The town council meeting on December 9th, 2025.

Will you please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Okay, well, the town clerk please take roll.

Mayor Pro Tem Bell.

Here.

Councilmember Hoback.

Here.

Councilmember Passamarelli.

President.

Councilmember O'Connor.

Present.

Mayor Moore.

Here.

Councilmember Bear.

Present.

And Councilmember Mortalero.

Here.

There you have a quorum.

All right.

Wonderful.

Do we have a motion to approve the agenda tonight?

So moved.

Second.

All right.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion carries.

We have an agenda.

Uh bear with me.

We've got many things on the consent agenda tonight.

The first item is 2565 approval of the November 18th, 2025 town council meeting minutes.

Next item is 25449, a resolution of the town council of town of Erie approving the 2026 amendments to the town of Erie standards and specifications for design and construction of public improvements.

Item 25632, a resolution of the town council of the town of Erie approving a professional services agreement with Amelia Technologies USA for recreation registration software.

Item 2552, a resolution of the town council of town of Erie approving a construction agreement with the Falco Construction Company for the Hundred Eleventh and Arapahoe intersection improvements.

Next item is 25594, resolution of the town council of town of Erie approving a second amendment to the services agreement with the Consor North American for the Hundred and Eleventh and Arapo intersection improvements.

A design.

Okay, I've lost my sheet.

Uh let's see.

It is Christine Emerson.

Is Christine here?

Recording in progress.

Boy, I read through all of those.

And I'm gonna have to do it again.

Whoops.

Okay, maybe she's not here.

Okay.

Just for the record, um, we just started the recording.

Um I did read through all of the consent agenda items and they were uh approved um with no question or comment.

All right, then there is no public comment tonight, so we will move on to our first item, which is item 25598, a resolution of the town council, the town of Erie approving the restated uh disposition development agreement with the town of Erie Urban Renewal Authority and Evergreen County line and Erie Parkway LLC for the Erie Town Center.

This is resolution 181.

Um I'm going to um see if I can expedite this one because the URA meeting which uh preceded this meeting immediately has the recording of the URA commission, which included all of us going through um a lengthy discussion with um our economic development staff, and this is basically a repeat of that.

So I'm gonna defer anybody who's watching the tape right now to go and watch that and you can see how this played out.

And I will see if there's a motion to approve resolution 25181.

So moved.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, say no.

All right, motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, the next item is 25648, a resolution to the town council of the town of Erie supporting home rule municipalities and litigation against the state of Colorado and asserting home rule authority over local land use and zoning.

Uh, this is an item that I had asked uh town um staff to prepare.

It is uh basically in support of a number of municipalities, including our neighbor uh to the south, Lafayette, who are basically litigating the state um for the state overreaching uh home rule um authority.

And so a number of municipalities have been coming out in support of uh of the efforts, and I'm asking uh council to uh support this.

And so I'll bring it back to see if there's any um questions on this particular item.

Yes, Councilmember Bear.

Thank you.

Um I don't know, I don't know who to direct questions to, but maybe Malcolm.

Um who are we supporting and who who else has uh made these kinds of uh there are several other jurisdictions, including the city of Lafayette, just immediately to the west of us.

Um I think in the packet it had information regarding some of the other jurisdictions, but let me take a quick look there.

No, it's Lafayette, Westminster, I think Aurora.

Um sorry to throw you for a loop.

I couldn't find it.

Um I guess more importantly, so this is to address House Bill 1313, which is the transit we're united development, as well as House Bill, which was minimum parking requirements.

Is that right?

That's correct.

So this body has already adopted the minimum parking requirements, correct.

I'm gonna defer to Sarah, I think.

Sarah Normala, planning and development director, and yes, we did.

Yeah, okay.

And then House Bill 1313 does not apply to the town of Erie.

Correct.

Okay.

So I guess my concern with um this is it seems like an unnecessary hornet's nest to kick.

Um since we don't have a dog in the fight, and uh wow, how many can I use?

Um I just I I guess I'm curious about why we would do this aside from you know, we we support you know, the city of Lafayette, of course.

Um, but it seems kind of performative.

It is um all about um supporting home rule uh municipalities.

Uh we may run into a similar situation in the in the future where we're feeling that our rights as a home rule municipality are being threatened by um by state law.

Um big discussion at the Metro Mayor's Caucus, uh, a lot of support there.

We are not the um by any means the first in line here.

Many municipalities have just given their support through resolution.

And then this is what this is.

It really is comes back to say, do we support home rule as a council?

And if we do, then to throw our support with um with the municipalities that are basically in the litigation.

By the way, the the municipalities are Vada, Aurora, Glendale, Greenwood Village, Lafayette, and Westminster.

Okay.

I I mean, I just feel like maybe this is unnecessary.

Um a more effective way for us to be involved is to advocate before the bill is passed, which I'm not sure that we had too much to say when we were considering 13.

Well, uh, that's not true.

We did weigh in on 1313.

I don't know about the parking minimums.

Um but I don't know.

I just laugh, I think Lafayette knows that I support them.

Um, and the others as well, but uh I just I feel like this is unnecessary.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll just chime in that um you know CML is also in support of uh this lawsuit.

Um I I think uh uh the overreach of of the state and the governor's office um in these matters was um uncalled for, and this isn't necessarily to say that Erie does the same thing as uh I mean we're a very different community than Greenwood Village.

Uh ironically, I I uh their city manager is a member of Colorado International.

I'm played golf golf with them a couple times.

Um and there's real concerns about this uh in those communities, and uh as mayor indicated, uh, this very well could come back to us.

And I th I think uh it's important to stand up for municipal rights, and um uh I I certainly it's not this isn't about supporting a parking requirement or parking this.

It's it's supporting a municipality's right to say no to state standards that uh the state has fought for to be able to have the privilege of of having uh home rule municipality.

So other comments?

