the motion passes eight to one.

Okay, now moving on to 9D.

Will the clerk please read item nine D into the record?

Annual appropriation ordinance for adopting the annual budget and appropriating funds for several purposes named in said budget for the year ending December 31st, 2026.

Good morning, Shri.

Good morning, honorable members of City Council, Sheree McDaniel, Chief Financial Officer.

And the item before you is the annual city budget appropriations ordinance.

We did have um a market session on October 29th with the city council, and the ordinance before you reflects the modifications that were made and agreed to at that meeting.

Um also there was a uh citizen input, public input meeting uh for the city council on October 27th uh for public input on the meeting.

And I'll just take the opportunity to say that we do have a very robust prioritization process as we put the budget together and uh prioritizing public safety again is important to I know the city council as well as the administration.

There is included in this budget a 1.5 million dollar increase in that technology fee for our police department, which uh we included that and prioritize that and that did go through the same prioritization process that all of them do, and the budget is um quite a bit less than, and I'm sorry, I'm gonna try to quote it.

3.1 percent um decrease from the 2025 original budget.

So despite having to take budget reductions, we did prioritize uh that police depart the police department expenditures and that technology, and I'd be happy to answer any questions if there are any I don't see any questions at this time.

I have a motion from Councilman Hingem and a second from Councilman Donaldson.

Let's vote and the motion passes seven to two.

Moving on to item nine e will the clerk please read item nine e into the record.

Ordinance amending Section 110 camping on public property prohibited and repealing Section 11 camping and waste deposit within public stream, public stream raparian zone.

Prohibited of part one general offenses of Article 6, Offenses Affecting Property and Repealing Section 404 Camping Restrictions and Part 4 Offenses Relating to Persons of Article 9, parking park offenses of Chapter 9, public offenses.

Councilman Donaldson.

Okay, thank you, Madam President.

And uh I have uh the privilege of speaking first on this um ordinance.

And we've heard this at our work session two weeks ago.

Um, and really what this ordinance would do is it moves different ordinances dealing with uh urban camping, whether that's on public property, it's in a park, it's near a creek called the riparian zone, brings them all into one uh ordinance for easier uh enforcement by CSPD and hot, and it also standardizes the penalty across the board if it if if that penalty is used.

In addition, it adds uh vehicle camping to one of the types of camping that would be prohibited in uh Colorado Springs or prohibited after 24 hours.

First 24 hours, uh it is it would not be a penalty for that.

Um I asked to have that added after hearing from uh one specific case where a homeowner, a woman was concerned about a house, not well, a car in front of the house next to her, and it had been there for several days.

And I was surprised to find out that we really don't have any any rule against that.

You can live in your car for at least 72 hours in one location, and then the only penalty would be a parking violation, and that is a penalty.

Uh, I'm not sure the exact amount, maybe around $50.

I told some some 30, but I think it's actually gone up a little bit, so 50 to 75.

Uh simple parking uh violation.

Now Emily Vandenberg's gonna come up and present this material.

If we want it presented again, like we had at the uh work session.

Um, I believe citizens truly want us to do something about this.

I mean, that woman was disappointed, concerned, upset that really we we couldn't do anything.

This ordinance would require the person to move uh within 24 hours, a distance of at least a thousand feet, and that's kind of a compromise.

It's they're not gonna get cited right away.

Uh they've got 24 hours to move, and that addresses, I think, the the concerns of businesses and homeowners that this doesn't continue for days.

Why does that matter?

There are there are sanitation issues when people live in vehicles, and that impacts businesses and impacts neighborhoods.

There's also a safety issue.

Uh this has happened in the neighborhood I live in, which is in the very central part of Colorado Springs, and you don't know who's in the vehicle.

Uh, this was more of an RV.

There was a big dog in there barking like it wanted to kill you when anyone would walk by the vehicle.

Um the two men that were in there, no one knew them.

Um, and it's concerning for neighborhoods when this goes on for days on end.

So I'm gonna glance down.

Again, I do think this is strongly supported by citizens.

We've received emails from a lot of good people who volunteer at West Side CARES, and they they have a different view, but I think if this was put on the ballot, it would be overwhelmingly approved.

It's in response to real frustrations and concerns by citizens.

It will give our hot team and our CSPD a tool to encourage those living in vehicles to accept services to change what they're doing.

That person in the vehicle can simply do different things, move a thousand feet, go stay with a friend, stay with a relative, stay with a coworker, use the services of uh Springs Rescue Mission, use the services of Step COS.

There are other uh programs.

And so with that, I think I will stop and let uh Emily Vandenberg speak.

And we also have Lieutenant Tepley who oversees the hot team who may have some uh comments for us, or at least be able to answer questions that we have.

Good morning, Emily.

Good morning, President Car Iverson, President Pro Tem Risley, members of council.

Um, first, thank you to our veterans on council and in the room today.

Um again, uh Councilman Donaldson.

Do we have the presentation up?

Great.

Uh indicated.

Sorry, I do that all the time.

Um here to present on the proposed camping ordinance changes.

A couple things before I get started.

You have seen this presentation before.

It will be the same presentation if you want to see it again.

I do have some updated numbers from the hot team that takes us through the end of October 2025.

They're not part of the presentation, but I do have them with me.

Um just a few points.

Uh as a prosecutor as a member of the city attorney's office, I have no view on this.

I was asked to draft on the camping, the car camping part of this.

I was asked to draft it.

I drafted it in the most uh legally enforceable way I could find to draft it.

Otherwise, I did draft and do recommend the rest of the consolidation and simplification changes.

That's been worked on by the city attorney's office, the prosecution division, and the hot team for a number of years now to just try and make it a little simpler to define it and enforce camping prohibitions in our city.

So with that, let me get started and let Lieutenant Ryan Tepley from the hot team kind of present on what they do on a daily basis.

I'll just leave this.

Thank you, Madam President, other members of city council.

I appreciate you letting me be here to talk today.

Um I am Ryan Tepley.

I'm the lieutenant of our homeless outreach team and our downtown area response team.

So the hot team works to prevent unlawful camping through many different ways.

We collaborate with our community partners.

We post unlawful camps and give warnings before we ever cite someone.

We always make sure they have a warning and we keep a system to determine whether the person we're contacting has previously been warned or not.

Uh we offer outreach resources.

We have members from Serenity Recovery Connection, we have members from Homeward Pikes Peak that come out with us with our team.

They're there in real time when we're making contact with individuals and offering those resources to people.

Most people decline those resources.

Of the people that do accept, that doesn't mean that they always follow through with those resources either.

And then we also coordinate camp cleanups.

That can be a very big issue depending on the size of the camp.

Um, and takes a lot of collaboration with other entities and other partners to make that happen.

And then we issue citations when appropriate and when need be.

Okay.

And then did you want to talk about the most recent numbers?

Yeah.

And on the screen now are uh 2025 two date numbers through August of 2025.

Um updates.

The camp cleanups requested is now 1,478.

The number of camps posted is now 2,072.

Um the number of warnings issued.

Sorry, my list is a little different.

Maybe not on this list.

Um the number of outreach services now offered are 975 people offered outreach services, 615 declined, 76 actively engaged in programming.

Um we now have 114 vehicle camps that have been contacted.

Um, and we're up to 2500 2,504 misdemeanor warrants cleared or arrests made, 300 felony warrants or arrests made, 11 firearms seized, um, and higher numbers on our citations as well.

So last time at the work session, I presented a lot of information about the outreach efforts made by CSPD, the outreach efforts made by the court when somebody is actually into the courthouse.

Even when we get to the enforcement piece, there are resources we're trying to offer, avenues we're trying to offer beyond criminal justice section.

Currently, we are now at about 63% who've declined services throughout the year, and 7.8% engaged in programming throughout the year.

Now, what does this ordinance do?

As Councilman Donaldson indicated, it consolidates everything into camping prohibited 9610.

Makes all the penalties level across the board and adds the vehicle camping.

I know there were a number of questions about kind of the limitations of the vehicle camping, why it's a 24 hour, why it's a 1,000 feet.

Um the first on the 24 hour, that's about the same time.

Um we give people to pack and leave in other circumstances.

Provability is also a factor.

Um, when it's a 24-hour time period, that helps us be able to prove that they are actually camping there, that we they're living in their car there, not just that they parked their vehicle there and left it.

Uh also um kind of a compromise of having the um response to the neighbor as opposed to um kind of all things.

Ma'am, did you have a question?

Okay.

Um currently our parking ordinances, which is the only avenue of uh enforcement we have right now.

Um, say that 72 hours for a vehicle on a public street um or within 100 feet, that's a parking ticket.

Uh that is currently set under the municipal court schedule of payable fines is $50.

Or if you're in front of a business, you only get 24 hours and 100 feet.

That's the point you can be ticketed for illegal parking.

That's also the point that your vehicle could be impounded for illegal parking under uh 1025, 101 and 102, which council just updated earlier this year.

Again, all the major changes, adding vehicle camping.

And uh just clarifying making penalties consistent.

It's simple, it's easier.

Um, we're trying to make the code more user-friendly as we go through a multi-year recodification process, and one of those things is to where we can put everything in one place, use simpler terms, um, just clarify it both for law enforcement, both for prosecutors, for general citizens, uh, that the code is cleaner.

And then vehicle camping was Councilman Donaldson's request and was drafted to the best of my ability, but I have again city attorney's office is apolitical.

I take no position on that.

Umplementation, except for vehicle camping, these are all already violations of our code.

People are being cited for these things daily.

Um, they'll continue to be cited, and current hot dart procedures and Clotarus Springs City Attorney's Office prosecution guidelines will apply across the board to handling of these cases.

Um with 114 camps contacted thus far through 2025, taking us through October.

We aren't anticipating a significant case volume.

Lieutenant Tepley reminded me earlier today that sometimes they just don't even get to go out to these calls when neighbors are calling complaining about cars in front of their house because it is currently only a parking ticket.

So, yes, uh, I think Councilman Lineweaver, you had that question.

There may be more that we don't know about.

Um, and again, council could approve, ask for amendments, or decline to adopt.

Councilman Bailey.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh question for you, Ms.

Vandenberg, or possibly Lieutenant Tufley.

Um obviously the interest in this is because of the addition of the car camping part of this, because as you said, everything else is already covered in in code.

Um what I'd like to do is make sure that we help people to understand exactly what this is doing.

And we hear about a 24-hour the 24-hour time period.

I want to be clear about how that works.

And I'm guessing, or let me let me ask that question, maybe Lieutenant Tefley, if you could come up to walk us through typical how this would work in if this ordinance was put into effect.

Yes, sir.

If the ordinance were to pass, it would be very similar to what we do right now with regard to camping.

We always post in in some places we're posting 24 hours ahead of time to give those people time to leave, unless it's a trespassing complaint on private property where that property owner has a no-trespassing letter on file with us, giving us the authority to act on their behalf.

Outside of that, if it's public property, we have 24 hours.

So we give that notice to them and then we post that at their camp, and then they have that 24 hours to leave, and it would work very similarly to that.

It's not 24 hours from the time the citizen might call us.

Like for instance, right now with parking complaints being 72 hours, it's it's not that somebody calls us and says, hey, they've been parked here for three days.

I want you to move them.

When we go out there, we have to contact them and then post that 72-hour notice for them.

And then we can act on that.

Does that make sense?

Or help?

Yes, I I think so.

And again, what I what I'm trying to do, I think I have a pretty good grasp of what what we're looking to do, but it seems like there is a lot of misinformation or misunderstanding about this.

So I want to give an opportunity to clarify that as much as possible.

Um so theoretically, you know, and the the difference, I guess.

Let me let me highlight the difference between camping.

You probably have places that you already look where people tend to camp.

The difference with car camping is we got a lot of streets, and it's probably a lot harder to identify given places.

So you're going to rely, I suspect, on people calling and saying, Hey, would you please check this out?

Yes, more than likely, yes.

We do have some people that do camp in some of the areas that we go to regularly.

However, the GoGov app formerly uh go COS, we get many requests in on that from people that are complaining about people camping in their vehicles in front of their house, uh, behind their house in alleys.

And so if we're seeing a large influx of that coming in, then we could target that area, identify it, and then go contact those individuals.

Okay.

And I wish we could live in a world where people instead of going to the app or calling the police, would go and knock on the door and knock on the car window and say, Hey, can I help you?

What do you what do you need?

Um, if you don't mind, would you please move along after a certain period of time?

I don't think that's unreasonable either.

Um, but we don't live in that kind of world.

So the practical effect of this is what from your perspective?

So the practical effect, besides combining it all into one to make it simplified, but regarding car camping in general, it's a community safety piece of it.

And you're right, we don't live in that in those times anymore where people can go knock on the door.

I can't tell you how many go-gov complaints that I've gotten where they have contact contacted individuals and they're being threatened, they're being yelled at, screamed at, they have an aggressive dog.

And so then they reach out to the police department to say, I'm not I'm not gonna go do that.

Can you guys come handle this situation?

And so it would help with a community safety piece in general, on top of providing resources and opportunities to those people that are fighting homelessness to work toward getting out of that.

Thanks.

And and last one from me, I think you said 114 contacted this year so far.

Of those, can you give us a sense of how many of them are just simply moved along versus how many of them you had to come back to again and again?

Yeah, I I don't know off the top of my head if I'm gonna be honest with you, but I would say usually when we contact people, they'll they'll move along.

Um, sometimes we contact people and they say, I'm not moving, give me my ticket.

Um, and so it just depends.

It's very dependent on who or which individual we're dealing with.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Councilman Hincham.

Thank you, Madam President.

So uh number of questions, actually, and you can take them as it seems appropriate.

But where does someone go when they've been cited?

Where do they go to?

Yes, ma'am, good question.

So when they're cited, it's a serve and release ticket, um, just like it would be if we stop someone on a traffic stop.

We're not taking you to jail, we're not impounding your car.

We would serve and release you with a ticket with a court date, and then where they go from there, that's a good question.

We obviously offer the res offer offer the resources of Springs Rescue Mission and other resource partners we work with, where they go would be up to them.

And with this with this ordinance, it would be you need to move a thousand feet away.

If they don't move, I know that um Councilman Line Weber, you brought up the concern of are we going to tow people's cars when it's a mom with three children in there?

Uh officers have discretion.

I in my entire career I've never seen somebody do that.

Um that's not what we would be, that's not our goal here.

Um our goal is to make sure that the community is safe in general, and then we would ask them to move.

And if they don't move, then we're going to say, well, you can't be here and you have your ticket and you need to go to your court date.

Okay.

Um you had talked in the presentation about um refusing of services when people refuse services.

Can you talk a little bit more about one?

How are services offered?

When you approach a car, um, who's typically approaching in these cases?

What do they say, and what does it mean that services are refused?

Sure.

Um when we're cars we haven't really done yet, correct?

But we do do camping uh the when we're contacting camping violators, it is usually going to be an officer first.

So someone from our homeless outreach team would be contacting them, or someone from our downtown area response team.

They are also homeless outreach team subject matter experts.

So they would contact the individual first and inform them, hey, you're you're trespassing or you're camping on public property that's prohibited by city ordinance and you need to move along, we would give that warning.

We would then check the system for warnings given.

And then if it wasn't if they've been given a warning before and we're going to move toward a citation, we could do that.

What we do is we also offer resources specifically with Homeward Pike speak, letting them know about Springs Rescue Mission, and then also a Serenity Recovery Connection if there's um substance abuse going on.

And so they do ride with us very regularly, and those people are with us.

So if someone accepts resources, all that means is we're either providing them a card or they're willing to have a conversation with one of the individuals from those organizations that's riding with us that day.

That does not necessarily mean that they follow up in the long run, if that makes sense.

But they've at least accepted to have a conversation, taking a business card to keep that option open in the future.

They take a card that's considered you're tracking this clearly.

Yes, ma'am.

You're tracking it somewhere in the system.

So if they take a card that's considered receiving the Yes, ma'am.

We we count that as they've accepted resources from the police department.

Um that does not mean that they're following through or or engaging with those resources down the line.

Do you happen to have data um, you know, in terms of this receiving of services?

Because we know and we've heard from um you we have the hot team, which is the police, and we have the hop team, the outreach program, which is fire.

Um, and uh, they have somewhat different approaches and they come in different uniforms and different responses.

Um, do you happen to know um the response rate or receptivity to reception of services depending on who's approaching and how they're approached?

Uh I don't, if I'm being honest, I don't think we've broken it down to that point.

I know that Serenity Recovery Connection provides us a monthly um number of the of number of people that they have seen that have come in um that have sought out resources.

Um, and with regard to hop versus hot, I don't have the differentiation in those numbers.

And we haven't really done this with vehicles yet, so it would be, I'm assuming it would most likely be a police officer that would be approaching those cars.

Is that accurate?

Yes, it would be a police officer approaching those cars first, and that's primarily for safety issues.

Okay.

Well, I I do think whatever happens with this ordinance, whether it passes or fails, we need to um be coordinating more effectively across all the systems in terms of how we make that outreach, um, what it what it sounds like, what the you know, what the approach is, um, etc.

And and and we know it will often take multiple times before someone is ready um to receive services.