Yeah, I had one comment where uh I have trouble understanding why only six home rule municipalities are uh signed up for this, and if it was really important and yeah, these are the six that are litigating, and then through CML through the Metro Mayor's Caucus, there are a number of other municipalities just passing a resolution in support, not in not um getting involved in the lawsuit, simply just supporting them.

So those six are the ones that felt that they needed to litigate.

We we want to join them.

No, we will not join them.

No, this is just simply saying that we support home rule and the efforts that they are um doing to um to preserve home rule.

We're not gonna enter in any litigation with them or the subject is not very clear for me.

So they are litigating.

Are we supporting them or are we joining the litigation or what are we doing?

We're just uh verbally supporting them.

We're not do we need a council approval for that to verbally support?

It's a resolution in support.

In support.

Yeah, okay.

All right, Councilmember O'Connor.

Um having served on the Home Rule Charter Commission.

I um in going through that process any time that we can support local control and our home rule town.

I'll get behind that.

And uh, and I understand that you know we're not getting involved with the lawsuit, but we're getting behind another home rule city to say yes, we support local control.

That's why I want to approve the right, or that's why we're looking to approve the resolution.

Yeah, thanks.

All right, I'll see if there's a motion to approve resolution 25 uh 209.

Motion to approve.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

No.

I heard council member bear.

Was there a second one?

There was no okay.

All right, we'll move on to the next item, uh, which is item 25646, um, which is a public hearing, a resolution of the town council of the town of Erie approving a settlement agreement with the Stratus Red Tail Ranch LLC to settle pending litigation in Weld County District Court.

Um let's see, I'll turn it over to Malcolm uh Fleming, our town manager.

We also have maybe a procedural issue here.

There were some documents that were um not sent out to the community, and there was a letter that was sent out to the community that said those documents would be sent out by I think it's Friday.

And so that kind of leaves us in a dilemma in that we have residents that are um certainly reaching out to us to say vote no on this.

Um, but they also don't have all the materials that we've had as we've been in an exec session and and understanding this.

And so um what do we do?

Is the the question with that if it's not proper if if we didn't uh release all the materials that we had available to us.

Yeah, so for the record, Katie Vera, special counsel to the town on this litigation matter.

I'll let Malcolm speak first, but I think maybe I'm looking for some clarity as to what documents were missing or were not provided.

Yeah, so I'm gonna look to um count council member um O'Connor, um, who first brought this uh to my attention.

So it was the um environmental conditions report and the amended complaint was not um in the original um uh uh attachments that were released on Friday.

They were only added yesterday.

Yeah, I mean this litigation has been going on for over a year now, so the amended complaint is a public record, it's a public document, it's been out there.

I know that council has discussed this a few times.

Um I don't know if you know I think we should allow the applicant as well to come up and speak to speak to that issue.

The conditions report, I believe has been a public record as well.

I don't know.

I don't think so, or at least part of the challenge here is we have been we the council has been informed through executive session, but we have not we didn't release anything in that I'm aware of until this actually hit the our agenda, if I'm understanding this correctly.

And then these two documents were not in there, but they were instrumental to our deliberations and um discussions.

And they are part of the packet they were added this week, so uh they were not necessarily available for the public prior to that when the agenda came out on Friday.

Right.

So the question is do we continue this till next week, giving ample time, as was noticed, or do we continue on tonight?

And then potentially we've got individuals in our community that are you know upset about this but don't have all the information that we have.

There's the dilemma.

Can I just say something?

Yes, those two documents were added yesterday before 5 p.m., which is when our agenda has to be published by was 5 p.m.

yesterday.

We publish it early so that you all can look at it over the weekend.

So I just wanted to make sure it was published, it just wasn't published with the agenda on Friday, but it did come out yesterday.

So I think the question was there was a letter sent to the residents in whatever the perimeter of the development area is, and it said that they would get them on Friday.

And then so I think that's the question in front of us.

Who sent the letter?

I received one.

From it's from it's cut off partially.

It's uh the design, I'm not sure what that's oh let's cut off.

Um the applicant is in the audience.

I don't know if you can shed any uh light on the letter that was sent out.

I don't know if that was your firm or one of your firms that sent that out.

Um David Foster uh Foster Graham uh 360 South Garfield here for the applicant.

Have no familiarity with this letter.

Uh this isn't from us.

Um we did not send that letter.

Um I would I would also say as it relates to the environmental study.

This isn't a new environmental study.

This was a newly summarized environmental study that didn't identify any new issues, but clarified the issues from the hundreds of pages of environmental studies that have been available for the last year and a half uh at the city.

It was a more more of a clarifying document that that we were uh that we had given uh to to you some time ago.

So are you familiar with this is cut off?

All I can read is R A C I N A design.

Is that it was us.

Oh sorry.

Um yes, we did have to um send out public notice as the town requested.

So we did send that notice out, and that's per staff's standard form.

And can you introduce yourself?

Oh I'm sorry.

Layla Rosales Terracina Design.

Okay.

All right.

So the question is just in front of us.

I'm gonna look to um Councilmember O'Connor, if um, you know how you're where you're at with this and whether you're looking to continue, whether we continue on tonight.

I personally think that the residents should have had that information in the packet originally.

Um that's some pretty important details that um especially the especially the amended complaint.

Um it has some dollar figures in there that residents may not be familiar with.

Um I was trying to answer some questions, and some were familiar and some were not familiar with it.

And to me, it just with this matter that's been going on for this long in front of a number of different board of trustees and counsel that it's important that the residents are as fully informed as possible with all the information that we have that can be made public.

Yeah.

Yeah, and so I sorry, sorry, Mr.

Foster.

I just want to say I I don't we don't want to rush counsel into feeling like they need to make a decision, but I will say that we've been working with uh Mr.

Foster's office on a settlement agreement for some time now, and they have requested uh several extensions on their opening brief.

Their opening brief is currently due on December 19th.

I just wouldn't want to jeopardize that timing.