But then there's also a lot of folks I think uh we'll hear more uh later from that that we may not be capturing at all and families who are are in cars as well.

Um but what are the penalties?

Like can really walk me through when someone is approached, what are the potential options they might be moved along?

If they're offered a citation, um what is the actual dollar amount for that citation and what is the total amount and the penalties that someone would be um responsible for should they be convicted or viol um of a violation?

A specific sorry, are you specifically asking about car camping as opposed to parking?

Uh yes.

Well actually talk about both car camping and and parking.

So car camping, all camping would be subject to the general penalty.

That is a fine of up to 2500, probation, jail of up to 189 days, or any combination of those things.

That's the that's the possibility.

Um practically speaking, doesn't happen much.

Uh how often does it happen?

On who on who actually goes to jail in these cases?

I we don't track those numbers.

The municipal I could probably get them from municipal court, but I don't track those numbers.

Right.

And and likely these folks would not have the money to pay that kind of a fine.

And we uh speaking for the prosecution division right now.

Um fines are not something we seek on camping cases.

Because it's just we don't do that.

Camping and cars and violation of um car camping.

That would be subject to the same camping ordinance in general.

Um same camping penalties in general.

Everybody would be subject.

No matter what form of camping you're taking, it would all be subject to the same penalty.

Currently, the parking tickets uh more than 24 hours with in front of a business area uh for or within 100 feet of the same location is $50 ticket.

Uh same for if you're 72 hours in front of a home residence.

Okay.

And my understanding is that the sheriff's department in the county jail was not uh consulted in the in the development of this ordinance.

Is that correct?

Sheriff's, I'm gonna refer you to Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, I I have talked to Joe Roy, the the county sheriff in the past.

Um I think we do not expect a large increase uh in how would you say it properly in uh penalties of of uh jail time for car camping in this in this ordinance.

So I it I do not believe it will be a uh an issue for the county jail.

Okay.

Well because of the the low numbers, that's why.

Sure.

Sure.

Well, I would hope you know we aren't sending these people to jail, but uh again, thinking holistically, and if we're going to be ticketing people in a shorter period of time for living in their cars, we need to understand the potential impacts on the system um and and I guess I'll just ask again, like going specifically to parking.

Um someone is cited, they have to move within 24 hours, and it can't be it has to be more than a thousand feet.

Where are they going to go?

I can't answer that question for you, ma'am.

They're gonna find another street to park on lightly.

Or private property.

Um this just be clear, this ordinance can't be in general.

We are not talking anybody who is legally permitted on private property by a private property owner.

They're parked on private property, these camping ordinances don't apply.

Okay.

So I I think I'll just say this briefly now.

I'm sure it will come up later, but I think one of my challenges with this ordinance is that we haven't given, we haven't given thought as to where people could go.

We haven't discussed what about creating legal places where people can park with sanitation, with bathrooms, with showers, um, looking at this holistically.

We're looking at piece, a piece of it, an important piece of it, mind you.

I really appreciate and respect um council member Donaldson responding to constituents who are concerned and who don't feel safe in their neighborhoods.

There certainly are instances where um uh it is scary.

That's there's nothing wrong with us looking at that, but we need to be looking at this holistically and looking at where places where people can safely go.

You don't have to respond to that.

I know you're apolitical.

That's good to do that.

I just wanted to make the point right now.

Thank you.

Beyond my scope, ma'am, but I understand and appreciate your comment.

Councilman Lineweber.

Yes, I just um I Nancy's really kind of asked a lot of the questions that I was going to ask, particularly around the citation piece, but what I heard from you is that rarely do you actually enforce the 2005 when I heard $2,500.

I was like, what?

I mean, that's I mean, these people can't pay rent.

I mean, um, how in the world are they gonna if they get their car impound impounded?

I I don't want it to be easy for us to impound someone's car, but it needs to be necessary.

So in general, I actually do support this.

But I do have still some concerns.

And um, I do want to first state that I have called in several times um with my own business and with streets around my business where we've had prolonged camping.

And I can tell you that 99% of the time when people live in a place for more than three days, they leave a pile of trash.

Um they urinate, they defecate all around the area.

Um it's it's not uh it's not a good health standard, and it should not be something that is allowed.

And so I can speak firsthand that I think we absolutely do need some kind of ordinance to in to uplift our ability to enforce parking and that sort of thing.

But with that said, in every good policy, we need balance.

And I um have to retract my statement.

I I I did refer to this homeless response thing as crap.

Um that might have been a little bit expressive.

I I will say that it's a well organized program brochure.

But this is far from a citywide strategic plan.

We don't have one.

We don't have one that makes homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring.

We just don't.

And we're not dealing with some of the core issues around disability, um, respite care.

We're not dealing with um uh chronic mental uh health issues.

And I know some of the times that there are some challenges with enforcement because of legislation that's come from Denver that has made it really tough, tough on our police to really kind of say, hey, we need to get you the right help, but you can't you can't take away someone's rights.

I mean, I it's a tough I totally support the police 100%.

I've talked to a whole bunch of people on the hot team personally myself in dealing with this issue, and I have dealt with this issue for over 15 years, so I know it firsthand.

But again, and to Nancy's point, where do they go?

And this is where I think our city has really lacked leadership in really developing a strategic plan about dealing with the broad base scope of homelessness.

We haven't really addressed that.

We have to find a good balance.

We don't want to be a place where it's a smorgasbord of free stuff, and then we just allow people just to come in here and use our resources to help their problem.

We want to we want to address the issues of people who live here that are our people that for circumstances, whatever it might be of their own creating or whatever that is, we need to understand it better.

We need to understand how to achieve better outcomes.

Um we haven't done the work, and I think that's that's where I kind of have a little bit of a problem.

I we I kind of feel like we're getting heavy-handed on the enforcement part, but we haven't done very well on the resource part.

And um, we need, I think we need better leadership around that, and and it certainly is a priority of mine is something that I've been really, really working on.

Um, but we need to address this in a bigger issue.

This is not good enough, not for our town.

And so I'm actually calling out the mayor, because evidently he watches this because he heard me say this is crap.

And I will say this is a great brochure.

But we need to address those bigger issues, particularly around disabilities.

Um, the home you can't say the rescue mission can't accept people because they can't accept everybody.

There are people with disabilities that cannot go to the rescue mission.

You can't take your vehicle to the rescue mission.

You can't, a lot of these services, you can't do those kind of things because we just haven't really fully looked at a system-wide approach.

And we've had some nonprofits in our community that really have let us down and not really providing great leadership there.

I know this is a little bit of speech.

I it's just appropriate because this is a tough issue, and it's a priority for our city, and this is definitely gonna have a component of that.

I will plan to vote for accepting this because I think it need it's needed, but I can tell you that I will be putting all my effort into coming up with a citywide strategic plan that really does address the homeless thing in a broader spoke.

And I will be working with key partners like Beth right here, who really understands probably the issue better than I do, and um and and really work with um members around our community to really elevate this issue to get ahead of it.

Because I just read, you know, you just said on your own thing, over 2,000 citations.

That's that says it's not working.

Well, we got to get citations down to, you know, I we're not gonna get to zero because there's there's there are people in the homeless community that are not top quality, you know, and and of uh an illegal persuasion.

Um that makes it really tough on the police.

I totally uh I you guys do an incredible job, and we're asking a lot, but we need to need to back you up, and so that because you guys have big hearts, and we need to provide resources to be able to direct people to things that can really help them improve their lives, and that's what I don't think we've done the work.

And that's what I don't think we've done the work.

And so yes, you're gonna get my support on this, but not happily.

You know what I'm saying?

Because I'm worried about the outcome.

But I heard from you that it's rare that you inflict that $2,500 fine.

And certainly you can't just, I mean, I know you guys have hearts.

You're not gonna, you know, take uh uh uh a mom's car away from her with kids.

That's like who will do that?

That's heartless, right?

That I know that won't happen, and I'm sure that will not happen.

Um, but we still need to look at this problem.

So anyway, that was um you kind of outlined the cost.

That's what I was concerned about.

And um I think that's all I have.

Thank you.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks, madam president and Emily, just to uh address one of the issues that uh Councilman Lymewebber brought up.

I think I heard you say you don't um our city attorney's office prosecutors don't impose financial penalties on people who are homeless, whether they're in a tent, uh car, whatever.

That's correct, sir.

Um don't even know if it's written into our policy, but just our procedure is that we will waive fines in court costs for them for them.

Um to answer just to comment on council councilman Linewebers, that $2,500 fine.

Um, I've only seen it appear in severe um traffic cases where we're punishing severely bad traffic behavior.

I don't that's I've never seen the fine um really imposed in a camping case unless that was at the specific request of a defendant, and it would have been a de minimis fine.

Okay, thank you.

And I have uh one question for uh Lieutenant Tepley.

And uh Lieutenant, would adding car camping to this ordinance be useful for hot the hot teams for CSPD and trying to address address these issues.

Yes, I believe it would.

It's it's an issue, and and I want everyone to know, everyone in the room, like our approach is always compassion.

We have to have a heart, right?

So um that first and foremost, that's our approach when we go out with people.

That's one of the reasons we partner with who we partner with to bring resources available.

Um, but we also have a job as law enforcement to enforce the law, and so that is our primary function, and all these other item ideas that we've talked about are crucial in long-term success and long-term resolutions.

However, with the car camping, we're seeing many, many more people writing in about it, calling the police about it.

And so I think it's something that for the safety of all citizens and for everyone else in our in our city that we do need to enforce that.

And so I do feel it would be beneficial for us to have that authority to be able to enforce that as a law, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no other comments, I'm gonna move on to public comment.

Um, and keep in mind that we will go until 12 o'clock, and then we will break for our meeting.

We have a lunch meeting, and then we will come back and finish public comment and this vote um at one o'clock.

So just so everybody's aware that we will stop at noon and come back at one.

Um, first up, I have David Bally in court.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Um, please state your name for the record, and you have three minutes.

Okay.

Yes.

Hi there, everybody.

Uh, David Valencourt, and I want to thank and acknowledge Councilmember William uh Donaldson for bringing this forward and the larger city council and Sergeant Cheney and the hot team for their tireless work.

I recognize that the team continues to do a lot with a little, and that is not lost on me.

I've lived in the West Side since 2017.

I currently serve on the board of the organization of West Side Neighbors.

I'm an active trail runner and biker.

I've lived in places, including New Orleans, Portland, Minneapolis, and I travel to a lot of US cities for work.

What I've seen in our neighborhoods reflects broader national issues of inequality in housing.

Um that said, why I'm here today is to support this ordinance with a few suggested amendments that I believe will make this more effective and balanced.

I want to start by acknowledging that every human being deserves a pillow and a bed.

Nobody should have to worry about that.

But we also need safe neighborhoods, parks, and trailheads.

In my neighborhood, just two blocks from Olkaro City.

I and my neighbors have personally witnessed domestic disputes.

We've had gunshots late at night.

We've had campers parked for weeks on end in city streets in my neighborhood.

And we've had, I can't even count the amount of trash and debris left behind after they've moved, which I know Sergeant Cheney and the hot team and folks have followed up with great emails to us saying the amount of trash measured in actual like cubic feet, you know, huge trash bins uh that's been uh picked up.

Seen vehicles worked on for weeks on end in the neighborhood.

This is not about true uh people truly down in their luck.

It's about the frequent flyers that continually refuse services, which I heard the stats be something like 8% actually accepting the services and simply moving from one block to the next.

I support this, as I mentioned, but I think there should be a relocation limit to prevent it from becoming a game of whack-a-mole, something like a 30-day 1,000-foot provision, just similar to how federal lands work, where they have uh relocation requirements after camping on public lands for 14 days, which I have done plenty of and joined the backcountry.

I think it's important to make sure to clarify that RVs and campers are explicitly included.

And I'd love to see the consideration of the opportunity for the Go COS app reports, if sufficient with you know the photos, time spans, GPS metadata to be able to allow officers to use that as the initial evidence so they can post notice cutting down on trips, which may be an efficiency help, knowing that again, we have very limited resources.

I think it's important to prioritize enforcement in residential areas near parks and schools and trailheads, places that really affect families the most.

So I really encou um with that said, I think it might be worth looking into say the formation of some sort of committee, maybe as uh council member Lineweber has uh suggested to create a real strategic plan, maybe with a six-month check-in to just see how data is being tracked now that we have this, so that we can see what potential impacts there are, especially with consideration of like safe parking spaces or safe spaces.

So with that, I appreciate you all and uh thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Rick Herman.

Hi, everyone, I'm Rick Herman.

I'm uh homeowner, my wife and I in the uh the old Colorado City area near Blunt Park.

Uh I'm here because this personally affects us.

And I we would like for law enforcement to have the ability to deal with this in a more meaningful way than currently.

So just to give you an idea of what our neighborhood, which is a beautiful historic neighborhood, walkable, one of the very few walkable neighborhoods in Colorado Springs.

Um of the things we deal with on a regular basis is refuse, of course, and human waste and lots of debris um left behind.

Um it was suggested that perhaps we could intervene personally.

All of us that live in the neighborhood have done that.

We have all individually approached people and asked them if they need help.

We've asked them if they could move along.

We've asked them to please not take a crap in my front yard.

Okay.

I mean, and yet these things still happen.

All right.

So what I would strongly encourage, in addition to this amendment, is that you do consider a citywide strategic plan.

Because at the end of the day, this problem isn't gonna go away.

And simply telling people you can't park there doesn't make them disappear.

They don't go poof and disappear.

They're still real people, they're still alive, and they still need some place to go.

So, as part of that strategic plan, I would suggest that perhaps you look at temporary designated areas that aren't in residential neighborhoods, so that people have a place to go.

And the other thing that I'd urge you to look at, there's an organization called the National Alliance to End uh Homelessness.

One of their big principles is housing first.

Okay, forgetting about services, but housing first.

Find a place for people to stay so that they are safe and have a roof over their heads, and then you can address the services as a secondary issue because people will move to those those services more readily if they're not in danger.

So those that's what I would ask is that you consider this more holistically.

I've lived in San Francisco, I've lived in Los Angeles, I've lived in San Diego.

Everywhere I've lived, we had to deal with the homeless problem.

You can't just do it in a in a vacuum.

You have to address it as a social issue because it is.

And I support the the amendment because I deal with it every day, as do my neighbors.

But I'd ask you to think think more broadly and more holistically about what we can do to help our our neighbors and our friends and our fellow citizens who are unhoused.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Susan Bolduck.

Good morning, or maybe it's almost afternoon yet, counselors.

Um this is uh maybe uh an important law enforcement document, but I don't see any human dignity in this.

We need to criminalize crimes, not blankets or human conditions.

There are many reasons, as you all know, for homelessness and unaffordable housing.

But policy plays a large role here.

For many years, we have been dealing with overregulation of zoning that makes it almost impossible for us to build missile milling missing middle housing throughout our community.

Um we build in a way that increases costs and increases scarcity.

Overregulation is everywhere in our zoning process, as you know.

And um something like 85% of our residential zones are single family only, which essentially makes it almost impossible to build missing middle affordable housing in our community.

Right now, we have a shortage of about 28,000 units.

If we paid for every homeless person's rent, we would still have homelessness.

And homelessness is increasing as more and more cuts to HUD and other safety net programs come about.

Also, another policy item our rental market has been taken over by large real estate investment corporations that violate health and safety, raise rents, and evict people in higher numbers than our Ma and POM landlords do.

And our city exercises very little oversight.

We don't have a registry of landlords.

We don't know who's operating in our city.

Tax assessments do, but um there isn't really any way for people to get help if they're being unfairly evicted.

Yes, there are some programs in place, but this is a massive problem.

And right now, 53% of our renters are cost burdened, and this is the pipeline to homelessness.

So we have to do something about policy, and our economic and housing crisis, the combination of the two makes this uh just a perfect storm of hardship for people.

Law enforcement is part of the solution, yes, but we need all our experts to weigh in.

We need a compromise a comprehensive policy, so I urge you to vote no on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Alyssa Rizzo.

Good morning.

Hello, my name is Alisa Rizzo.

I come here today as a concerned community member and someone who actively works at a nonprofit, who works with folks uh facing eviction.

So I strongly disagree with the city ordinance proposal that further criminalizes folks who have been displaced from housing.

As I mentioned, I work at a nonprofit that focuses on eviction diversion and housing justice.

We support through rental assistance, legal assistance, housing navigation, and so every day I work alongside directly impacted folks.

I feel strongly that this ordinance would continue to add barriers for community members experiencing housing insecurity.

Which are eviction cases.

And then for reference, in 2023, there were 6,634.

So we can see that there was a rise of 2,000 people facing eviction.

And I work with these folks who are facing eviction for different reasons.

Nonpayment of rent, because unexpected medical issues, because life happens, economic immobility, because of our current economy.

Those who have been evicted, who there's no support in place.

Where can y'all go park?

There's nothing without disturbance.

Sleeping the entire night without being disturbed.

Resources are dwindling.

And folks are being evicted.

And once someone is evicted, it becomes that much more difficult to obtain dignified housing.

It's on your public record.