Um so I would just look to Mr.

Foster as to a continuance to next week on the 16th.

Where does that put us at?

So uh again, um David Foster, a couple of things.

First of all, this is the amended complaint.

Uh it is dated November 26, 2024.

So this document has been in the at least it's in the public.

It's it's a public document.

It is available.

I grant you that not everybody can access easily court records.

So I'm I'm a lawyer and I'll I'll tell you that it's not always easy for me.

Um, but this is a document that has been out there for over a year, and the lawsuit itself was filed back in August of 2024.

So we're a year and a half into litigation.

You'll remember, and I want to again be really clear about this.

The settlement agreement and tonight's hearing isn't a requirement.

The publication, the notification, we were doing that to be fully transparent.

We will continue to be fully transparent.

I'm not even looking back at my client right now because I know that he would say we'll do whatever you all think is appropriate and necessary to make sure that your uh constituents uh feel like they have enough information and enough documentation that you've had to review this particular issue.

So I I'm not looking back as he shaking in the affirmative or he's going like that.

Um and so again, I if we can do it uh next week, fine.

Um we are on the deadline with the court for about the fourth time.

Um and again we're we're proud of where we are tonight.

We are proud of the changes uh that we've made to this uh preliminary plat, preliminary plat.

Um we believe that we got there through this process.

Um and we will gladly stand by it.

We're also uh again, it's just it's worth saying one more time.

There's nothing new in the environmental summary that we provided to you back in May that wasn't available back in July of 2024.

It was reconstituted, it was clarified.

We clearly didn't do a good enough job a year and a half ago in explaining some of the environmental issues that uh existed and were um uh resolved uh years ago.

And so um, you know, we'll we'll do what you think is appropriate and necessary, um, but we're eager and excited to have you approve this settlement agreement tonight and approve this preliminary plat so we can move on to a final plat and a development agreement um in town.

Okay, so I um it's nine p.m.

at night as well, and we've got a bunch of other items, and I think we have this open issue, and I would rather take it cautiously.

And um, so I'm gonna do I'm gonna open the public hearing so that the hearing is open, and then I'm gonna see if there's a motion to continue to date certain next Tuesday, December 16th.

If that motion passes, then we'll come back on the 16th.

If it doesn't, then we'll pick this up immediately from here.

All right, so the public hearing is open.

I'll see if there's a motion to continue this till to December 16th.

I'd like to make a motion to continue this public hearing to uh December 16th due to the environmental conditions report and amended complaint only being added as attachments yesterday.

Um, since they were not included in the original packet posted on December 5th, and I feel that the residents uh should be fully informed about the settlement agreement and also be able to again review the environmental conditions report with enough time to process this um this information before council votes on this settlement.

Okay.

Um we have a motion.

Is there a second?

I second.

Okay, motion second further discussion.

Um I I want to make it clear to the um to the applicant here that this was I apologize for the shock and awe of this.

This was nothing on your behalf.

Um, Mr.

Fleming.

Um, I'm sorry, and I'm sorry to do this in this format, but I am outraged that we did not have all this information together when we said we were gonna have it.

I I don't understand we've been discussing this in exec for what was the first meeting on this.

I don't remember two months.

This this is embarrassing, and it's embarrassing because there's people in the public that are accusing us of hiding information from the public, and that was not the case at all, including the former mayor.

Okay, and deep breath.

The please make sure that we do not have this happen again.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Further discussion, yeah, further discussion.

We have the floor, Councilmember Bear.

Thank you.

I um just want to clarify that the letter did not come from Mr.

Fleming, it came from the applicant, and that it's my understanding that we did meet requirements by um posting the attachments in the agenda at the required time ahead of the meeting.

Um so if the if the town did not meet the applicant's promises, I don't think that that reflects on Mr.

Fleming or uh town staff.

So um apologies to the public, apologies to the applicant for any delays.

Um, but I don't think that I I don't think that that reaction was warranted.

So okay.

Let's move on.

That's okay.

Let's move on.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, I I sent a letter or email to um Malcolm uh on Monday asking why these two documents were not in the packet because when I was reviewing um this, you know, over the last few weeks, these were the two documents that I get them the most information from.

And are also the two documents that contain the information that has been going on on social media for quite some time that were open questions from the community that were um um that were available but not provided until until yesterday.

And so I I felt that that was something that we really needed to have, and and uh our residents really need to have uh to understand the full complicated uh value of this topic.

All right, it's it's you could definitely sense the emotions up here because this is a very sensitive topic, and we're just looking for transparency with our community and making sure that they have everything that we have had um through the executive sessions.

All right, if I might smile, you have the last word and then I'll call the uh so apologies.

I do agree this would have a bit of respect your time and it should have been handled in the written way.

But may it put them also could have used like better decorum on the dias.

Okay, watching I don't want to get into the debates on that.

All right, we have a motion, we have a motion and no, by no, why don't you hear it?

It's not the time nor the place.

We all the courtes.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, say no.

No.

No.

So I think you no.

Okay, so it's a four-three vote.

We'll continue this to next Tuesday.

All right, thank you.

I appreciate council's time.

I was only here for that agenda item.

I don't want to be rude by just skirting out.

Thank you so much.

No, we'll pick it up next week.

We'll have to bring everybody back out next to you.

All right, we're gonna move on to item 25649, a public hearing of resolution of the town council, the town area providing this for supplemental appropriations for the 2025 budget year.

All right.

Oh ready?

All right, yep.

I'll turn it over to Sarah Hancock, our finance director.

And and by the way, I was remote at the last meeting, and the microphone is so important.

So now I'm I'm starting to be a stickler here last time.

So as you switch back and forth.

I tend to lean in probably too far.

So if I get too loud, let me know.

Um Sarah Hancock Finance Director.

I'm joined this evening by Cassie Bethune, our fiscal and budget manager.

Um we are here to um go through our end of year supplemental, uh, which is our yearly well, we do it several times a year now to uh accommodate changes in the budget throughout the year.

Um, and we're gonna go through a short presentation, let you kind of know what changes will be made in the 2025 budget, so our current year budget, and um highlight some items that uh will be shifting and changing, and then with that we'll uh be open to any questions and we'll go from there.

So, Cassie, I'm actually gonna let you drive here.

Oh, we're right.

I can grab it.

That works.

All right, so like I said this evening, what we will be doing is looking at the fund balance and how these changes will impact them.

They are pretty minimal at the end of the year.

It's mostly us moving things to transfer.

Um, there are a lot of contracts that you've already approved that actually just need appropriations in place.

So we'll go over some of that.

Um, we'll show you what the fund balance foreclass forecast will look like, and then we'll show some of the revenue changes, most of them related to grants.

Um, and then we'll just highlight a few of those expenditures and uh changes that you will see.

So, with that, I'll let Cassie talk through the fund balance summary.

You should be very familiar with this chart now.

So, as Sarah was saying, this is a very familiar chart.

You've seen it several times this fall as we adopted the budget.

Uh, some of the differences that you might see here that we had talked about this fall is those negative ending balances that we have projected there.

You'll see that for the police facilities impact fund due to the COPs that we planned to issue.

As we know, we did not issue that this year, so we don't have the expenses, so the actual ending fund balance will not come out anywhere near that.

It's just how it's showing right now without having those revenues plugged in.

We do have that fixed for next year as we went over last month.

And that is the same for the storm drainage operating fund.

That negative should not come out in the actuals.

It's just because we do not have that debt or COPs plugged in there right now.

We don't have the expenses in there, so our actuals in the ACAFER will come out much better, and then you'll see it again next year, how you saw last month.

And I just want to highlight again because it was a question that we received from a resident um around the police building.

So right now you do see that 39.26 million.

Um that was not spent, so that will fall off.

We'll reappropriate that 47 million.

So just to highlight again, it's not an 86 million dollar building.

Um, want to reassure everybody of that.

That was a good catch by a resident though, because that was buried in there.

Great catch.

All right, so here's just diving into the general funds.

It's a little bit more detailed than what was on the last slide.

So just showing that our beginning fund balance was about 30 million after all of the changes that we have.

There was only a few for the general fund, but with supplemental, our operating and debt expenditures are just over 60 million, and then the transfers out are over 8 million.

We still have a healthy fund balance um showing well above the minimum right there.

That note is showing that this does include the turnback that we project for things such as the projects that were mentioned before that we do not get the time chance to spend in the year.

And so therefore, based on what we've seen over the last five years, we project a turn back so that we can try to keep closer to actuals.

And here's the graph just showing a visualization of kind of what the last graph was or last um slide was, and then kind of going forward there.

So as you can see, we're gonna approach that line of the minimum fund balance.

That is what we aim for because we're then transferring what's above that over to the CIP fund.

And so we do actually want to see those lines come together just how it's showing on there and stay relatively right in line so that we have the money transferred over for those big projects.

Um so just a few uh revenue changes that you'll see in the supplemental.

Um we will be appropriating some revenue, um, including the $500,000 award for the RTD partnership grant.

Um that was a uh award that you all saw earlier this year for the ERE B.

Um we also received a 1.35 um award for Schofield Farm from two grants, so that's a total of two different grants, and 69,000 awarded for the water smart turf replacement program.

Um we also had $596,000 received in insurance proceeds that was related predominantly to the hail storm for new um expenditure requests.

We did have a few um changes, and these are again, these are new.

Um we mentioned this in the budgeting process with the URA that there was some confusion about where the actual um budgeted uh revenues that needed to go for the King Super Sales tax with the uh IGA, the agreement where we have with Lafayette.

This corrects that um so the $350,000 um is now in the right place in the general fund in order for us to make this payment.

Um we also did have our legal budget um was higher than um typically was this year.

So we do we are appropriating 285,000 for legal services.

Um we also have 515,000 for various insurance claims, obviously offset somewhat by the proceeds that we've received.

And then um finally we also have a $500,000 for the sponsor portion of the RTD partnership grant.

That is the match for that grant.

And I won't go all through all of these very um closely.

If you do have questions, we have notes from the departments and a few departments here to represent.

Um but a lot of these capital projects are again ones that have come to you through contracts.

So um in the general fund, we have some vegetation management.

We have some of that initial mine mitigation um uh funds that needed to be put into place.

Um we have actually appropriated on the capital side to match the revenues in place, the grant funding for the Schofield Farms.

Um we also have some land acquisition um for the uh trails and natural areas fund again.

That is coming from a healthy fund balance.

We were that was available for that purchase.

Um we have some funding coming through for the uh or funding needed for the um Mountain View Fire Signal Reimbursement, so that's an agreement with the Mountain View Fire Uh Department, and then we do have a few um capital uh expenditures in the water fund um related to both the grant but also for some of the AC line replacements that we have in agreements with of some of our development partners.

So with that, we are happy to answer any questions again.

Um some of these we have details on, um, and then others are related to things that have already been approved.

So we're happy to have um any of the department directors come up and chat with you if you have any questions.

All right, sounds good.

And I think I failed to say the public hearing uh is open, so it is open.

Um we'll see if there's any public comment before we come back.

Um I don't have anybody signed up, and I don't see anybody online.

There's no public left.

All right.

Um any questions uh from council?

Go ahead, uh, Councilmember Hobeck.

Uh there's an asterisk.

I have a Mountain View Fire Equipment.

What's the asterisk and what and is that little light picture uh always cost?

Is that special for fire department?

Or so I believe the asterisk is because I believe a contract had been brought to you all in a prior meeting, and so we were trying to put an asterisk for anything that you had seen prior to that to show like a council approved item.

I should have pointed that out.

Yeah, no, you're good.

Uh as far as the light, I'm not sure if there's anything special about those.