The Family Solutions Collaborative has reported that there have been around 10,398 families who have experienced homelessness or housing insecurity in Al Paso County in the past year.

And this data is collected from McKinney Vento from the PIT count from Snap and census data.

So we see that this issue is growing.

Folks are facing eviction.

Resources are dwindling.

And I heard um one of the gentlemen who previously spoke speak about there needs to be somewhere where folks can park.

And that is something that I can agree to.

We I've spent, like I mentioned, I spent time researching places where someone can go park.

Where can folks shower?

Are there housing vouchers?

Are there gas gas vouchers?

And I have seen a lot of no's.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh, excuse me, I just had one quick question for the individual just spoke.

What's the name of your nonprofit that you work at?

Community economic defense project.

Okay, thank you.

Um, next up we have Tim Close who is ceding time to Sorry.

Oh, oh, I'm sorry, my screen went up.

It's we Tim Close, your next up.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'm still reading.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Tim Close, and I'm the serve as the executive director of Family Promise of Colorado Springs, a nonprofit dedicated to keeping families facing homelessness together safe and off the streets.

We do this through eviction prevention, temporary shelter, and stabilization programs.

I appreciate appreciate the opportunity to share some perspective as you consider the in-vehicle living portion of the proposed homelessness ordinance.

Um each month family promises, family promise receives applications from families in crisis, parents who have lost a job, faced rent increases, or experienced a medical setback.

In recent months, those applications increased by as much as 100% to nearly 200 applications per month.

These aren't abstract numbers.

They reflect families in our community, families who, through new no fault of their own, are struggling to afford a place to live.

More and more of those families are telling us they are living in their vehicles.

They are often working parents with children who attend local our local schools.

The car becomes their last refuge, a way to stay together, stay warm, and keep going until they can get back to stable housing.

I want to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of local businesses and residents who value safety and order in our community.

But as we seek solutions, we must ensure that we're not pushing families into further despair.

On behalf of Family Promise, the families that we serve and our volunteers, I respectfully ask that you revise the in-vehicle living provisions of this ordinance to include designated safe parking zones, areas where families can legally and safely park while they work towards stability.

Without that option, we risk taking away the very things that allow them to recover.

The ability for parents to stay maintain employment, for children to stay in school, and for families to stay together while moving toward permanent housing.

Colorado Springs has been long been known as a community that values both compassion and responsibility.

I ensure I urge you to ensure that this ordinance reflects both.

Thank you for your time and for your commitment to all who call this city home.

Councilman Henjam.

Thank you.

Please please stay up at the podium.

This is Nancy Henchum over here.

Thank you for your work with Family Promise.

Um my church is a member.

We we work with Family Promise and the work that you do.

Um I'm just curious to know if if you had if if someone working on this ordinance had reached out to you as a serve direct service provider, how might you have responded in terms of um working with the need for this ordinance?

So what what might have been some suggestions, or how might you have just simply even responded to the invitation to work on such an ordinance?

The answer to the invitation would have been yes.

Um it's a longer answer to your question as far as what we would have done.

Uh in my position, my staff, the volunteers who serve these families who are facing homelessness, we would have looked more towards a more holistic answer to the provision.

Keeping in mind the impact of the of the residents in the city and the people who are trying to conduct business and face impediments to their right to live and and work the way that they do.

However, one of the things that I believe tends to be overlooked is these families who are, and we deal specifically with families with children.

The issue is they're also residents of the city, and they deserve as much visibility to be seen, heard, and served as anyone else.

So my approach would have been to be how do we address some of the issues that contribute to these families experiencing homelessness as opposed to how do we respond once they're in a condition where they're just trying to survive?

Great.

Yeah, thank you very much.

I appreciate that response.

Thank you.

Um, we're at the top of the hour.

Um, so then the the next step would be seating time for six minutes, and we don't have six minutes on the clock before a meeting.

So we're going to adjourn to recess.

It is one o'clock as promised, so we will get back started.

Um we are out of recess and back into our regular meeting, continuing with citizens' comments.

And up first, we have Tasha Evans seating time to Rabbi Pillsbury.

Is Tasha Evans in the room?

And you are seating your three minutes, correct?

Thank you.

So we have Rabbi Pillsbury up for six minutes.

Hi, I'm Rabbi I Lil' Gray.

Is it's the green button on?

I just want to make sure.

Please turn the green button on.

There you go.

I am Rabbi Aya Pillsbury.

I'm the rabbi of Temple Beach Forra, and I'm also a former co-chair of Colorado Springs Faith Table.

I am so heartbroken.

I'm devastated to be standing in front of you who are here to make our city as amazing as possible for every single citizen.

Why are we talking about making the worst chapter of a person or a family's life so much worse when we could be using all of that money, all of that resources to make their lives better?

I know that all of you know that the world we live in is the world we have created.

The reason so many of our citizens don't have safe affordable housing is because of us.

The reason they don't have a bathroom is because of us.

And it's because it's your responsibility to help us fix it.

Just like it's ours, and we are here doing the things.

And we need your help.

Because each and every one of us is only one medical crisis or a few, depending on how deep your networks are and how wealthy they are from being in our cars or on the streets.

And if we were, thank God for a car.

And earlier in this session, many of our council members were lamenting times when we used to just talk to each other and care about each other.

Well, guess what?

We could create that time together right now.

We all agree that people need housing, right?

You shouldn't work full-time and live in your car.

You should not be a full-time teacher and need to have a habitat for humanity house and build your own house and apply for it.

You should be able to go on Zillow, get a realtor, and buy yourself a house.

I think that's the world we all want to live in.

I too am a homeowner.

I have two small children.

I look at my two-year-old and my babies, and I cry thinking about the world they're inheriting.

This is your opportunity to create a better world, to stop lamenting the what ifs or oh, oh, I don't want to see homelessness.

I don't want to see it.

It's scary.

Guess what?

I also don't want to not have a home one day.

I don't want to live in a world that never in a whole discussion about people without housing, nobody has said, what about their safety?

I would be scared living in my car.

I would be very vulnerable.

And so are they.

That when we talk about faith values, which whatever faith tradition or value tradition you come from and claim as your own.

Look in the mirror.

What would God or your consciousness or your grandchild or your best friend?

What would that veteran who served in Afghanistan who made sure that we had this beautiful country, who now is working really hard and dealing with a lot of trauma, whose snap benefits are worried about getting cut, who is now living on their street and is gonna get fined.

I also want to challenge you.

If you say, oh, we would never arrest a woman with their children, a mother, really, then why put it on the books?

You're just leaving the door open for a bad actor to be able to say, you know, I could make you pay a $2,000 fine, or you know, you could do something else, and I could let you go on your way.

And no one would ever know.

There are plenty of places in this city that don't have service, there are plenty of ways to disable oversight and all sorts of things.

If we all agree that no one would ever do that, let's make it legal.

Let's make it so no one can.

So please, think about humans.

Think about people you care about.

And think about what it would feel like.

And what would it look like if we actually solved housing?

Because we can, and we need your help.

And criminalizing it, making it that much harder to bounce back from is not the solution.

If we want to save our money, we should stop people from getting evicted.

Because that costs way less than helping rehabilitate people later or funding a stay in jail or prison, because that's obviously where everybody wants to spend their time, super productive, and a great use of taxpayer money.

So please take a step back, have some compassion, and think about what choices you would want someone to make for your children, your grandchildren, and yourself.

Thank you.

And please vote no.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Cody Natelle.

Good afternoon, council.

My name is Cody Natelli.

I'm an EMT in the clinical operations lead for ascending to health primary care and respite care here in Colorado Springs.

I'm a longtime resident of Colorado Springs and have been for 11 years.

I work hands-on with people living in vehicles, tents, and on the street every day.

I'm here to oppose the proposed vehicle camping ban because it will make our community less safe, more expensive to manage, and legally messy without providing any meaningful change to homelessness.

I want to begin with something uncomfortable but necessary.

People do not refuse services because they want to.

We see increases in cities that have similar legislation passed with emergency room utilization increasing, EMS transports and strain on the an already overburdened EMS system increasing, property loss and damages, and preventable deaths.

At ascending to health, we know that vehicle dwellers are the most stabilizable population.

A barrier between themselves and the elements, storage for medication documents and belongings, mobility to reach work and appointments, and a lockable door which significantly decreases victimizable risk.

When you take a vehicle away through citation impound and enforcement, you turn someone who is barely hanging on into someone who now has nothing left to lose.

Costs and outcomes of enforcement led strategies are a revolving door.

At our given your own report says 10% engagement.

Cities that have enacted bans, watched unsheltered homelessness increase.

Not because people are choosing the street, but because we took the last thing they had to survive in it.

And just because grants pass ruling means that while cities can enforce camping, can is not should.

Local governments are still facing challenges under due process, disability law, and state constitutions.

I am asking you to be strategic.

I do have a plan, and I'm happy to share that with you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Mark Johnson.

Hello, good afternoon.

Thanks for the time.

My name is Mark Johnson, and I'm speaking to oppose the proposed ordinance.

I served in the Air Force for 20 years as a clinical social worker and later for eight years with as a civilian with the Navy and with the State Department.

I currently volunteer at West Side Cares and have the privilege of serving dozens of our homeless neighbors each week.

You may be aware that over 900 people receive their mail at Westside CARES.

There is a palpable uptick in frustration and hopelessness among our unhoused neighbors.

Recently, one neighbor told me they just want us to disappear.

And I think they may be on to something.

Uh after listening this morning, some of the comments and um we all urinate and defecate.

We just most of us have more dignified circumstances in which to do so.

I spent most of my early 20s one paycheck away from homelessness.

And my guess is that I'm not the only one in this room who can say the same.

I even spent a few weeks sleeping in my car.

People facing homelessness typically rely on their vehicles for shelter if they're fortunate enough to have one.

The proposed ordinance effectively removes this option from the table of woefully limited options available to them.

I do appreciate the challenges you face as city council members and others who are directly affected by having unhoused neighbors.

However, please forgive me if my empathy leans heavily toward our homeless neighbors.

Well, I'm aware that the goal is not to punish anyone or to make life harder for anyone.

That is precisely the net effect this will have.

None this month, in fact.

Pending loss of affordable care subsidies, effectively doubling health care costs for lower income Americans, and continuing increase in grocery prices.

Oh, and winter's on us.

Coming.

Well, I'm sure it's not the intent of on this of this ordinance on the surface.

It's seems mean spirited.

I urge you all to vote no.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Catherine Rombers seating time to Mallory Everhart.

Is Catherine Romber in the room?

So, Catherine, you have three minutes.

I have not done this before.

You're supposed to press the green button.

Yes.

Okay.

Things.

I I thought I was here to yield time, but as I'm sitting here thinking one thing that needs to happen instead of having a police car, um, come and knock on your window and scare you because people are scared of the police, especially in that situation.

A social worker costs less.

It would take less of the pe the police department's time.

A trained social worker that knows all the resources would be better.

Um, I've watched kids come to schools.

I'm not gonna be very specific because well, I'd be violating some some confidences, but I've watched people come to school with a van on time, leave their kids, and after a couple of years of watching them, then find out they were living in the van and wonder where are they showering?

Where are these kids getting their clothes?

No wonder this kid smells or that kid doesn't smell well.

If they could just park someplace with a shower and toilet facility, they don't, it doesn't cost that much.

It would probably cost more to send the policeman there and then repeatedly send the policeman there.

Um, homelessness is not a crime and should not be a crime.

It should be treated as a social problem.

Social problem with help with a social worker.

Like in Boulder, they now have a social worker that travels with a that can come places when there's disturbances of people with mental health issues with the police.

And and de escalated.

It wouldn't be that hard to add a social worker to come to the car instead.

It wouldn't be hard for you to take some of the empty parking spaces here.

My gosh, we've got tons of empty parking spaces.

And put in a bathroom and a shower, and maybe a big fence around it so the people inside can be safe and they can register and their families can register.

A swing set so they could send their kids outside for a while.

Um, the way we treat homeless people here is heartbreaking.

And I really think you need to sit think of more things than just the horrible high school principal that would have smoking problems in the bathroom.

So he take the doors off.

You're just trying to take the doors off the bathrooms of the problem.

That's not gonna work.

Don't take the doors off, please.

Please think outside the box.

Please look what has worked other places.

And please send a social worker to the car so they can help more.

They're trained to do that.

Thank you.

Next up is Kayla Murphy.

Hello, my name is Kayla Murphy, and I run a local nonprofit called Because We Choose To.

Um, I am a native of Colorado Springs.

I was born at Memorial Hospital.

I've watched this town become what it used to be into what it is today, and it is heartbreaking.

It is heartbreaking that people I went to school with fell on hard times, and now they're gonna be punished for sleeping in their vehicles.

And while you aren't viewing it as a punishment, that's exactly what it is.

We are taking people in the worst point of their life, and we are making it worse.

When I first saw this agenda come up, it was originally scheduled for tomorrow.

And I chuckled at the irony.

Veterans Day, we're gonna choose Veterans Day to take these veterans that are sleeping in their car and punish them more.

Cool.

Cool.

Um let's see.

Sorry, I'm losing track.

When looking at who is living in their vehicles, and you look at the condition, society's first thing is to jump to a judgment.

What did they do to get here?

They must be awful people, they must be drug addicts.

We look at what it appears to be.

We don't see the first college graduate in their family.

We don't see the single mom who lost her kids because of a circumstance and now has nothing else to live for.

We don't see their stories, we look at their circumstances and we punish them for it.

When it comes to the homeless outreach team of the police, you're less likely to take resources when they're given to you as an ultimatum.

You can do this.

We have all of these resources available for you.

That's fine and dandy.

But if you don't take one of them, guess what?

You're gonna get a fine.

You may end up in jail.

That's not fair.

We're not treating our unhoused neighbors as people.

We are treating them as hindrances, as eyesores, as problems.

We're not viewing them as people, as your mother, your brother, your cousin, your best friend.

I know these people, I know their stories.

I spend time with these people.

A lot of them don't want to be in their car.

Nobody wants to sleep in their car.

Nobody wants to urinate on a sidewalk.

Nobody wants to tuck their crying child into the back seat with their feet hanging into the trunk because that's the only way their child can stretch out.

Nobody wants that.

Criminal records, mental disorders, physical issues, not wanting to leave pet or family members, those are all reasons that I get from these community members for not taking these resources.

There are a lot of rules in place.

There are a lot of guidelines that these shelters implement that are understandable, they are in place for a reason, but they hinder a lot of people from accepting these.

And once let's say, for instance, everybody accepts the resources.

Where's this funding coming from?

If we put everybody into a shelter, where are these shelters at?

Where can we put everybody if they all accept those resources?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Dr.

Funier.

Good afternoon, Madam President and Council members.

Uh, my name's uh Dr.

Jason Fournier.

I'm the president and CEO for Peak Vista Community Health Centers, and I'm very privileged to be here to speak to you.

As you probably already know, uh we are a federally supported health center that provides medical behavioral health and dental care, uh, outreach services to low-income uninsured individuals, including individuals who are unhosed and homeless in our community.

I'm here to express uh here today to express Peak Vista strong opposition to the proposal uh that's before you uh regarding the changes in parking as it relates to our unhosed.

Reducing the window from 72 hours down to 24 hours has serious impredictable health consequences.

It disrupts continuity of care, frequent displacement makes it nearly impossible for outreach and clinical teams attending to our homeless population to locate patients for follow-up visits, wound care, medication refills, and chronic disease management.

It also increases physical and mental stress for those that are on hosed.

Constant mobility causes sleep deprivation, anxiety, and worsens the existing medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and depression.

It also creates barriers to stability and recovery.

Many people rely on a consistent location to safely store medications as previously noted, maintain contact with care teams, and access nearby hygiene and nutrition resources.

It undermines our public health efforts when people are scattered daily, outreach becomes fragmented, making it harder to prevent disease outbreaks and deliver vaccinations and harm reduction strategies.

It undermines our public health significantly overall, and these are things that need to be considered as we're looking at this ordinance change.

On top of these predictable consequences to the health of our homeless population, this policy will not reduce homelessness.

It will only make it more precarious for those that are on host.

Constant relocation leads to higher emergency room utilization, and that's demonstrated in literature and evidence, more hospitalizations, increased cost, uh, both from law enforcement activities, but also in the healthcare delivery system.

All these are costlier and borne by each one of us as citizens of this wonderful city.

Across the countries, cities that have adopted safe parking programs, one that we had earlier this year, uh, that unfortunately went away, demonstrate that a more balanced approach is possible and protects neighborhoods while providing structure, sanitation, and direct connections to health care and housing.

From our perspective at Peak Vista, knowing knowing these predictable consequences will lead to costlier financial burdens for our city.

And as a result, we're urging each one of you as council members to maintain at least the current 72 hours and look alternatively to other ways to address this most important issue.

We ask that you go ahead and vote no on this very important issue.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next up we have Mia McCall.

My name is Mia McCall.

Forgive me if my speech is a little emotional.

But I think it's shameful that I'm here today, or the reason why I'm here today.

I want to begin by asking everyone in the room for a show of hands.

Who here has been away from their home or place of work and needed to use the restroom and been at the mercy of whichever business may or may not let you use theirs without paying?