I don't think so.

I would have to pull again, but I believe that that was one that was already approved as in a part of the IGA would not review.

So happy to get more detail on that.

But again, it's right.

I'm used to seeing two or three hundred thousand dollars, I thought.

So I don't know.

But okay, thank you.

All right, other council member bear.

Thank you.

I have a similar question about the light.

It just seemed expensive.

And I wish you could have seen Luke's head pop up.

Like, I don't know anything about the light of the Mountain Fire.

But um that's maybe like an email later.

Um it just seems like I apologize.

I was looking at the trails and natural areas fund.

That's a transportation impact.

So I should be saying David.

Yeah, I apologize.

You can email us.

Oh, come on up, Luke.

Let's talk about transportation.

Um, and then my other question was about you know 596,000 and insurance proceeds from the hail storm.

How much longer do we think we're gonna be cashing?

I think we're getting to the end of it.

I will say not all of it was the hail storm, but the majority of it was still related to the hail storm.

A lot of this is still vehicles from what I understand that are getting fixed.

Um I I think it's just back order, but I do think that we're getting to the very end.

Okay.

I just got my new roof this year, so you're good.

Um yeah, and other than the RTD grant for the B.

I'm so excited for the B to get started.

So looks good.

All right.

Other questions or a resolution or um let me make sure there's no more questions before I close the public hearing.

No questions.

All right, I'm closing the public hearing.

Um I'll see if there's a motion to approve resolution 25212.

Um Councilmember Pescarmelli has the motion, second uh from Councilmember Morchallero.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, say no.

Motion carries.

All right.

Well, we are not going to move.

Oh, okay.

We're talking mill levies now, right?

Yes.

So again, Sarah Hancock, uh, finance director joined by Cassie Bethune.

I never know when folks jump in, so I like to make sure we know where we are.

Um at your request, we have brought a short presentation about our mill levy calculation.

Um, usually we do bring this via consent, but um, we did think it was valuable to bring some information.

Cassie's put together a great presentation on how we get to our calculation.

And then um, once we get to the end after questions, we'll actually certify the mill levy for us to move forward with for 2026, which is always exciting.

Um, that is a statutory requirement.

We have to do that by December 15th every year, so we usually bring it at this meeting to get that done.

Um, so with that, um, we're gonna talk a little bit about the terminology and kind of break down why we call it a mill levy, which I think is always fun.

We'll show you how we calculate the debt rate, um, and then we'll show you what it looks like in a property tax bill, both on the Weld County and the Boulder County side, and then we'll be available for questions if you have any questions about how we get there.

So, with that, I'm gonna hand it over to Cassie because this is your baby.

Oh gosh.

All right, so starting off with the terminology, just kind of going into where mill comes from and what it means.

So it comes from the Latin MILA, which means 1,000, and the mill is the monetary term, which means one 1000th of a dollar, which confuses a lot of people because they're usually thinking of cents, so a hundredth.

And so just to remind everyone that we're going one more decimal place over to the thousandths on this one, and so just past the penny.

And so the tax rate is the decimal equivalent of that, going back to like the hundredths there where people are more um used to it.

So we have the um mills would be the thousand, so we have 75 mills, that would be 75 dollars per a thousand dollar of assessed value.

To do a just one dollar of assessed value, then divide by a thousand to get that decimal rate.

And so in this case, it would be seven and a half cents per 1 dollar of assessed value for that example there.

So the main part that we're actually calculating is just the debt rate.

As we'll go in um further on, you'll see that the other two parts of our tax rate have stayed the same for various years.

You'll see that as we get to a later slide.

So going for the debt rate, we first have to figure out what our debt payment is that is promised based on property taxes.

So we have two of those that are due next year that are listed there, the 2013 and 2014 general obligation bonds.

And so that gives us a total of just under 1.5 million that is due in 2026.

So then to calculate what our debt rate is, we have to then get our net taxable evaluation from both counties since we're split across counties, and we have that split out there with a total of just over three quarters of a billion dollars for the total net assessed taxable value.

And so then we just divide the debt payment by the net taxable access assessed valuation to get that total rate.

So then you've got a portion of a cent per dollar of assessed value, but you multiply that by a thousand to get the mills, going back to that one one thousandth.

And so then our debt rate is the one point nine four nine mills that we are setting for this next year, which is a reduction based on what we've had for this year.

And then here's the other two portions that I was speaking of.

And so we have the four mills, that's the adopted rate for the trails and natural area that we just extended in 2022, and then we have the general operating rate that is 7.288 mills.

I have it on there as it has not changed in more than 20 years.

I did pull something from the late 90s that showed a different rate, but as of 2003, it was definitely 7.288.

So that's why it says more than 20 years there.

And so our rate for the next year is 13.237 um per a thousand dollars of assessed valuation.

So here is the weld county property tax example.

This is without any metro districts.

I just chose two examples to try to keep it more even so it does not include metro districts on either example here.

And so you can see the breakdown.

The school districts are the main portion there, and we are down here at just under 12% of the total tax bill, and this is based on a $700,000 value home.

And then for Boulder County, another $700,000 home, and then we are almost the same.

It's 11.9% closer to 12% versus the 11.6% that we saw on the Weld County example there.

Still majority of it is going to be the school district.

That's what you'll see on most of the tax bills outside of the metro districts.

And with that, any questions?

Okay, I'll bring it back to council.

If I asked, what's the bottom line?

Do taxes go up or down?

Down.

All right, and there you go.

And I think that's what most people are most interested in.

It's because our valuations are going up.

Yes.

And therefore we don't need to collect as much in taxes in order to meet our debt obligations.

All right.

In the rec center, we have one more year.

This is the last payment on the rec center, and then we switch over to interest plus principal on the PD building.

Yeah.

But that'll drop a little bit if I remember right.

You're correct.

All right.

I will see if there is a motion to approve resolution 25215.