Who here has been unprepared for sudden inclement weather, a rainstorm, hail, snow, extreme heat or cold without a coat, jacket, hat, or good shoes.

Who here has ever had to move or leave their home because your rent was raised too high, you or you unexpectedly lost income, or you've had to turn down a home or apartment because they were just asking too much.

Did these things happen to you when you were homeless?

Because they did for me.

Were you disconnected from family, friends, community who could have lent a hand?

Because I was, and I know many others are.

Was the temperature in negative double digits while you were forced to sleep in your car with everything you own, or at least everything you could fit inside of it.

And did you consider yourself lucky to even have that car because it was the only thing standing between you and an icy death?

That's the reality for thousands of Coloradans in the springs who endure or have endured homelessness and housing insecurity each year.

Shame.

And I know that for a fact because as I said earlier, I have faced it, I have endured it.

And due to my chronic and disabling conditions, I've faced employment discrimination.

That means I've not been able to work more than 10 months in the last full time for more than 10 months in the last six years.

So I'm chronically underemployed.

I can't afford housing costs in the springs.

Make no mistake, the proposed ordinance is not about public health or safety.

It's about the comfort of the rich.

Shame.

This ordinance will not be applied equally and equitably under the law.

It will be used to target our homeless and housing insecure populations who are deemed so who are not deemed socially and economically worthy, while those who are continue to get the same preferential treatment they always have.

Shame.

The proposed ordinance would see thousands in Colorado Springs either die of exposure or event end up incarcerated and forced into legal slavery.

Shame.

There are some 2,500 individuals in the springs, give or take, facing homelessness right now.

At the same time, there are nearly 14,000 unoccupied or vacant homes in the springs.

Shame.

There is within our city plenty of land, plenty of space, plenty of resources, plenty of wealth, everything we need to ensure the prosperity of all our residents and more, but you would rather terrorize the most dense one of the most disenfranchised populations throughout human history.

All because you're spineless NIMBEs.

Thank you.

Shame.

It hurts absolutely no one not to pass this ordinance today.

Your humanity depends on your vote against it.

And if you vote for it, may you be damned by whatever higher power you believe in.

Next up, we have Jacqueline Deutsch.

Deutsch.

Deutsch.

Thank you for correcting me.

Jacqueline.

If it's on, you do not press the button.

Okay.

Um, sorry, I'm a little bit nervous.

Um thank you for hearing me speak today.

My name is Jaclyn Deutsch.

I am a resident of Colorado Springs.

I've been here since 2018.

Um my husband will be up shortly to tell you about our other home, but I bought a house in 2019 just across the street from the park in a Knob Hill neighborhood.

And let me tell you when I say there have been people parked in front of my home for more than 72 hours, and they are just a neighbor.

It doesn't make a difference to me whether they are living in their vehicle or living down the road.

They are just trying to live their best life as much as I am, and I wouldn't wish their circumstances on myself.

So I just want to say that everyone else has had really amazing points, and I didn't think I had much to add, but I do want to call out two things from the proposal.

And forgive me, I am not a city code expert, and I may misspeak.

But having read through the presentation, the first thing I want to call out is that there's a note that says, except for vehicle camping, these offenses are already violations of the city code.

Now I read through all of the listed provisions, even the correct provision, because I am afraid there is a typo when referencing the camping prohibition in the slide that was presented today.

But even still, I read through each of those statutes, and I can't find anything that says the presence of food and water are crimes that you can be arrested for.

The presence of personal hygiene items, personal property, the devices used to store and transport personal property.

I just want to call out that I came into this city council building with tampons on my person, with a water bottle, with some pretzels.

And all of those would be crimes under this proposed ordinance, and I understand that it is parts of a whole, right?

I don't look like I'm going to cause trouble in your neighborhood.

But if the law was applied fairly, I would be breaking these rules.

The other thing I really do just want to call out is that this was supposed to be.

So we tell these people who can't afford a $7 loaf of bread that they might face a $2,500 fine for existing in a way that none of us are envious of.

And I just want to call out that I don't think it's intended to be cruel.

But please, I urge you, if you say that it's punishment before we figured out the resources, don't approve this today.

Focus on finding those resources, do this in the correct order, and then move forward with enforcement.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Eric Deutsch.

Nice.

She said she knew what she was getting into when she married me.

Hi, everyone.

My name is Eric Deutsch, and I am a homeowner and residence of District 5.

My comments are based on the following ideas.

People deserve respect and dignity.

People, given a better option, would not be sleeping in their a public space.

And the unhoused are people.

When the police are tasked with outreach, even with perfect training, compassion and action, which Officer Tepley mentioned was their first and foremost for compassion.

Even with that perfect training, people who have previously had negative experiences with other officers are less likely to trust and accept help.

By further criminalizing actions that the unhoused have no other option but to pursue.

Councilman Donaldson tried to address these concerns, but I still have questions.

Which of the specific means of the community is served by prohibiting vehicle camping.

If you sleep in a car, you're not spreading disease.

If you are sleeping in a car, it's actually worse for the community to be for you to be tangled in the justice system than it is for to be directed to services that can help.

If public infrastructure work needs to happen while you're in your vehicle, at that point, a person sleeping in that vehicle can be asked to move and can move.

The general welfare is improved when the unhoused are helped enough to find housing, not when they are cited for something they'd rather not do.

As Councilman Henjin uh called out, a lack of accessible bathrooms makes camping a larger problem.

But that is a solution that needs to be separate handled separately, not citations.

Finally, I am concerned that the current definition of camping is so broad as to be vacuous and will be grant too much power to the executive branch and its enforcement arm.

This is a quote from the definition while skipping some of the points.

Observations of any of one or more of the following.

The presence of personal hygiene items, the presence of devices used to store or transport personal property, the presence of waste in the immediate area.

If I'm in a public park and use a body spray deodorant, I am in violation.

If I am in a public space, and this is for G, if I'm in a public space and have a purse, handbag, backpack, or suitcase, I am in violation.

And if I am in a public space and the wind happens to blow some litter next to me, that's a foreign object.

I'm considered camping in violation.

When every single one of those per uh ordinances and when every single person can be considered in violation, the executive branch can selectively enforce the ordinance, giving them both judicial and legislative powers, which defeats the checks and balances that we're supposed to have in this country.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Up next is Mary Springer Pro East.

Did I get that right, Mary?

Almost.

Mary Sprunger phrase.

Yes, well, I I would just appreciate all the testimony that has happened, and I would hope that all of you take it very seriously.

Um, because a couple of you have said you've already known how you're going to vote.

And I hope that having new input from all of these citizens does make a difference.

And I hope it lands in your hearts and in your minds.

Um I uh in the last month have met a woman living in her vehicle, and we've had different conversations, and I've tried to see if there was anything I could do to help.

I found her very enterprising, and I'm amazed that she's not depressed because I would have been long ago.

Um, so that I probably wouldn't have been able to think of any options.

Um, she has worked hard to try to find some, and some have fallen through, and some people have made promises they didn't keep.

And she should not be punished because she's trying hard.

And what I said is she got evicted because she was living with her brother, and he decided to leave and live with his girlfriend.

Well, she's on a disability check, and you can't pay the rent if half of it was being paid by your rentmate.

Um, there are all kinds of reasons to suddenly not have housing.

And so this punishment for that, and then only putting people in even worse situation with less resources, doesn't make a bit of sense.

And we certainly have the money and the resource to think about where there could be safe parking spaces and how we could get back safe public restrooms and dumpsters and recycling bins.

All of us uh generate trash.

And um, have access to how to deal with it, and not everyone does.

So I hope that we can become a better city and that we don't go on a detour here with trying to do more enforcement of something that doesn't work.

Thank you.

Next up is Beth Ralsted.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, uh President Crow.

Uh I am Beth Rolstad, CEO of Homeward Pikes Peak, and first I would like to thank the city and our police's homeless outreach team for partnering with Homeward Pikes Peak with our outreach program.

I'm here today to speak against the expanded ordinance for ticketing people who are living in their cars for over 24 hours in one place.

I have talked to many citizens and business owners who are distressed about people who live in their cars for a variety of reasons.

I understand the impact on our public safety, potential crime, and waste in our community.

However, I've also talked to service providers who are addressing individuals and families who are living and surviving their cars every week.

We have a problem here.

We have a systems problem in our community.

We do not have the resources to address homelessness for every single person who needs a home.

Enforcement needs to take into account the downstream impact that people will feel of this new ordinance.

What distresses me most about this proposal is that it further criminalizes homelessness.

This is the second measure in two years that the city is taking up to expand enforcement.

The first was the SIT LI ordinance last year.

Another disappointment is that this issue of this order and this new ordinance came up just two months after the city, our mayor and Amy Cox convened a group of service providers to talk about the challenges we're now facing in our homeless services system and potential solutions.

We had a very robust conversation about potential solutions, and we're working on them, but at no time was increased enforcement brought up as an issue that we should be prepared for.

As is mentioned before by previous speakers, we have challenges right now, and winter is coming.

But truly, um we are as a community right now trying to do extra fundraising just to provide winter enough winter shelter beds in our community.

And as others have already said, our system is stressed.

Right now we have lack of knowledge of future federal funding to address housing and homelessness.

Shelter systems are maxed out today, even before winter is here.

We are fundraising to expand winter sheltering.

Seriously mentally ill people who we are reaching and contacting wish street outreach, we have no solutions for as a community.

We are adding more stress onto our system that we can manage.

I um recognize I'm running out of time.

I would love for this ordinance to be paused.

We need to convene a task force to address safe parking options and other potential resources that can address this issue holistically.

Thank you for your time.

We have a um or question from Councilman Hingem.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um Beth, thank you for coming to speak to us from as a service provider and someone who's dealing with this daily on the ground.

So given that, and given that we did not coordinate with service providers or work more systemically around this ordinance.

I'm wondering, given especially that you are the contracted provider to work with the clean and safe downtown, and you are on the ground every day responding to folks who are unhoused, who also have many of whom have mental health challenges.

My my question for you is if you could help educate all of us, those on the dais as well as those listening or in the room about the face of homelessness.

And I think that a number of people, when they think about folks who are, this was very much driven by people living in their cars on their street, on their neighborhood streets, see them as dangerous or um creating real problems.

Could you give us from your perspective day to day who a little bit of a picture of what percentage of folks we're we're talking about that are those that are really scary when we look at them, maybe talking to themselves or screaming, and those all the way to families who have lost their home and are forced to be living in their car with their children.

Yeah, thank you for the question.

I think the data is really hard to gather, and that is actually one of those issues that service providers are really trying to work on.

Um, from last December's uh 2024 Colorado HMIS, the homeless management information system uh study, we had over 6,600 um people, which is adults and children experiencing homelessness here in El Paso County.

To drill down a little further at the last point in time count that we took as a community in January of 2025.

I believe we had um 1,500 or so individuals experiencing homelessness on that night, and approximately uh 6% identified that they had spent a night in the their car.

So that isn't very many people.

Um, when we do the vulnerability index and service provision data analysis tool, the housing survey, um, we asked the question where did you spend the night?

And there are um at least 20% say they were living in a car sometime in the last week.

You know, um car ownership is still um the it's the last piece of personal property that someone tries to hold on to when they're falling into homelessness.

So we're taking away, as someone said, their home and their mode of transportation.

It is a challenge.

Um, as far as the like the demographics of who's experiencing homelessness, um, over 50% are usually considered single adults, and then there are um households that can be uh single household that parent plus children or two parent households is a whole variety.

Um I was talking with my colleague Andy Barton, uh CEO of Catholic Charities, and as you know, they opened up the Helen Hunt housing program recently.

Over half their applicants for the Hunt Housing Program were families living in their cars.

So we know this issue is vast and it touches singles and families.

I really think that we're a community could work together to address this issue.

At no time in the last year has the hot team come to our coordinated outreach meeting and said, we really should work on these vehicle camping issues.

We would love to work with the city in partnership and not just do a whack-a-mole solution on ordinances.

Thank you.

I I appreciate that.

And uh I think that that's a real key takeaway from this uh this hearing in this ordinance, and really quite frankly, is an opportunity for us as a community hearing from folks like Family Promise, yourself, Catholic charities.

I guess final question for you would be there were a call to action from this ordinance.

What would the call to action be from your perspective?

I would love to work with my peers and the city on a safe parking initiative for our community.

Um we had a brief one during COVID.

I think we've had another initiative try.

Uh it will take a lot of effort and funding.

You need to have access to um toilets and garbage disposal and safety and case management.

The underlying theme of Homeward Pikes Peak is housing plus services.

So when we do interventions to individuals experiencing homelessness, it must come with robust services.

Thank you for your services, Beth.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Gerald White again.

We are graced with your presence in the afternoon.

Thank you so much, Mr.

President.

Um, I am over volunteered.

Um I'm speaking to uh now as a um board member of Family Promise.

And I just want to tell just a few stories about the may help to put the population that we're discussing in perspective.

We uh it's a faith-based organization, and at our church, the most recent year for which we had to have data, the median age of the homeless person who we serve with housing was nine years old.

That's what we're talking about here.

We're you're talking there's a lot of talk about how we get people into services when we interact with them, these camping uh experiences.

But but at Family Promise, we're getting hundreds and hundreds of hundreds of calls a month from people, women with kids living in their cars who want services.

This is low-hanging food.

We can find people who want services and get them out of their cars.

And we've heard a lot about having safe parking.

What would a safe parking lot limited to women with kids who are homeless living in their cars cost compared to the cost of the brochure that Councilman Lineweber showed us and all the consultants and fees that went into that?

I mean, uh it's it's about priorities.

And I'm not suggesting we intentionally set a low bar.

But if there's no bar, then a low bar is better.

And if we had as part of this, or instead of this, um, a commitment to having a safe parking solution for women with kids in their cars in the winter in the cold, that would be better than what we're talking about now.

And that's hard to believe.

Let's have these women and their kids in cars in December and January in a parking lot.

And and we can't even rise to that level.

Surely we as a city are better than that.

And so I'd like you to think about how, in connection with this ordinance, I won't even dare to say in lieu of this ordinance, but in connection with this ordinance, find a way to fund just a bare minimum of services for women with kids who are living in their cars.

Um again, median age of the homeless that we serve is nine years old.

We can do better.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Ollie Glesner.

Hello.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon.

My name is Ollie Glessner, and I am the advocacy director of Inside Out Youth Services, which supports LGBTQ plus youth here in Colorado Springs.

Around one in five of the youth that we serve are experiencing homelessness, most often due to family rejection.

I share this to say that we know deeply that their housing situation is not their fault, and punishing them for it only makes it worse.

Everyone in this room wants a safer, healthier, happier city.

That's why we're here today.

This ordinance expresses concerns around community health, but it does not acknowledge that our community cannot be healthy if our most vulnerable neighbors, our neighbors experiencing houselessness, are constantly jeopardized in their health.

It does not acknowledge how unhealthy it is for a person to have their belongings confiscated, their vehicle impounded, or their means of survival criminalized.

The city and this council has made a commitment to prioritizing the mental health and wellness of our community.

By voting no on these proposed changes, you can adhere to that commitment.

For some of our neighbors, a car is the only place they can find protection from extreme weather, which is rapidly on its way to our region.

You know better than most that our few local shelters are already at or over capacity, especially in winter.

And there simply aren't enough beds for everyone to be homeless the right way, according to this ordinance.

The last thing anyone needs right now as shelters and services are defunded, as access to food remains in danger, is further criminalized criminalization of the ways they survive.

Decades of research and best practices show that criminalizing vehicular homelessness actually makes the underlying causes of homelessness worse and prolongs uh instances of housing instability.

Fees, fines, God forbid an arrest, these are things that are impossible to manage if you can't even afford rent.

If a car is disabled, it's almost impossible to move it because you may need to pay for repairs.

Even the cost of gas can be prohibitive to moving your car 24 or every 24 hours.

We do not want to prolong the cycle.

We want to give people the resources they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps instead of cutting the bootstraps while they're holding them.

In an ideal world, no one in our city would be experiencing homelessness, but not because we forced them all out.

It would be because every person would have access to a home.

We don't live in that ideal world yet, but if we work together and with our housing experts like Homeward Pikes Peak, like Family Promise, we can do that together.

We will not get there by expanding our city's already comprehensive uh guidelines around urban camping.

The solution to this problem is and has always been mental health and recovery services, funding for shelters and food pantries, and most importantly, affordable transitional housing.

As we work toward these long-term solutions, please consider a safe parking program as has been discussed today.

For anyone who's living in their cars, it's an interim solution that can literally save lives.

I urge you to table the changes to this ordinance and focus on what helps instead of what harms.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Bug Peterson.

Hello, I'm Bug.

Um, I spend every Saturday morning picking up trash in a park that a lot of folks camp in and building relationships with those people.

Um I want to urge you all to vote no on this, but I'd also like to say that consolidate whether these ordinances are consolidated or not, criminalizing homelessness is ineffective and cruel.

Uh this all feels like cruel and unusual punishment for people experiencing poverty, experiencing hardship, people who aren't able to afford rent.

You know, people who aren't able to afford rent, like throwing additional court costs at them.

I don't see how that helps people get out of the cycle.

Um the ordinance, when I went and read it, it it talked early on, referenced um communicable communicable diseases as you know, as a concern.

Um I'm someone who has a lot of concern about communical communicable diseases, and I think that we should do things that are actually effective in addressing those concerns.

Like public bathrooms, there are so few public bathrooms, especially at night or on a Sunday, you know, when public when libraries and things like that are closed.

Nobody wants to have to, you know, use the bathroom in somebody's yard or in an alley.

That's extremely unsafe for those people, too.

Also, accessible health care.

That would be something that would be helpful for communicable diseases.

So I'd urge us to listen to the healthcare providers who have been here speaking to the ways that these chart that this criminalization does not help people's health.

More shelters.

There is currently no shelter for teenagers who are minors.

Right?

There's SRM, you have to be 18 or older, and then there's a couple like family shelters.

But since the place closed, defunding, there are no shelters for teenagers.

Um, as we just heard, a lot of teenagers experience homelessness have been kicked out by their parents because of bias, things like that.

Criminalizing those people doesn't help.

Um the combination of issues being discussed in this meeting is also very interesting to me.

We're talking about honoring veterans, a whole lot of veterans, you know, disproportionately represented in the homeless community.

Um we talked about vehicles and parks.

You know, when I am in that park and see um see car tracks, that is usually an indicator that hot has been there terrorizing people.

They love to drive all around the park.

I have a friend who had all of his medications taken by hot two days in a row.

This has happened several times this year, but two days in a row, he was able to get his medications replaced the next day.

Hot swept again, took all of his medications again.

He also told me about a friend of his who camped up the river from him, who died following sweeps.

Hot came, took her tent as well as all of her medications, and she died two days later, exposed to the elements.

Everybody deserves better.

None of this, this doesn't make me safer.

It certainly doesn't make our homeless community safer.

Next up is Emory's Jenkins.

Hello.

I'm Emrece Jenkins, and I have to start out by apologizing because I promise to start attending these every session.

And as I fall them short, I trust that I've been missed.

So I am always free for coffee.

Um, especially I'd be interested in discussing the phenomenon in which uh so many of us have such uh alignment on our fundamental values, and yet the uh actions that you choose to take are so egregiously misaligned, and that phenomenon to some is shocking.

And uh, you know, it should be it should be shark shocking when heartless heartless comments like maybe if they were more tired, they would be motivated.

That should be shocking uh when considering the lack of resources in this community.

It is shocking to consider the clear demonstrated failure, the approach of criminalization has proved for decades, and shocking to consider the waste it has required.

I think Councilman Rainey for calling out the largely unchecked budget waste in our police department, which cannot be more directly applied to this ordinance.

It should also be shocking when considering the violations of human rights, criminalization means on the ground, but acknowledging that uh hundreds of our neighbors die without housing every year.

Many people don't find this ordinance shocking, uh, largely because they don't know.

I, however, have become less shocked as I begin to understand the interest the city prioritized.

The solution to homelessness is housing.

When uh the city invests in unaffordable development and the homelessness that it causes, we are conning ourselves to believe that this is anyway in our own interest.

We are being conned by taking away our eyes from criminalization and from the housing crisis to the solutions of affordable low-income and transitional housing.

I uh I again have been shocked today by how closely some of our even our words have been aligned.

Um, you know, I I think if you think that the plan is crap, stop investing in it.

Yeah, you are conning us or yourself to believe that continuing to invest this to say yes to this ordinance uh is in any public interest.

And I uh I hope to feel shocked in a moment here to see you you vote no.

Um, no, no day like the like the present one.

So thank you.

Next up is Eliza Blanding.

This is a little shorter than me.

Hello?

Okay.

Um hello, honorable city council.

Thank you so much for your time today.

Um, my name is Eliza Blanding, and I'm a student here in the springs.

I think we can all agree that homelessness is a big issue.

But criminalizing camping is not the answer.

Don't pretend that you want this ordinance to pass because you care about people who are unhoused.

You want it to pass because your perspective is being marred by an ignorant view of what causes homelessness.

Homelessness is not some sort of personal or moral failing.

It is a symptom of a larger society fraught with inequality.

You say this ordinance would make things easier.

I remind you, throughout history, time and time again.

What's easy is not always what's right.

If you can assume the good intentions of the hot team, you can assume the good intentions of people who are experiencing homelessness.

The homelessness thing, Councilmember Lane Whipper, is a symptom of a society that is hurting.

I feel it.

And I'm sure you feel it too.

Life is hard right now.

For those who are unhoused, life is even harder.

The little security unhoused people have is crumbling.

Shelters are closing, and the ones that do that are open have strict regulations on who they accept.

You argue private property this, private property that.

Almost everywhere in Colorado Springs is private property.

Where are people supposed to go?

You complain about people camping in the parks or on the city streets.

Again, where are they supposed to go?

You complain about urination and defecation.

Where are they supposed to go?

You say with all due respect, we don't know.

You said that a lot.

Figure that out first.

Criminalizing camping will not help reduce homelessness.

Instead, it will mean people who are unhoused will struggle to find employment even more than they already do because of increased citations on their records.

Please, I urge you all for a minute to think about the privilege you have.

Acknowledge it within yourself.

Recognize that when this workday ends, you get to go home and rest.

Think about that.

You get to rest without fear of freezing to death, without fear of being arrested, without fear of losing everything you own.

I urge you, please choose kindness and vote no on this ordinance.

Thank you.

If your yes is a reluctant yes, it should not be a yes.

Being afforded human dignity and respect should not be contingent on being housed.

Thank you for your thank you so much.

Next up is Mariah Lauer.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mariah Lauer, and I'm the executive director of the Chinook Center.

I'm speaking today from a place of both moral authority and experience.

In recent weeks at the Schinock Center, we have seen a surge of new people showing up to our food pantry, clearly struggling.

We've seen federal employees, women with infants, and children struggling to survive.

The fact this ordinance even made it to a vote when thousands of people are about to fall off of a financial cliff is utterly heinous.

There are people camping and car camping right by my house on a daily basis.

And I'm extremely upset.

I'm not upset with the people suffering.

I'm upset with the failure of city council and the mayor to do anything that would actually solve the problem.

That for all your grandstanding and proclaiming to want to honor veterans, your actions will push the hundreds of veterans who are unhoused in Colorado Springs into deeper despair.

I am not naive.

So if it's not already clear to the residents of this city, any counselor who votes in this ordinance is completely full of shit.

Thank you.

Next up is Marina Mendez.

Hello, good afternoon.

Thank you for having me.

Can we?

Can we hear me?

Um I've had the privilege of speaking with some of you and the PPCOC, the Pikes Peak Continuum of Care Space, but today I'm just here as a really concerned neighbor.

And behind me are advocates and service providers, people who've stepped away from their clients and their daily work to once again urge you, City Council, to vote no on expanding the further criminalization of homelessness in our city.

And I'm so proud to be joined here by so many of my colleagues and friends in this work.

It's truly the power of collaboration.

We're here because we care deeply about our community and our people, but also because we know that if this passes, we will be back here later trying to repair the harm it causes.

While some might say this will not affect many people, I, like many people who are here today, know the faces of those who will who it will affect.

What we do know is clear, many are young adults seeking safety and avoiding to avoid exploitation, families who are trying to stay together, and veterans who are trying to remain off the streets.

I am a social worker by trade, and I will say, and in my experience, performing street outreach on the streets of Colorado Springs, I can count on the on my hands how many times someone has declined help from me.

Their circumstances are not by choice, and they are a symptom of a system under immense strain.

It is a it is vital that the city council listen not only to the professionals and service providers who do this work who showed up here today, but also to the survivors of people living in this experience every day, fighting daily to rebuild their lives.

Their voices hold essential insight into what works and does not work in our city today, and they must be a part of shaping any solution that impacts them directly.

Frankly, this proposed expansion comes at a deeply misguided time.

And in the last several weeks, we've seen our community suffer from shelter beds enclosures and ongoing certainty about our cold weather response plan.

While we debate where they can and cannot park their cars, we have yet to ensure everyone has a safe place to go when temperatures drop.

Enacting punitive measures right now sends a confusing and disheartening message about our priorities as a city.

Experts in this work are not interested in band-aid solutions.

Penalizing those who have no alternative but to sleep in their vehicles will not reduce homelessness.

It will only deepen the crisis, working against the very agencies whose mission it is to help.

What we need are pathways and not punishments.

I urge City Council today to consider a more compassionate and practical approach.

Work with your community on establishing safe parking or designated camping areas where individuals and families can rest without fear or citation or displacement.

While we are being sorry, while we continue to do outreach case management, supportive services, this kind of solution has proven successful in other communities and reflects compassion, innovation, and leadership.

Colorado Springs deserves to be known for.

We all share the goal for a safer, stronger city, and that begins with the listening to both professionals with lived experience and leading with dignity and evidence, and we invite you to the table to do so.

Thank you.

And that concludes the public comment.

Councilman Hindum.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, actually, I believe Amy Cox is in the chambers.

I would uh like to direct a question to her, if I could, Amy, I am going to be making a motion to postpone this ordinance in the service of having a more holistic approach and uh call to action and supporting actually the intentions of addressing um the concerns uh the that were um originally started this.

Um but I my question for you is uh what number of shelter beds have we been preparing for this winter and how might this ordinance or how has that, how has the introduction of this ordinance impacted that, or what what are you expecting?

Well, we've been preparing um to have uh 700 shelter beds available for temperatures at 19 degrees or less, and at least 850 available for temperatures that are 10 degrees or less two days in a row.

Um, and that for that, uh, as our chief of staff reported earlier, our uh funders in our community have stepped up and have committed at this point um 935,000 towards a 950,000 dollar goal.

So um these folks have recognized the urgent need right now and have stepped up to support that with uh most expressing long-term interest in the long-term solutions, right?

We don't want to every year be trying to figure out how to serve.

We did not in our calculations, our calculations were based on the uh who was seeking services last year.

We worked closely with the Pikes Peak Regional Office of Emergency Management.

They're outstanding.

Um, and we tracked day over day uh last we track shelter usage actually daily.

Um, and so we were aiming to hit those targets with a slight increase based on the increase in the point in time count, which increased from about 1140 uh 1146 to 1745 between 24 and 25.

So we have hit that target.

We did not calculate uh what might what vehicle impacts might add to that.

We do know in Denver in 2021 there was a study that there were 800 to 1,000 people experiencing unsheltered homelessness were living in their vehicles in West Coast cities where I'm most we recently from 25 to 50 percent of unsheltered persons live in their vehicles, depending on where you are in the West Coast.

So um, we don't know the impact.

We have uh we've been reaching out, working with Salvation Army to expand the number of uh family rooms they're working on that so they can have some additional resource, working with Catholic charities on motel vouchers, scrambling to ensure we would have places for families to be this winter.

So are you suggesting that and thank you, by the way, for all the work you've done, you know, at the request of the mayor and with the service providers and philanthropist in town to raise those additional funds to provide additional beds, but are you suggesting that there could be yet even more um bed need as an impact of the enforcement of this ordinance?

I mean, if the uh yeah, if the role, if the goal of the ordinance is to get people out of their vehicles and into shelter and services, um, you know, uh enforcement one and two, I think, you know, uh Lieutenant Tepley talked about this.

If they can get to those calls, taking people on one or two at a time, the system will be able to absorb, provide a safe place one or two at a time.

Um, but if the real intent is to get people out of their vehicles and into those those services and solutions that are longer term, um, we don't know what the impact might be on our shelter system, and it could be significant.

Okay.

So, in that regard, albeit not the ideal roof over someone's head, the roof of a car is a shelter nonetheless.

So could you speak a little bit to we've heard from a number of folks suggesting, and I know other cities actually, one I think you came from, uh, who who has solutions around um parking for for those living in cars?

Could you just speak a little bit to what that might look like?

And if we were able to um postpone this ordinance and address this more holistically, and my understanding is you learned about this ordinance the same time I did, so you didn't have the opportunity to have input earlier, but um now we have that opportunity.

What can you make some recommendations?

Um, you know, I think we heard a lot from uh from folks here today uh about their direct experiences working with clients, working with people living, working with neighbors um living in their vehicles.

And I think we can learn a lot from listening to uh the people in our community who are expert in this, those folks who are providing the downstream services, those folks who are who are connecting with the folks in their neighborhood.

I think that's really important.

The goal here is public safety, it's a high priority of this council of the administration.

We share that.

I think the way to make the uh the ordinance the most effective is to pair it with some sort of services.

Um the goal is to be effective.

The goal is to actually begin to solve this problem.

So we don't have a tool right now that allows us that allows law enforcement to meaningfully move, help people move along if they are um if there are public legitimate public safety issues.

Um, this helps to solve that problem.

I think pairing this with a plan for how we would implement this would make it more more effective.

Yeah, and even just having those conversations with PD about uh you know the how this would be enforced, what are the services available, what are the outreach programs that are available, and then where might there be a potential place for people to park safely?

Yeah.

And so I guess I think for now, Amy, the last question would be given that you have been interfacing both with the direct and continue to interface with the direct service providers as well as the philanthropers, and you just said those who have kind of ponied up the money are looking for more long-term solutions, regardless of whether this ordinance passes this way or not.

What would be your recommendation for how we as a city in the role that we play, which is not as a service provider, what would be your recommendation for next steps to take a much more long-term strategic, holistic look with all parties involved?

I think regardless of the outcome of this ordinance, that's what we will do.

Um and Beth Rolstad shared that we've convened providers recently to identify what are some of the most urgent issues.

We will convene providers again.

My job as that chief housing and homelessness response officer, I bring forward uh recommendations for things we could do to improve our uh homelessness service system, make homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring.

My job is also to respond to the decisions that are made by this body and our administration to ensure that we can implement uh these ordinances and these solutions in the most effective way.

So uh our next step, I believe, would be to convene with these providers.

There is a shelter outreach group that meets regularly.

We have an internal homelessness solutions team that is made up of planning and the city attorney's office, fire, police, the parks department, um, all of these, all of these experts within our within our city who could come together and figure out the best way to implement uh a response to vehicular habitation.

Thank you.

Well, I I'll just take this opportunity to say that um I I genuinely appreciate Councilmember Donaldson's responsiveness to constituents and desire to address a significant and important part of this uh challenge that we're facing.

And at the same time, I think when we legislate, we run the risk when we legislate without dealing with the people who are closest to the problem, creating a solution that looks really decisive, but may not really be very effective in the long run.

So what I'm really hoping for is that we recognize the need from all parties, from those who have uh roofs over their head, uh be it a home or an apartment, or be it a car or a tent or just the big sky out there that we think about all of those members of our community and and work towards solutions that serve everybody.

Thank you so much for for your work, Amy.

Thank you.

Councilman Lineweber.

I'm sorry, one more thing.

Um, Amy, if if I I'm making the I'm going to make the motion that we postpone from an earlier um ordinance.

I discovered it would be better to talk with staff about how much time we would need if we're going to postpone to a date certain.

Um, what would be the amount of time necessary to do you think um work collaboratively on an ordinance that would start to address some of these other um solutions uh that at the very least to collaborate with the providers Do you have any thoughts about that, Chief of Staff?

Um, we're continuing to get the group together that we spoke about earlier when we pulled together the philanthropists, so the service providers, that effort's gonna be ongoing.

Um I would say I I would have a hard time giving an actual we will have a solution by X.

I think it's an evolving conversation, and so I wouldn't be comfortable giving a deadline on that.

Okay, well then I will impose one because I think um, and and again, with due respect to my fellow council member sitting right here to my right.

I mean, I think his argument is well, you got to start somewhere, so get it going.

And and I do appreciate that.

Um I would say six months from now, um uh a date certain to um have have something in front of this council that includes um because this is an ongoing challenge, and and I respect that and I understand that, but we have got to show that we um are genuinely behind doing better, as we've heard from people today.

Thank you.

Councilman Lineweber.

Are we gonna are we gonna do that?

Um, I have more people that want to speak before we do that.

And I don't need a second from the I'm just under I'm trying to understand process, that's all.

Yeah.

So um Amy, I just have a quick question.

Um, do you know of any safe parking program in the city of Colorado Springs?

There's none that I'm aware of.

I've I've I've done I've done the outreach to try and find where those places might be that found nothing.

Okay.

Thank you.

I guess this is a moment where I just I just really want to appeal to all those that are watching, particularly those that um have churches and that sort of thing, that churches actually can do this.

And so um I've actually prepped um Mr.

Walker to come forward and talk about zoning issues that a church might have when uh looking at providing this kind of service.

What are some of the hurdles that they might have?

I want to understand that a little bit more.

Mr.

Walker.

So again, pertaining to zoning, what would be the process that a church would need to go through?

I want to understand that because it seems that the safe parking thing is really the thing we're trying to kind of solve here.

If we do this, then we have to have this, right?

Councilman Lineweber, uh Kevin Walker, city planning director.

So we've uh done some research on this and uh had uh some experience with it a couple of years ago.

Um parking is uh an accessory use to um um churches.