Move to approve.

We have a motion and a second.

I just wanted to say thank you.

I was the one who had asked for this.

Um there was one bit.

I remember Councilmember Mortalaro and I were trying to connect the dots.

Um with this information along.

The state also has good information on their website about how do you get from the value of my house to calculating it through.

And I looked at both because I was I wanted to figure out how do you get to the valuation.

And uh this was, I guess bottom line is this was very helpful.

Um good to hear that.

Wonderful.

Though assessments went up, taxes went down, so you know.

Good news this year.

But thank you for putting this all together.

Absolutely.

And like I said, all the credit to Cassie.

This is uh work that she does every year, you know, to get these calculations put together.

So um and the fact that she can explain it so easily is always you know pretty a triumph.

So all right, we have a motion and second for the discussion.

Uh Councilmember Hoba.

Yeah, just a quick question.

Um are Mountain View Fair District and Town of Erie slightly different between counties.

I actually don't know the answer to that question.

My guess would be that um however it was approved was maybe slightly different depending on how the county approved it, but I would have to defer to the fire district on how they're structured.

Um I'm not sure.

Or how I'm happy to look into that because I'm always curious about how they structure.

But yeah, it's a good question.

It's a good question.

Yeah.

All right.

We have a motion and second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, say no.

All right, we have a mill levy certified, and we'll go on to our last.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Public hearing tonight.

And um that is one more.

And I'm gonna open the public hearing uh on this particular one.

And who is presenting to us tonight?

So let me read it.

It's uh item 25 uh 643 public hearing resolution of the town council, town area approving a site plan for the oops, hold it, I went off.

25540 public hearing ordinance of the town of Erie for the um town council for the town area amending Title 10, Chapter 13 of the Erie Municipal Code concerning applications for the installation of wireless facilities in town.

And it says Deb Batchholder will be presenting.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Sorry for the little bit of confusion there.

Good evening, Deborah Bachelder, Deputy Director of Planning and Development.

And I the hearing is open on this particular one.

Okay, this evening, um, we're gonna go over some background and then the proposal and a recommendation.

We are talking about wireless communication facilities, which most of us know as cell facilities.

So our cell towers, like you see there, some are mounted to buildings, others are in our sports fields at the Erie Community Center, acting like a lighting pole.

So sometimes they're can camouflaged.

We regulate these wireless communication facilities through municipal code Title 10, which is our unified development code.

And our municipal code regulations are really derived from the rules imposed by federal and state regulation that are in place.

Last spring, the state of Colorado took action on wireless communication facilities by adopting House Bill 251056, which added some additional requirements to regulations already in place.

The House Bill amended some definitions for wireless communication facilities.

It provides for an application approval if a municipality does not act to approve or deny an application within a specified time frame.

And it prohibits municipalities from requiring a separate permit for an eligible facility request unless it's for a building code or safety requirements.

And an eligible facility request is just a minor modification to a cell facility.

So the town attorneys that we have that specialize in wireless communication facilities evaluated our current regulations and made recommendations in the attached ordinance for modifications necessary to meet those new requirements by the state.

The modicate modifications in the ordinance before you tonight add a definition for pausing of review of an application, which is called tolling.

Updating the application review time, which is called a time clock by the application type.

And then the ordinance also includes the provision that an application is not approved or denied within the time clock is considered approved.

And then to address state permitting restrictions, the town added a statement that permits are required to meet building code and engineering standards and specifications to meet our public safety requirements.

So this table shows that really little change has happened in our review times.

So you'll see there's a highlighted yellow row on the screen.

Basically, what the state did was they added a new definition for small cell in right-of-ways.

They added we used it just used to be small cells in a right-of-way.

And then they split it into new facilities and existing facilities, and they changed the time frame so that it's for existing facilities if they're modifying those.

It's only 60 days instead of 90 days that we have for review time.

So a pretty minor change.

So before you are the approval criteria that you should take into consideration when considering the ordinance.

The town update to our regulations is necessary so there isn't a conflict between the state and town regulations.

Staff recommend that you approve ordinance 024-2025.

Amending UDC chapter 13 on wireless communication facilities.

The ordinance includes the planning commission recommendation from their resolution to add a definition for tolling.

And that concludes my presentation.

I'm available for questions.

Okay.

Great.

I'll bring it back and I'll see if anybody has signed up for public comment.

No, nobody has signed up.

All right.

Seeing there's no more audience left.

I'm assuming no one else is going to speak.

Bring it back to council to see if there's any questions, comments, concerns.

I have a question.

Start with the councilmember Pastramelli.

I have a question here.

So the proposed amendment will promote public health safety.

And general.

Can you explain how does it uh help?

So the statement that was added to our wireless communication facilities was specifically to address the state requirement that we can't ask for a permit.

Things like a right-away permit if they need a driveway into a wireless facility like a tower.

Oftentimes we would ask for a right-away permit to make a curb cut and have a drive cut.

Under this, it has to be a public safety issue by the state, and so we've added that clause for that.

So it is a safety issue where we want to regulate the locations of where driveways are along roadways.

How does it promote public health?

It's a general statement.

So I mean it's often to our standards, which our standards are considered evaluating the public health safety and welfare.

It's kind of bundled into one statement.

Yeah, I was looking if there were any issues with causing public health issues.

That's not yeah, that's not addressed by the state or by this amendment.

Thank you.

Okay, other comments?

Let me go to Councilman Hoback, then I'll go to uh Councilman Morcholero.

In doing this up later, preparing all of this.

Did you find anything that you thought would the state conflicted with the federal?

This would be FTC stuff, right?

Uh no.

So that that's why we that's why we have our attorneys to show us if there's any conflicts.

Um and where they are, they tended to go with the more restrictive like numbers of days or something like that for a review sometimes.

Thank you.

They give us the suggestion of going conservative.

So the update will bring us in compliance with the state uh house bill 1056.