Uh and so parking is allowed.

Housing is also an accessory use.

Um, and so the idea that was worked through a few years ago was that uh temporary parking was a was an accessory use to the church and can be allowed uh under the zoning code.

So it's not that difficult for a church to probably step forward.

Sometimes you might be you might limit them, right, to how many they can accommodate and that sort of thing.

Would that be I think at some point you have to make a judgment about what's accessory and what is you know the primary use of the property uh but um but we did not cross that bridge.

Okay, so now we just need a willing partner that might consider this as a need that their church might be able to provide if they have a facility that might be able to support this effort because what we've just heard from our housing director is there is no safe place to park in Colorado Springs.

Yeah, we're certainly uh welcome to uh work with whatever churches might be available or might might request assistance.

Thank you.

Uh my second question, um uh if PD could come forward, I want to understand um really um what I understand is in camping, um I've always understood camping violations to be 72 hours.

And so I'm a little bit confused on why we're throwing out this 24-hour piece.

So help me explain the difference.

That's a good question.

So it can depend on it can depend on where we're at and and what property we're at.

So if someone is illegally trespassing and camping on someone's private property, that would be something that's immediate.

And then the I think we've missed Well, as long as they have a letter, right?

Yes, as long as they have a letter, right?

Or if they're open for business and they call us and an officer goes out to that location and then addresses that on site right then.

And so the 72-hour thing usually has to do with public like parking issues.

Okay, and then camping, if you're camping in the public, like public stream and public stream reparian zone and public property, we post the 24-hour notice.

And so that the 72 hours is not there, it's seven, it's 24 hours notice for them to move and leave.

Well, I was in the impression that it was 72 hours for camping, not 24 hours right now, because I I thought I thought in parks it was 72 hours.

Okay, parks I think parks might be 72 hours.

I don't have that, I don't have the statute.

And I seem to remember when I was dealing with it behind my property that it was 72 hours.

Because you would put up the little pink notices on the trees.

Sure.

The pink notices.

Yeah.

Orange notice, they're now orange notices.

Orange notice, okay.

So um I'll have to go back and look.

Let me go back and look and I'll get you an answer.

Because that's not fair.

Like what we have some that are 24 hours that we come back for 24 hours later.

I I really feel like we need to kind of fix this a little bit because I think we don't have any kind of enforcement on parking right now at all.

And um, but I'm just concerned about the quickness of moving to 24 hours.

Um, and so um I'm going to want to make uh uh an amendment, but um, I'm trying to understand the right time to do that because we already have an emotion uh uh an amendment uh uh a motion to table it, right?

So help me understand when I need to make this amendment.

Sarah Bruin, City Attorney's Office.

Um, if council member henjam's motion moves forward, then you would first vote on that motion.

If the motion fails, then a motion to amend could be presented.

So long, of course, as you have a second on either motion, and if uh an amendment was to fail, then the motion that is currently presented would then be voted on.

So it depends on how the the motions proceed.

But I can explain what I planned to do, right?

I'll wait for so I'm gonna wait for Nancy's motion, and then afterwards I'm gonna ask for an amendment to change from 24 hours to 72 hours.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Williams.

Thank you.

I just want to ask two things for clarification.

Is the motion here?

Nancy's to table.

Yes.

Sarah, it's to postpone that to table.

I just want to make sure it got in the system, correct?

Hold on one second.

Um we just had a second to council member Hingham's motion in the system.

So it is a valid motion at this point, which is to postpone for six months.

That is the May 12th, 2026 meeting.

Okay.

And then I had another question as this going to impact um the mayor and the executive branch, uh chief of staff is there an opinion essentially from your side of the legislative house.

Um thank you for the opportunity.

Yes, uh the mayor does support this um ordinance uh in order in order to give CSPD a tool that they don't have currently to move people along.

Um I think it's important to recognize we have great respect for the people in the room.

Beth's been a longtime partner of the city.

Um and I think it is a both and I do agree that we do need to have services and we have service providers who um offer those.

The city does not provide housing.

We are not a housing provider, nor should we be.

Um, in the opinion of the administration, but we do feel that there is a public safety interest uh, as um Mayor Yemi has said to me when you know a parent doesn't feel that they can let their child play outside or walk to school because of the presence of an individual camping on their street.

Um that is also a very legitimate um reason that we uh need to be protecting those people as well.

And so um I think I didn't say it very well when councilwoman Henjin called on me, but I think we support giving uh CSPD this tool and um at this time and also do commit to continuing to work with our service providers on the the ever uh needed solution for homelessness, which will continue to evolve.

Thank you.

Councilman Donaldson Yeah, um thanks, Madam Presidents.

Um that that is my uh my preference.

Um you know, I brought this forward because I think uh it's something that citizens are concerned about.

I've spoken with them.

We've received uh complaints about this.

It doesn't mean we can't do anything else.

You know, it doesn't mean that if we pass this today, we can't work on the different ideas that are that are brought here.

Um, does Colorado Springs want to have safe parking areas?

I mean, that I think the administration needs to think about that too.

It's it shouldn't be that you know, a couple of council members up here put that out as if that will become the policy of the city.

Um so I think we should stay focused on really what we're here for, which is this one ordinance, which simply puts all puts all of our urban camping um rules in one place and adds in in car camping.

You know no one has to really stop using their car if they'll if they'll move it 1,000 feet, or if they will simply park it on private property.

We're talking about vehicles that are parked on public property.

Uh ideally they're not in a car, right?

Ideally, they have a friend that will let them stay with them, a relative, a coworker.

Um, or they they do are willing to pardon me.

Do you open your home?

Well, I would ask, do you open yours?

I don't have one.

Okay.

Okay.

So that's really what we're here to uh consider today.

Um I would I would have a question for Lieutenant Tupley.

Lieutenant Tippley, when when uh CSPD receives complaints about uh vehicle camping in front of a home or a business, um how often are children involved in that?

That's a the great and valid question, and I don't have numbers specifically with that.

I can tell you based on my experience, almost every complaint that comes in regarding car camping or homeless people setting up camps near homes or near parks primarily come through me, and then we have we have people that then those get assigned to to go out and handle.

And so with that, I can say that based on my experience and the number of complaints that are coming in.

It is very often that people say, I don't want my kids walking to school.

Um, I don't want my kids going and playing in the park because if they even start to cross the street, someone's yelling at them in in those things.

And that's not to say that everybody is doing that.

So um it is something that's a concern for the citizens that that give us those concerns on go go gov.

And that is what I I ask my colleagues to be willing to address today with no different penalties than the other kind of camping, and really intentionally giving 24 hours so the vehicle can be moved and no uh citation needs to be issued.

Um I think that's uh it's a compromise for where we are today.

Then we can look at all the other uh options that have been discussed by uh speakers or by by council members up here.

I'm I'm happy to be part of that.

I mean, I think that's that's fine.

Let's do that, but let's take action today.

And uh as was said earlier, let's not let the perfect uh be the enemy of the good.

This will be better than what we have today for the vast majority of of our citizens.

I think this would be very popular if it was if it was on a ballot.

And and now a question uh I think before we table this, we need to have a uh the motion and a second on the actual item.

Is that right, madam clerk or uh um the city attorney?

Sarah Bruin, City Attorney's Office.

The motion that's currently the the motion that is currently pending is the one made by council member henjum to postpone to a date certain.

So that would need to be the first vote that you take.

Okay, I'll I'll go with that.

Thanks.

Councilman Bailey.

Thank you, Madam President.

I I guess on that you know, line of discussion here.

I'm I'm curious as to what it is that we want to happen between now and May 12th of 2026.

The this started out as a very focused ordinance to address an aspect of a very difficult complex problem.

You all have expressed very well just how complicated this is, and we're this ordinance does not do anything to solve housing, to solve homelessness, to provide affordable housing.

Those are questions that this council in this city is trying to address on a lot of on a lot of levels.

And I'm encouraged that there are so many groups represented out here who all seem to have expressed a willingness to kind of work together and help help address this problem.

And I know that the city is working on this, that Amy is working hard on this.

I would love to see a group get together, find a place to have safe parking, so there is a an area where we can uh where people can go, but it's not in the purview of the city right now to do that.

I don't believe we have city property that we that would be appropriate.

We certainly don't have the budget or the funding to provide people to provide security, provide maintenance and sanitation.

But there's a nonprofit world out there, there is there are a lot of other people who could get together and perhaps work on something that addresses this small aspect of the problem.

Housing, affordable housing is something that's very important, and we've seen people on both sides of that issue opposing affordable housing as well as supporting affordable housing in this very room.

It's not something that we're gonna solve in six months.

We can certainly work on it, but before I can vote to on a motion to postpone, I really want to know what the objective is and what would change between now and then to allow us to move forward to address this very narrow aspect of the problem.

Councilman Lineweber.

Yes, I was wondering if we could move actually.

I I I do have one quick question that's just bothering me, and I just have to know because I heard something earlier, so I'm gonna ask Amy to come forward really quick.

So um in the public comment period, we did talk about um the place.

And um, we talked about how we have a place for people 18 and older to go, and we have a place for families to go.

But currently, what I heard is that we don't have a place for someone under the age of 18.

So, how what is out there?

What's happening with that component?

I know it's never a very large number, um, but we do have the launch pad.

I know that kind of changed the dynamic a little bit, but it's not that's really more permanent.

Yeah, it's a different set.

But what's what how is the city addressing kids 18 and younger right now?

Uh Amy Cox, Chief Housing and Homelessness Response Officer.

We're working with we're in ongoing conversations with um uh El Paso County uh about how to address that.

So we do no, there's no right now there is no designated place for unaccompanied youth under the age of 18.

Okay.

All right.

I just want to make sure that I heard that correctly.

So we do have that challenge also, but that doesn't that may or may not really affect a parking because we gotta be older than 18 to drive.

So thank you.

That was it.

I just needed the well, sixteen, that's true.

All right.

But they probably don't have a car insurance.

So Councilman Henjam.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

I'm sorry, and he wasn't done.

I'm sorry.

Well, I just want to know when can we move forward with um council henjam's piece?

We'll find out.

Yeah.

So I I just asked my council member to the left here, Councilmember Bailey, if you would like an answer to the question as to why I proposed a postponement.

Not why, but what are we gonna throw?

And then maybe we can go ahead and vote on that and move forward.

Um really my my main reason was because um, and it it's it's not necessarily because I oppose the fact that we need ways to deal with um people who are not feeling safe with with people camping in cars on their on their neighborhood street.

It's more because we have not dealt with this holistically.

I think all of the testimony pretty much that we've heard uh today is direct service providers, even those neighbors who um came up to speak in favor are very compassionate and they want better solutions for um those in our community who are unhoused.

And so my reasoning was to um approach this particular ordinance through a much more holistic, comprehensive, not um siloed perspective, and to engage and involve the people who are closest to the problem.

This was done without um police involvement, it was done without the fire department who works with them, it was done without service providers.

It was done without our own chief housing and homeless off uh response officers input.

So I think when we're working on things that are this systemic, I think we need to involve more people.

It does take more time.

I grant you that.

I understand that.

Um, but I think the better approach, as I said earlier, is if we legislate without dealing with the people who are closest to the problem, we run the risk of not having effective solutions, unintended consequences, and having legislation that is maybe perhaps very uh quick in in response, but not particularly effective.

So that that's my reasoning.

And of course, you know, you will vote your your conscience, Councilmember Bailey.

Councilman Bailey?

I I wasn't so much asking for your reasons, I was asking for a little more specificity in terms of what do we hope to accomplish in six months.

And and uh you may uh you can always respond.

Um the simply having more discussion, I'm not sure how that is productive.

You talk about wanting effective legislation, I'm not sure that that extending the process is effective, given that my understanding is that uh Councilman Donaldson's ordinance that he's recommending is to address a very limited problem.

And we know that it's not going to solve homelessness, it's not gonna solve the housing crisis in this city.

What it will do is that it will encourage people to find places that do not impinge on the rights of other citizens to enjoy their property and their quality of life, not to say that any one is better than the other, but both have value and both should be but both should be honored similarly.

And so I just I just don't know what six months more of of talking about this is is going to accomplish and how we would have a different ordinance, how waiting to six months to have a different ordinance is is worthwhile.

So uh if I may, I would like to answer that question, and I think um hearing from and having more people at the table to address possible um amendments to this uh ordinance, things like looking at a safe parking program.

Can we find the funds to help uh make that possible?

Um there was uh uh an idea about bringing social workers as the first approach.

Can we, when a police officer comes up and makes a recommendation about where you go, you're less likely to um to respond to that than in than if a social worker approaches.

I think we heard a number of ideas from people in this uh in this chambers and countless more in our emails who have suggestions for how we could do this better as a city.

That's what I heard from these folks, and that's what I think the outcome is to provide a better ordinance.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

I actually have a question for Chief of Staff.

Um if I heard you correctly, the mayor does support this ordinance.

Uh and I don't if you are not comfortable speaking on behalf of the uh police chief, but um because he does report to the mayor, does do you know what his perspective is on this ordinance?

Um I do believe the chief supports this as well, and I think that um again it is at the discretion of his officers whether to enforce it.

Um and so I think uh as I said before, we do feel that we can have both of these conversations in parallel, having the enforcement tool in place and continuing the conversation with our service providers on how we might fill the gap that have been rightfully um acknowledged here today.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, I would just like to point out that it was said that uh the police wasn't involved in in the writing of this ordinance, and and they certainly were.

The the hot team was consulted by the city attorneys in writing it.

And before the um uh work session, you know, we I did meet uh with the attorneys with uh Amy Cox to kind of go over this and why we were recommending it.

And uh with that, I'm ready to call the vote on uh on Councilwoman Henjam's uh request to postpone.

Seeing no other comments, we have a motion from Councilman Henjam and Councilman Gold to postpone for six months to May 12, 2026.

And the motion passes five to four if I have that right, yes.

Moving on to item 10 public hearing.

Will the clerk please read item 10 a and 10b into the record?

10 A, a resolution adopting findings of back and conclusions a law based thereon and determining the eligibility for annexation of property known as Woodman Road edition number three, 10B, an ordinance annexing the area known as Woodman Road, edition number three, located northeast of the West Woodman Road and Cedar Valley Lane intersection, consisting of point one one acres.

So today's hearing will proceed to the following.

Number one, we will hear from um city staff presentation, and then we'll have public comment in support, public comment in opposition, and back to the diaspora council members' question, deliberation and decision.

Um so up now we have uh staff presentation for 10 minutes.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Uh so Chris Sullivan, senior planner for the land use review division, um the case planner on this project known as Woodman Road edition number three annexation, uh, which is a city initiated annexation for public right-of-way on Woodman Road.

Um probably a little hard to see, but that the little spec uh that says site is the project site location.

It's approximately uh.11 acres, uh, which I believe is less than 5,000 square feet of uh public right-of-way on Woodman Road.

Uh this is just northeast of Cedar Valley Lane and West Woodman Road intersection.

Um this one's gonna go pretty quick because there's not a lot to say.

Um so yeah, as I said before, this is a city initiated uh annexation from public works to bring in uh right-of-way that they acquired from El Paso County uh prior to submitting this application uh to bring in that point one one acres uh Woodman Road into the city.

Um note is that this area of Woodman Road is part of a two-c project scheduled for 2026.

Um I believe those funds cannot be utilized for property outside of the city, uh, which is why we have this application.

Uh an additional note uh since this is public right-of-way owned by the city, you're not gonna see a zone change or a zone establishment in this case, or uh uh subsequent land use plan.

This process started back in uh April uh with petition acceptance from the city uh on April 8th, and now we are at City Council first uh hearing reading of uh the annexation, and then in two weeks we will hear the second reading of the annexation ordinance.

Part of the process had uh public notices at all stages of review, internal review, uh public or planning commission review and city council with an additional gazette uh noticing per state statute.

Notices went out to property owners within a thousand feet of the site.

We had 114 postcards go out with that.

Uh three comments were received at the initial review of this application.

Two of them were just general information seeking.

Are you building anything here?

And the answer is no.

This is public right of way with Woodman Road, right of our roadway built on it.

Uh, the other uh was uh a legitimate issue uh that was brought up from the neighbor directly abutting to the north, who has a fence that extends into this area being annexed, and the question was whether or not that fence is going to be affected by whatever work's gonna happen here.

And uh the issue was resolved by public works.

There's not going to be any uh changes to that fence or construction that will affect that fence.

Uh generally, there were no comments from our agencies on this.

This is pretty straightforward.

Uh, there's not a lot of applicability from plan COS, but in general, this does comply with the visions, big ideas, and strategies of plan COS.

These are the criteria for conditions of annexation.

Uh staff has evaluated those conditions, probably a little hard to see.

Um, but this application is comply is in compliance with the conditions for annexation.

Up on the screen are the two items that you're gonna uh make a motion on.

First being the findings of fact, the second being the actual annexation itself by ordinance.

And just keep in mind the findings of fact will not come back next week or at the next meeting, but the ordinance for annexation will.

Any questions for me?

I don't see it this time.

Um we'll move on to public comment.

I have no one in support, and I have no one in opposition, so public comments are now closed.