Yes, that goes into effect at the beginning of the year.

And are there any concerns with uh meeting the state's requirements?

No, they're not much different than what we currently have in place.

That's what yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, Councilmember O'Connor.

Um has the town had an issue in the past with meeting the um review times or it's really not gonna change.

It doesn't seem like it's gonna really change much.

It is short and we know it's a priority when it comes in, and there's certain procedures that are used that if an application's not complete, that's the tolling word, the definition that was added.

We can pause an application if an if it goes back to the applicant and we say, Hey, you didn't give us these documents as part of your submittal, then it puts a pause on that timeline.

It only counts for when it's in our hands.

And so we know we can meet those requirements.

So that I guess that then it's on the applicant how long they decide to pause it for.

Correct.

So it could be like 30 days, paused for three years, and then you add the 30 days when they resubmit.

Yeah, we wouldn't let them go three years.

I figured you wouldn't, but just as yes, but yes, it's in their hands as to how long it would be in their hands.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, my only comments on this particular one is this kind of feels like a home rule kind of encroachment, but on the flip side, it's I get it, right?

Cell towers that if you can't get cell towers passed and put in place, then you got communication issues.

You can argue that's health and safety, and it all comes together.

So I'm I'm in support of this as well.

So um I will close the public hearing and I'll see if there's a uh motion to approve ordinance 24 2025.

So move, second.

I think we've got it all on this side this time.

Uh Councilmember Mortilero with the first and councilman Barrett with the second.

What do you gotta do?

Sorry, I had to hear it's it's all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Okay, motion carries.

Thanks, Deb.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we'll move on to our last um item tonight.

It is uh yet another public hearing.

It's 25643, a public hearing a resolution of the town council town area approving a site plan for the Erie Police Station expansion and a resolution of the town council of the town of Erie approving the special review use for the Erie Police Station expansion.

So with that, I'll open the public hearing and I will uh turn it over to um Harry Um Brennan, who's our senior planner.

And uh we'll get an update.

Great.

All yours.

Thank you, Council.

Uh I feel like I have lots of time now that NAT is young.

Um, and uh let's keep going.

So this request is for uh there's two applications included in this project.

It's a special reviews and a site plan.

Uh and of course, the typically a site plan uh goes to planning commission for review and approval uh and doesn't come before you all, but because there's a special reuse attached to this, that is why uh you're seeing it this evening as the final uh final say on it.

So I'll give a little background, then get into some details of the proposal, uh finally go through uh some more in-depth review and evaluation of the project and then get into the recommendation.

Uh I'm sure you all are familiar with the location, but it that's the intersection of County Line Road and Tallene.

Uh and just some context shots, uh the building that you see from uh County Line Road is uh will remain, so the addition will be behind the building uh to towards the west, as I'll get into a little bit more in later slides here.

Uh the comp plan does designate this property as public quasi public, which is the current use and will remain the use.

The zoning on this property is community mixed use, uh, which allows for a public safety station, but only as a special review use.

Uh so staff staff also find that this proposal is uh specifically compatible uh or and supportive some main policies and the comprehensive plan.

Uh I won't read those necessarily, but uh essentially they talk about uh being consistent with Gary PD's strategic five-year plan.

Now I'll get into the proposal in a little bit more depth.

So looking at the use uh specifically here, uh obviously this is a public safety station.

Uh this new addition would ensure that EPD has room to grow uh for future officers and also their civilian staff, which has seen quite a bit of growth, uh, as I'm sure uh Chief can talk about uh later if there are questions.

Uh and it of course operates 24-7, seven days a week.

So the site plan the existing building is shown in the reddish gray here, and the highlighted uh brighter red color is the addition.

So uh I think key things to notice on this site plan are of course the addition, also the expanded uh parking, and that's both employee and officer parking and expanded public parking, because those of you that have attended events at EPD uh have probably seen that parking tends to back up on Tallinn currently, so uh this new public parking would avoid that uh or add capacity to avoid that.

And then the other key feature I wanted to call out is a new uh security fence that will enclose the officer parking.

Uh and those will there will be gates uh at those entries.

So uh one sort of in in the interior, and then one uh towards county line road.

The two access points are the same access points that are there today.

So uh it does uh the northern access looks a little different just because the parking lot is shaped slightly differently, but that's the same access point.

And then uh there will be an employee only or officer only officer and employee only entry off of county line road.

The existing building itself is just shy of 18,000 square feet uh with the roughly 30,000 square foot addition.

Uh that brings the total of the building to just under 50,000 square feet.

Uh it this uh this is a two-story addition that we're looking at.

Uh it still is well within the maximum height limit, which is 45 feet in the zone district, and the proposal only goes up to 33 and a half feet.

Um as you could see on the site plan, there's a big expansion in terms of parking.

So existing uh is 86 spaces, and that's both public and officer combined.

Um the proposal would add 73 additional spaces, and that that's a mix of uh public and officer parking to bring it to 159 total.

Uh, and there's no max or there is a maximum, but the um the minimum that we look at here is 150, so they are meeting the minimum parking requirement here.

Uh, landscaping and hardscaping, obviously, there's less landscaping, more hardscaping in the site plan, however, it still meets our minimum requirements for landscaping.

Uh in terms of the actual architecture, the big intent here was just to remain compatible with the existing structure that's out there today.

So that and or that specifically means keeping a lot of the same materials, so that's uh textured concrete, um, some metal, uh sort of metal accent materials, um canopies and things like that.

Uh and uh in the same color scheme as well.

So you see a lot of the same earth tones that are out there today.

Uh also all I guess one thing to note on these elevations uh the primary roof form of the addition is a flat roof form, and so that worked for function, but it also helped uh eliminate an unnecessary impingement into the view uh from the neighbors to the west because that was a concern that came up at the neighborhood meeting.

In terms of landscaping, as I mentioned, there'll be uh slightly less area devoted to landscaping, but the requirements will still be met, and the uh trees that will have to be taken out are being replaced with new tree species.