And I'm gonna bring it back to the dias for council members' questions, deliberation, and a decision.

Seeing none, I have a motion from Councilman Risley and a second from Councilman Um Bailey.

So we will vote first on item 10A.

And then motion passes eight to zero.

I have a motion um from Councilman Bailey and a second from Councilman Williams on item 10B.

Let's vote.

And the motion passes nine to zero.

Thank you.

That's it.

You're done.

Oh no, I'm back.

Don't go anywhere.

Or moving on, item C and T 10 C.

Will the clerk please read item 10 C through 10 F into the record?

10 C resolution adopting findings and fact and conclusions of law based thereon and determining the eligibility for annexation of property known as Pete Ranch, edition number one.

10 D and Ordinance annexing the area known as Peach Rance, edition number one located southeast of North Powers Boulevard and Research Parkway intersection of Tet Boulevard, consisting of 42.43 acres.

10E and ordinance establishing an RFlex residential flex low scale with the airport and streamside overlay, zone district for 42.43 acres located southeast of North Powers Boulevard and Research Parkway intersection of Tet Boulevard.

10 F establishing the Peace Ranch land use plan for proposed single family use consisting of 42.43 acres located southeast of North Powers Boulevard and Research Parkway intersection from Tet Boulevard.

So today's hearing will proceed as the following city staff and utilities presentation, applicant presentation, public comment and support, public comment and opposition, and back to the dice for councilman questions, deliberation, and decisions.

So we will now hear from the city staff for an overview of annexation, and then from Color Springs Utilities for an overview of their annexation process.

Perfect.

So yeah, the uh city staff, then uh CSU, and then we'll have the applicant come up.

All right, thank you.

Chris Sullivan, senior planner, land use review division.

I am also the case planner on this project, this annexation known as uh Peach Ranch, edition number one.

This is located on the northeast side of the city.

We are off of both dead ends of or in between the dead ends of Tutt Boulevard, uh, nearest the northeast side uh of the intersection of powers and research parkway.

There we go.

Uh so you can see the site.

This is 42.43 acres.

Uh this is part of a large, pretty large uh enclave, about 120 or so acres.

Uh so this is pretty good chunk of it.

Uh the current zone is RR5, which is a county El Paso County zoning, uh known as R or rural residential five acre lots.

Uh the proposal is to go to R Flex Low SSO, which is streamside, APO, which is airport overlay.

Um the proposed use is detached single family residential use.

Supporting this uh annexation is a zone establishment and a land use plan, which we'll show in a bit uh in a minute.

Um, and then I'll also note up on the right side of the screen uh this is located.

This would be located within council district number two upon annexation.

There we go.

Up on the screen are the file numbers for this project for those interested in taking a peek.

Um, and then we have a snippet of the uh land use plan in the center.

The proposals to go to detached single family residential with a density of 3.66 dwelling units per acre.

Uh additionally, these are 2,000 square foot minimum lots required within this zone district and at a maximum height of 35 feet.

Uh as proposed in this land use plan, there will be 1.7 acres uh dedicated to store uh stormwater detention facilities, uh 7.5 acres dedicated to open space green space, and you can kind of see that on the map here.

Uh it'd be the green areas outlined or highlighted, I should say.

Uh requirement with this annexation by public works traffic engineering is the dedication of 100 foot wide right-of-way to go to Tut Boulevard, which is that arc you see on the top right corner of this uh this map.

Uh, and then obviously this project is going intending to uh access their uh give their primary access to these units through the areas bubbled out up at the top right corner and at the bottom right corner and then I'll also note that there's two phases to this development, and that's outlined on the bottom right hand of the screen.

Okay.

Um I added this snippet of an aerial of the site and the surrounding development that's occurring within this area.

Uh uh directly surrounding this site is Wolf Ranch development, master plan area.

A lot of development has already occurred.

There's still some development happening in this area.

The proposed use on this site is directly compatible with the surrounding developments, and I've outlined the various projects as well as densities to show that to you.

Timeline of review.

Uh, this came in for petition acceptance on December 10th.

Um, and went through four rounds of review and was ready for agenda May 15th, 2025.

Um, it's kind of following the same process as the last annexation we just reviewed, so it'll go through a second uh public hearing in two weeks.

Um public notice.

This did go out at every stage of review uh for public notice, which would be three uh at initial review, city plan commission, and city council, uh, and including a gazette notice to meet state statute.

Notices went out to property owners within a thousand feet that totaled 404 uh postcards uh up until last week.

We had only received eight uh comments.

Uh within the last couple of days, we did receive three more.

Some of them were duplicate uh comments from same owners, is what I mean.

Uh a lot of the issues that were provided were based on traffic impacts.

Uh a lot of people don't want to see that connection to of Tut Boulevard, um, as well as uh not wanting to see the additional traffic that's generated from that connection of Tut Bull Boulevard.

Um there were comments related to environmental issues related to the uh creek that runs along the west side of this property and the effect that it'll have on the habitat.

Uh additionally, there were issues related to uh removal of open space and a belief that uh we continue to keep removing open space in our city.

Uh, and then uh almost comes up every development plan, and that's quality of life of adding more development near housing near people's existing homes.

And I'll say the three comments that came in are right along the same lines.

Some of them were just inquiry, uh, but same type of comments.

Um we did get a lot of comments back from our agencies on this project, and I would say all of them were resolved.

Um, but there are some comments that are listed up here related to the school district.

Uh more or less identifying this isn't going to have any impact on district 20, uh and that they'll be able to handle any new uh development and the children that come with that development.

This project is uh compliant with the visions and big ideas of plan COS yet again.

Uh it's a pretty straightforward annexation, it's very much compatible with what's around it, and all of the planning documents that we have show that this should be a residential detached type of use.

Up on the screen is the criteria for approval for annexation.

Uh after reviewing the criteria, staff believes that this is very much in compliance with the nine items listed on the screen.

Additionally, there are 10 items that go with establishment of a zone or a zone zoning map amendment in general.

Um, and this application does meet the criteria for establishing the R Flex Low, streamside overlay, and airport load airport overlay zone districts.

I think we got duplicate slides here.

Oh no, we've got the wrong title.

That should say land use plan.

So there are seven items related to land use plan for establishing a land use plan, and staff believes that this application does meet those requirements for establishing a land use plan.

Up on the screen, you're gonna have four items to vote on.

Uh, ultimately to approve or deny this uh annexation, the zone establishment, and the land use plan and the resolution defining effect.

Any questions for city staff?

I don't see any at this time.

All right.

So we'll have Brian come up from Utilities.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Uh President Crow Iverson, President Pro Tem Risley, members of council.

My name is Brian English.

I'm a development projects manager with Colorado Springs Utilities Customer Utilities Connections office.

Uh here today to provide a for service perspective, uh, cover the conditions and requirements that are specific to utilities for the proposed peach ranch edition number one annexation.

Uh happy to answer any questions uh during or after today's presentation.

There we go.

Uh just a quick vicinity map to reorient ourselves again.

As Mr.

Sullivan mentioned, the properties located northeast powers and Woodman in about a hundred and twenty acre enclave, roughly the northern uh half of that represents the proposed or subject annexation area.

The first item we'll cover this afternoon uh is City Code 12.4.305.

It does require city council approval to provide or extend water services to areas located outside the city limits, including proposed annexations.

Any such approval must be based on a written and substantiated record demonstrating one of the following that either the city's available water supply is sufficient to meet at least 125, 28% of the city's existing water usage, plus the projected water demand for the proposed extension.

A unique and extraordinary event or circumstance exists that necessitates an extension of water services to serve a critical interest of the city.

The area is an enclave.

Taking a look at our current water situation, our reliably met demand or the amount of water we can currently deliver to our customers, the city limits and water service territory is 95,000 acre feet a year.

Our existing usage, which is a five-year weather normalized, unrestricted average is 70,325 acre feet a year.

Applying this section of code, the 128% buffer, uh the minimum water supply requirement is just a little over 90,000 acre feet a year, subtracting that from our reliably met demand, our available water surplus is just shy of 5,000 acre feet a year, or the amount we have to when considering the extension of water services outside city limits.

I also want to point out that uh de minimis would be 1% of the available water surplus.

Uh in this case, that's 50 acre feet a year.

When we apply uh 124305 specifically to this proposed annexation, uh, as city planning noted, it does uh qualify as an enclave.

For informational purposes, the projected water demand based on the proposed land use is 59 acre feet a year, so it's just a little north of the de minimis impact.

For informational purposes, uh aggregate projected water demand of all petitioned annexations is about 123 acre feet a year.

That was as of the end of October.

And since 12.4305, this section of code was adopted in February of 2023.

There have been a total of 22 approved annexations with an aggregate projected water demand of about 1,674 acre feet a year.

Current water resources, uh, when we look at our reliably met demand and subtract our existing use, we have about a 25,000 acre foot-a-year buffer to support uh continued growth in our current customers.

Uh full build-out water requirements staff estimates that we will need about 129,000 acre feet a year to serve everybody at full build out.

Subtracting our current water supply, we have about a 34,000 acre foot a year gap.

So any annexation, uh, we we can assume that uh that's going to increase the gap in the additional water supply that Colorado Springs utilities needs to acquire and perfect to continue to support our existing customers in any proposed annexations.

Uh acre foot a year is about 325,851 gallons.

That can serve two to three uh single family residential homes.

I have a question for Councilman Bailey.

Thank you, Madam President.

And just because go back to that last slide, somebody seeing that in isolation might uh take the wrong impression from it.

So if you could give us some context as to what you mean by full build out and then talk about the ability to uh develop additional resources to fill that gap.

Absolutely.

Uh uh council member Bailey.

The 129,000, uh, the need for the current city projected water demand about full build out is over a 50-year planning horizon, roughly by 2070 is when we would need to look.

So we the interesting thing with water rights is is it's a timing issue.

Uh availability, you you know, the water courts aren't gonna allow you to acquire and not put any white rights you acquire to beneficial use.

If you're not putting in a beneficial use, they're not gonna let you, you know, they've got to look out for the entire state and all of the water demands uh in this this arid region.

Uh so what we are doing on the next slide, uh, how we're approaching that is through our integrated water resource plan, and we've developed a balanced portfolio of the different areas or categories where we believe and we plan to develop and acquire or require and develop additional water resources over the next 50 years during this planning horizon.

Uh there's no hard and fast rule in terms of how much we develop at any given time.

Our resource and demand management team is constantly monitoring the situation, the watersheds, our yields, growth, development, annexations, all of these components that get folded into our planning efforts to understand where we need to be at a certain time.

Certainly we're we're thankful and beneficial, the forethought that staff and the city has had to put us in the position we are with the 20,000 25,000 acre foot a year of buffer.

But as I'm sure you're all aware, it takes time to develop water resources.

It takes time to expand the raw water storage and transmission facilities to bring them to the city.

So we're we're looking 20, 30, 40, 50 years out now, identifying the resources in these different categories to develop those in that time frame to ensure that we can successfully serve our customers.

And if we complete fewer projects in one area, it will mean doing more projects in another.

There we go.

Now we'll cover requirements for annexation.

First, groundwater and water rights.

So owner shall transfer title to any groundwater rights underlying the property or transfer any additional water rights historically benefiting the property to the city.

Through the review process, the applicant provided a letter stating that no well permits or water rights appertent to the property existed.

Nonetheless, if the annexation is ultimately approved, the owner will still sign a special warranty deed that would transfer any future water rights that are discovered on the property to the city of Colorado Springs.

As with all standard development rights of way and easement, the owner shall obtain or dedicate all easements or land needed for utility system assets or facilities.

Service area overlap electric.

Do we have a question?

Okay, just checking.

Peach Ranch is located within Mountain View Electric Association service territory.

That means that they are entitled to just compensation per Colorado revised statutes for the service territory invasion.

Natural gas, peach ranch is located in Colorado Springs Utilities natural gas service territory, and we would serve them without respect to annexation.

There we go.

Here's an illustration showing the service area overlap, Mountain View Electric Service Territory relative to ours is co-terminous with the city limit, current city limit boundary.

The hatching inside shows MVEA service territory with Colorado Springs utility service territory surrounding the entire enclave.

Next slide.

Next, we'll cover the conditions for annexation.

We're going to look at whether there's serve available service capacity for this foreseeable future from a force service perspective, that sufficient existing and projected utility infrastructure and facilities exist, that utility extensions can be extended to serve the property at the time of the annexation or sometime in the future, and whether there's a sufficient revenue generation expected from and return on investment or uh ROI perspective.

Next slide.

As you'll see, as planning mentioned earlier, uh this enclave is already surrounded by significant development with the exception of the South End within the enclaves enclave itself.

So the pictures that will immediately emerge are that there is established for service utility infrastructure and facility on the doorstep of this area.

All of the extensions will be relatively simple.

They will all be the responsibility of the owner developer in accordance with uh code, our tariffs, and line extension and service standards.

So on this slide, we are showing the water and the the connections, as they mentioned, TUT Boulevard.

Uh when that's extended or improved, uh we'll have uh the developer would install a water main extension in there along that alignment to provide the necessary redundancy to that particular area, and then from there it's just standard distribution main extensions and service lines.

Uh similarly with wastewater, a little bit different configuration.

That's going to be uh based on the topography, uh, the grade and uh the the fact that the wastewater will want to flow downhill to the south.

Um the owner developer uh is aware and has been working with the owner to the south to acquire the necessary utility easement to run a portion of the collection line through that property uh based on on again on the the slopes or topography in that particular area.

Next slide, please.

Gas and electric, uh, very similar, uh kind of a spine uh extended in Tut Boulevard for both gas and electric, uh typical gas main distribution, uh typical electric feeder distribution, 200 amp, 100 amp uh into the development based on the tariffs, utility rules and regulation regulations that were approved by cutting me off.

Um the owner developer will be 100% responsible uh for the costs associated with that with utilities providing design and construction of the gas and electric extensions.

Next slide.

From a Springs utilities capital cost perspective, uh these are the capital costs that utilities is specifically responsible for, uh, meters for infrastructure, electric resource, uh, water facilities, water treatment, uh, fiber infrastructure to expand our fiber network to support our four service integrated utility systems and vehicles.

Uh that ranges from 1.5 to 2.3 million.

Uh the 1.5 is the base cost with the high adding a 50% contingency with the midpoint as a 25% contingency.

Next slide.

Developer capital costs estimate.

Uh, these are the on on site extensions that I mentioned previously that the owner developer is responsible for.

I just want to highlight that this slide does not include water or wastewater, and that's simply because the owner developer is going to hire a third-party civil engineer or utility contractor and utility contractor to design and construct uh this particular infrastructure.

So if you're interested in uh capital cost information uh for those services, water and wastewater, um, that would be better served coming from the applicant.

Uh but we'll focus on electric gas and then the development charges and fees that typically the builder pays prior to building permit, along with the water resource fees that we are collecting uh to fund the acquisition of additional water resources per uh earlier slides.

Um I do have a question from Councilman Hincham.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

Brian, um, how how common is it that uh that we um that that those services are contracted out for wastewater and water development?

Always that's Colorado Springs Utilities current development policy in code, uh URRs, utilities rules or regulations, and line extension and service standards.

Okay, thank you.

So the developers' capital cost estimate uh for this scope is about uh three to three point three million dollars.

Next slide, please.

From an operation and maintenance perspective, estimated annual OM is about $51,500 per year.

That's broken out between 27,927,900 in OM, 22,900 in labor, and $700 at vehicles.

Uh, this does, as noted on the slide, represent the estimated ONM cost at full build-out.

Uh if we look down the line, uh 25 years, um, and it doesn't matter whether it's high or low, uh, CapEx based on their absorption rate or production rate, we would be looking at a million dollars a year in total and m costs and 2.1 after 50 years.

And of course, the ONMs are O and M is phased as capital assets are put in.

So if something were to happen and only half of the infrastructure was completed, obviously that would be a commensurate um ONM cost to utilities.

Next slide, please.

Summarizing uh capital and OM costs again.

We are ranging for utilities 1.5 to 2.3 million.

Uh the mid scenario capital costs is 1.9, uh, 1.6 million over the first five years or the five-year mark 0.2 million or 200,000 in the first year.

Uh, annual OM is $52,000 per year at full build out.

Uh, based on again the production or absorption rates that have been provided by the applicant and in terms of when they expect to be built out the 78 and 77 units over the 26-27 time frame.

We're looking at about a four-year payback.

It's just important to note that financial risk, approved annexation costs that occur prior to 29 have not been included in our current financial planning or the five-year rate case and capital budget that council approved last year.

Next slide.

That concludes my presentation.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

I don't see any questions at this time.

All right.

Thank you.

We're so thorough.

Thank you.

Next, we'll have the applicant presentation.

Good afternoon, Chris.

Good afternoon, President Crow Iverson and members of City Council.

Chris Lieber with uh NES.

Uh I think it needs a battery.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um I have a brief presentation.

I think both Chris and Brian did a wonderful job really diving into the details.

Um but what I'd like to do is uh just introduce you to a couple of folks uh that are with us here today.

Uh Brad Dixon and uh David Osborne, both with Toll Brothers.

And I'd like to invite uh David up to just uh just say a couple of opening words and then uh we'll jump into our presentation.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is David Osborne, and I'm uh land entitlement manager with Toll Brothers.

Toll Brothers is the applicant, developer, and home builder for Peach Ranch.

Toll Brothers first established its presence in Colorado Springs through the acquisition of Keller Homes in 2020.

And since then, we have brought forth projects with a variety of products from townhomes and paired homes and infill locations all the way to single family detached residential at Kissing Camels.

We have been working on Peach Ranch since April of last year and are pleased to present it to you today.

We are excited to bring an enclave project to Colorado Springs so we can continue to be part of this community.

Thank you for taking the time to review our annexation application.

And with that, I would like to hand the presentation back over to Chris Lieber, and we will be available for any questions.

Thank you.

Uh Chris Lieber with NES again.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh, we're here today because uh we really believe this is uh a logical extension uh of our community and really represents uh a smart growth.

And whether we look at it from an annexation perspective, uh thoughtful uh zoning based uh on a lot of thought about surrounding context as well as the land use plan.

Uh again, we we think this is uh a logical and and uh again uh smart addition.

Next, please.

I think what's important uh to note is that uh when we look at uh some of the adjacent uh zoning and a zoning densities, uh we're trying to find that's that sweet spot uh, if you will, and uh in our our density of proposed uh at 3.66 uh uh du per acre.

We have both uh single family detached, we have multifamily within relatively uh close uh proximity.

As was mentioned earlier, uh there are several key pieces of city infrastructure that this project uh will ultimately help advance.

Uh one of those uh is the extension of Tut Boulevard that has been planned uh for significant period of time.

I'll talk a little bit more of that about that as we as we move forward.

And then the other is extension of uh utility infrastructure that really provides redundancy, uh not just to to the for the benefit of this uh this proposed development, but for the the larger uh neighborhood.

And so really this piece is is largely surrounded by by Wolf Ranch.

Uh and what we're focused on again is the northern half of this uh a particular enclave.

So next, please.

Uh existing zoning uh is uh primarily uh PDZ.

We also have some R16,000.

And uh uh what's interesting to note is if you were to look at some of the densities associated with that uh with the surrounding, it would be very similar to what uh we are requesting, uh which is the new uh zoning available under the UDZ.

Uh and um that specifically uh is our RFlex uh low uh uh zone.

Please.

Next slide.

Uh all right.

Uh our litmus test uh for whether this makes sense.

Uh really we're looking at uh uh making the case for this being again a logic extent logical extension of our city uh boundary.

Uh we think there are a number of benefits to the city, and uh again, uh as uh Brian laid out uh this uh this particular uh annexation uh uh is able to take advantage of utility capacity that exists today.

Next, please.

Next, please uh in terms of meeting some of those thresholds, uh almost 75% of this particular parcel is uh has contiguity with existing uh city.

I mentioned the Tut Boulevard extension benefits.

Um this makes a lot of sense for residential infill and much needed uh additional housing.

Uh what wasn't really mentioned or talked a lot about is that uh there's a need for uh channel or or stormwater improvements.

Um and again, this is part of that existing system that comes out of Wolf Ranch, uh will traverse through this uh through this property, uh but we're managing that stormwater.

Uh all of the improvements, whether uh from a utility perspective, whether from a public street, uh the construction of Tut Boulevard and on all of those uh will be built uh by the developer.

Um they will be per providing the dollars to do that.

I'd mentioned also earlier the importance of the water line extension uh that will run within Tut Boulevard, providing that redundancy.

Uh and I think Brian did a nice job covering utilities.

Next, please.

Uh when we look at the 2006 uh annexation plan, uh this site is specifically identified uh as an enclave that makes sense uh for uh annexation.

Next, please.

When we turn our attention to uh to zoning, uh we obviously uh again are looking at the R Flex zoning because of its compatibility with adjacent development, but with that also comes streamside overlay and airport uh overlay.

And so as we ultimately move forward with uh development plans, uh they will reflect uh those uh specific uh uh requirements.

Uh R Flex, of course, allows for both uh detached and attached product.

Uh what uh we are uh proposing as part of the development plan is a detached uh uh again uh product uh based on compatibility with adjacent uh adjacent uh existing uh residential.

Uh development standards are similar also to what you would see in the uh surrounding PDZ uh zoning, uh whether it be from a building height perspective or whether we look at uh some of the building setbacks.

Next, please.

Uh this the sketch plan that you can see here on your right uh identifies a significant amount of open space, uh largely seven and a half acres out of the 42 are set aside.

Uh those provide uh green space, uh they provide uh trail connections, opportunity for for pocket park, uh, but also very importantly for uh stormwater and stormwater uh management.

Uh this also really illustrates you can see the curve up in the upper right-hand corner, uh, the planned uh continuation of Tut Boulevard as a minor uh minor arterial.

There are three uh specific movement uh or access points uh again strategically uh located.

Um all of the streets inside the the development uh again will be built by the developer.

Uh they will be uh public uh public streets.

And so this project includes a significant amount of uh both streamside and uh uh natural resource preservation.

Next, please.

Uh project is uh compliant with the plan COS, as Chris uh pointed out, as well as the uh consistent with the two of 2006 annexation uh plan.

Uh we've looked closely at public health uh safety and welfare.

Uh and uh we believe this uh location is very appropriate uh for the zone.

Uh from a land use perspective, also we're compliant with uh plan COS and again a lot of thoughts been given to uh connecting uh road network uh utilities, sparks, and open space.

Next question.

Chris, I have a question from Councilman Hingem.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh Chris, actually go back a slide if you would.

Um the green space that uh an open space that is proposed.

Um is that in the annexation agreement?

I mean, as a I I would imagine as development happens, things might shift and change a little bit, but is that commitment to generally that amount of green and open space um kind of a firm commitment to the area?

Yeah, so it just to be clear the the uh that open space is identified within the land use plan, which is uh which accompanies the the zoning action.

Um and so and I would also add that uh uh what is not before you, but it what what is also moving forward is the development plan, and that is uh uh uh uh consistent with what I'm sharing.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Great.

Uh the uh the proposal again fits nicely within within plan COS.

Next next slide, please.

We have a question from Councilman Lineweber.

Yes.

Councilmember Lineweber.

Sorry, can we go back one slide?

And and I just might be jumping the gun.

Um I guess not that uh the one before that.

Uh where to go.

No, yeah, that one.

Um so um I it it just takes me a while to kind of figure out things.

So currently on the west side, um, we have the Cottonwood uh Creek Trail is actually there, but it's not like paved or anything.

It's just but it does like the the property below it does start to become paved, which is a would be a major connection to our trail system.

Um what do you have plans to kind of incorporate that or what how will you be facilitating?

I I see you proposed this green space um thing, but will you have any development or or improvements to that trail itself?

Yes, uh so on the very western edge or left side of the screen is the West uh West Creek Trail that connects directly into the Cottonwood Trail, uh which is located just to the south of the overall uh enclave.

So this will all be part of that connected system.

Uh part of the plan and rationale for providing that uh green space, that buffer is to improve that trail corridor uh to date.

It's it's fits in there a little tight, it's a little tight.

Yes.

Uh, but we're providing uh that trail with what I would call you know open space kind of uh breathing room breathing space, but also perhaps just as importantly, it provides a buffer uh for the existing residents uh there uh just uh just to the west.

And then this West Creek Trail, uh it uh as it heads to the north, it connects into the kind of the core of um the overall uh uh Wolf Ranch development.

Uh and so this idea of connectivity as well as uh um it's a little hard to see on this uh graphic, uh, but the the thin black lines, the curved lines that run in the core, the center of the site are also serving as trail connections.

Uh that again, the whole idea is to link the this new new neighborhood uh within its surrounding neighborhood context.

So the actual connections to that trail, because again, that's uh it connects to cotton cottonwood, which is a major trail.

Um you really don't have anything within this plan right at the moment, other than maybe Tut.

Um so you'd have to go around the green space there on the left side is what I'm saying.

Or you could take West Creek Trail, exit which exists today.

But it would be on the other side of the development.

Correct, correct.

On the uh would be on the west side.

Yeah.

Um and uh all that to say this has been uh uh thoughtfully planned so that if at some point uh the property to the south also uh would be developed or perhaps uh brought into the city, that the trail system that's inside the the center uh could be continued on down to the south.

So we're we don't control the future uh of that parcel, but uh we are designing specifically the trail is there, it it is on the left side currently or the through that whole trail is there whole section, it's currently there.

That is correct.

And so what I'm suggesting here is it's always hard after the fact to get trail connectivity.

And you know I'm an advocate for trails, and I know you are too.

And so I'm just suggesting that that there is some kind of better connectivity for this community to that major artery.

That's what I'm asking is that you just consider that.

So um because trail connectivity is really hard to do after.

And so you have this opportunity to connect to a major artery.

Um I just wanted to highlight the fact that I'm not seeing anything other than TUT at the very top.

And yes, it may be something down below, but but um it it would be nice for this community to be able to have better access to that trail so that maybe they might ride their bike to work.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Uh councilmember.

And and uh if I might I might add what's not really shown uh here on this land use plan is that the street network, uh the houses, the lots, and that the sidewalk network that also connects to those uh to those green spaces and trail corridors.

So uh next slide, I think maybe two or three forward, please.

Okay.

Uh so whether we're looking at the strategies related to vibrant neighborhoods, uh thriving economy uh or strong connections.

Again, uh uh this uh this project really checks those uh those boxes in a significant way.

Next, please uh we do want to acknowledge uh some of the comments that we received uh from uh from the community.

Next, please uh we do want to acknowledge uh some of the comments that we received uh from uh from the community, uh some of those uh related to concerns about uh this existing uh uh property that uh uh provides uh uh a kind of a visual uh buffer today, uh concerns about density, traffic, and noise, and also uh questions about uh uh cottonwood creek and and vegetation.

Next slide.

So again, we've uh spent a fair amount of time really thinking about uh those concerns and uh wanting to fit this uh development into its its context.

Um and uh so uh specifically we're looking for this balance.

Uh how can we provide uh community with the with quality housing, uh kind of continue uh development pattern and yet still set aside uh a significant portion uh seven and a half acres out of the 42 uh for uh for open space.

Um as well as really focusing uh those preservation areas uh where we have uh natural resource uh uh habitat or or uh um uh e ecosystems, and that's associated with that west of corridor, and then uh some of the spaces within within the center uh of the site.

From a traffic perspective, uh the challenge we're uh I think faced with is that indeed you know Tut Boulevard has been planned for a long time as a as a minor uh arterial.

Uh it is stubbed in either a direction, uh both edges of this uh particular uh property uh TUT is designed, it's design intent, its section is uh adequate to certainly serve uh the traffic uh that is that this site will generate.

But what's I think most important uh is thinking even uh bigger from a neighborhood perspective, uh the opportunity to connect families with schools to connect with shopping uh today, Tut Boulevard, because it doesn't go through uh actually creates uh uh fairly significant uh a barrier that is has changed and shifted uh traffic patterns, and this will really complete in many cases uh that uh that important infrastructure, and we believe we'll make uh trips much more uh uh readily accessible for not just again this neighborhood, but for the community uh at large.

So next, please.

Uh with that, uh I'd be happy to answer any questions uh you may have.

We're excited to bring this uh proposal uh forward to you.

Uh I'm certainly available uh and both uh Brad and David uh from Toll Brothers are as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have any questions at this time, so we will now open it up to public comment.

Um I have no one in support of this project, and I have no one in opposition of this project.

So public comment is now closed.

Back to the dais for council member questions deliberation and decision.

I have a motion from Councilman Bailey and a second from Councilman Hinchem.

Um so we will now vote on item 10 C motion passes nine to zero.

I need a motion for Councilman Hingeman.

I have a council a motion from Councilman Risley to vote on item 10 D motion passes nine to zero.

I have a motion from Councilman Bailey and a second from Councilman Gold to vote on item 10 E.

Motion passes nine to zero.

I need a motion.

I have a motion from Councilman Rainey.

I didn't do it on purpose.

They're so similar.

I have a motion from Councilman Rainey and a second from Councilman Henjam for item 10 F.

Let's vote.

Motion passes nine to zero.

Moving on to our next item, we will now recess as city council.

And we will reconvene as the board of directors for the Briar Gate General Improvement District.

So recessed from City Council, and we were we are now convened for the board of the Briar Gate General Improvement District.

Will the clerk please read item 11A into the record?

A public hearing on the budget for Colorado Springs Briar Gate General Improvement District 2021, Colorado Springs, Colorado for the calendar year beginning the first day of January 2026 and ending on the last day of December 2026.

The public hearing is now open.

I don't have anybody here for public comments, so Sheree.

I don't have any public comments either, but um Shari McDaniel, Chief Financial Officer.

Good afternoon, honorable members of City Council.

The three items that you have before you, the public hearing and now the setting of the mill levy and the um approval and appropriation of the budget are for the Briar Gate General Improvement District.

And the budget for 2026 is 2 million 83,911 with a mill levy of 4.409.

That mill levy is unchanged from the prior year.

And I'm happy to answer any questions if there are any.

Councilman Bailey.

Thank you, Madam President.

On the uh question on the budget for this one.

600 and some $650,000 in salaries and pensions here.

And seems high for one of these, but I know some of them have none, some of them have more.

What can you give us a little bit of detail as to why this particular district has that much, you know, in salaries and overhead, what I would call overhead?

Um, I believe that is because it is the largest special improvement maintenance district that we have that we operate from the city, and it is overseen by parks.

So those uh salary and salaried employees, it's salary and benefits for the employees that oversee that district, and it's because it's the largest, and they are located in parks, and they are just the maintenance and operations.

They do fencing landscaping, um, the entryway improvements for the entire area of the district.

Do they do work for any of the other districts that fall under parks as well?

Um, if they do, they uh move the salary to that district so that we keep whatever works being done in each district.

That district is paying for that work.

Okay.

So I thought I saw a couple of them that did not have any of that, but it could be that it's just such a small amount, it's not possible to break it out.

I'll go back and look at uh look again and see if I can find a specific and it may be the case that if they are primarily working, for example, in a Briar Gate SIMD, but they do some work for and I'm gonna make it up Platte Avenue.

Uh they may then journal some of it there, so it may not be budgeted there, but if in case they have to do any work there, they would move the budget the salaries over.

Oh, they're not budgeted there.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do we vote on this specific one?

I don't think so.

This is just the hearing.

Okay.

That's right.

So this so if there are no other comments at this time, then this particular public hearing is closed.

So we will move on to 11B.

Will the clerk please read it 11B and 11C into the record?

11B, a resolution fixing and certifying 4.409 mill levy for the Colorado Springs Briar Gate General Impremit District 2021, Colorado Springs, Colorado for the 2026 budget year, 11 C a resolution summarizing expenditures and revenues, adopting a budget and appropriating funds for the Colorado Springs Briar Gate General and Prevement District 2021.

Colorado Springs, Colorado for the calendar year beginning the first day of January 2026 and ending the last day of December 2026.

I have no additional presentation.

I'll answer any questions if there are any.

The city council shall convene as the board of directors of the marketplace at Austin Bluff's General Improvement District for action on the following items.

We are now convened as the marketplace at Austin Bluff's General Improvement District.

Will the clerk please read item 12A into the record?

Public hearing in the budget for Colorado Springs Marketplace at Austin Bluff's General Imployment District, Colorado Springs, Colorado for the calendar year beginning on the first day of January 26th and ending on the last day of December 2026.

The public hearing is now open.

If there is anyone who wishes to speak on in public comment, which I see none, um then the public hearing is now closed.

If you have no more of that moving on to 12B, will the clerk please read item 12B and 12C into the record?

Resolution fixing and certifying a 50 mil levy for the purpose of servicing debt on the general obligation bonds, color space marketplace at Austin Bluffs General Primit District, Colorado Springs, Colorado for the 2026 budget year.

Uh alert 12C, a resolution summarizing expenditures and revenues, adopting a budget and appropriating funds for the Colorado Springs Marketplace at Austin Bluffs General Pumit District, Colorado Springs, Colorado for the calendar year beginning first day of January 26th and ending on the last day of December 2026.

Uh for the record, Shari McDaniel, Chief Financial Officer.

The sole purpose of uh this particular GID is to service the debt that was issued to make the improvements at uh the marketplace at Austin Bluffs.

The budget for 2026 is 402,425.

The mill levy is 50 mils, which is unchanged from the prior year.

And I'm happy to answer any questions if there are any.

I don't see any questions, but I do have a motion from Councilman Hingum and a second from Councilman Gold.

We'll vote on 12B.

Motion passes 9 to 0.

Any motion for 12 C.

Have a motion from Councilman Rainey and a second from Councilman Gold on 12 C.

Let's vote.

Motion passes 9 to 0.

Following the adjournment of the board of directors of the market place at Austin Bluff's general improvement district.

City council shall reconvene as city council to complete a regular meeting agenda.

City council is now back in session.

Um we have one hour of citizens discussion for items not on today's agenda.

Seeing none, um we are adjourned.

What however you have five minutes before you will be back for our Christmas picture.