Uh and particular consideration is being given to landscaping on the west side uh where this property adbuts to uh trail corridor in the neighborhood to the west.

Uh, one additional thing that I have not mentioned yet is the uh existing drainage uh or detention facility on the uh county line frontage will remain, and that was sized adequately uh when it was originally built, so it can't accommodate the additional hardscaping out here.

One thing I wanted to touch on that came up in the planning commission meeting was a question about um number one the soil quality out here and then also undermining because obviously we know this is not all that far from the town center site.

All the green swatches are the undermined is that what you're saying.

Correct correct yep.

Uh and there there are uh some tricky soils out here as there are um and many other places in area as well uh this was actually a big consideration when the original building was construction constructed and so there um the contractor is prepared for that and we'll be uh putting the foundation on uh rammed earth piers I believe to uh um mitigate some of that risk from uh soils out there uh the neighborhood meeting I mentioned was back in July and so there were uh questions about how this was gonna impact views from the existing neighborhood um what the fencing was gonna look like uh what the height of the building would be at planning commission we talked through some of the same things and also uh quite a bit about the geotechnical review soil quality uh and whether or not undermining was an issue out here uh we talked about the fence design again some of the um parking questions came up as well uh public notice was met for this meeting tonight uh and uh I sort of touch on this planning commission uh held their hearing on November 19th and they voted unanimously to recommend approval uh and so there are two resolutions uh in your packet this evening one would be for approval of the special reviews and one for the site plan but they're one and the same part of the same uh project and that concludes my presentation um the I guess the applicant team is our police force over here so they are here to answer questions if needed and Chad Alexander is also here uh to answer questions as well uh but no um no additional presentation all right wonderful thank you I'll look to our town uh clerk to see if uh anybody is signed up for public comment no we have no one signed up and I've not seen anybody in the audience still so we will move past that and I'll bring it back to um council for questions uh comments or concerns all right maybe uh just one question this probably be for chief but the other on the uh where the new fencing is where the uh entrances for patrol cars is that just gonna be a gated control that uh for if you have to take somebody in for processing or whatever right mayor council lee mathis chief of police appreciate the question so there'll be a gate from the public parking lot into the secure area there will also be a gate on the county line side which will be only for the secure parking area.

So it'll be a pad that will open when the cars open up and then when the officers show up there'll be some type of signal RF or some type of flop that will open that gate.

And it'll be just a just a pullback.

I'm not sure what the exact design looks like right now but but it'll be something hopefully it opens fast so we can there you go and like Star Trek or something.

Yeah.

Okay where's uh next two where's Sarah budget um person she left yeah so we can do it yeah process is okay all right yeah that's all I had go ahead no council member Connor uh I had just I was kind of surprised to see in the site plan that the building's only gaining seven and a half feet is that from where the new second story section is added to the first story or how does that magic work the mouse stopped working um so it's kind of hard to tell from this this perspective but yeah the current building has at the northeast corner uh the large can slanted canopy and so uh that's that's sort of the difference between the top of that canopy and the flat roof so it's kind of kind of deceiving you you're you're correct most of the most of the existing building is lower than uh 26 feet but uh that's sort of like the maximum height of existing versus the maximum height of the new how much do you think it would is gaining over the existing building maybe 10 or 12 feet probably fifth I would say maybe 15 feet.

And and I'll just add one of the concerns of the public meeting was the height of the of the building what was that going to do to the residents that live directly to the west and when they saw the the conceptuals or the the markups from the architects it really because of that berm it one of the comments they says really it just looks like a bigger one story building because it is kind of a sloped site.

It one of the comments they says really it just looks like a bigger one-story building because it is kind of a sloped site.

We have that berm there, and the building is kind of sets down from where the where the houses are.

So the houses are actually still above even that second story.

So they have some some visuals of the building.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

Councilmember Bear.

Thank you.

Um, thanks, Chief.

There's nothing like attending a ceremony at PD and being worried about getting a parking ticket because you had to park somewhere, it's like abandon your car in the street and clean to run in.

Um so my question is about parking.

So there's 73 additional.

And I I think that those are split between public parking and uh police facilities.

And I'm just I know you've accommodated for growth.

I'm just wondering if you could walk us through with that.

Sure.

So I believe on the public side, we're basically more than doubling what we have now.

I think we currently have 25, 26 spots, which is nothing for a department our size.

I think we're going to 50.

56, Deputy Chief Commercial.

She's been on the design team for the whole time, so she she knows more of the details.

But we're more than doubling our public parking, and we're hopeful that that will take care of those police ceremonies, our community academy, uh Halloween safe stop.

Most of our traffic there, they don't spend a lot of time at the police department, but but sometimes we do have those surges during certain events where we have we have need for more parking.

And then how many more officers or vehicles can we accommodate or are we expecting to need to accommodate?

Right, right.

The building will be built for basically a hundred officers, maybe a little more.

And I think we're doubling our parking space.

I think it's 112 uh spots in that back parking lot.

Okay.

Right.

So that should be sufficient for fleet and for we're anticipating some take-home vehicles and also you know, employee parking also in the secure area.

Okay.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Go ahead, Councilmember Martillero.

Yeah.

I'm excited about the project.

I'm glad it's moving moving forward uh quickly.

I just had a question.

Um in the DRT, it is there a list of the required uh referral agencies and and their approvals.

I didn't there was a lot of material to go through this week.

I didn't I don't know that that was one of the items in there.

We uh we have uh we keep sort of a list um a list of all the referral agencies and send them out at least at least everybody on the first round.

We hit everybody that's on our list uh that's that's appropriate or relevant for the um for the area of town or for the type of project, and then it sort of whittles down uh as the project goes on to whoever has remaining comments.

But uh, I don't think that specific list is included in the attachment here.

Could it be added or um I yes?

I'm not sure what it what the process would look like to add material after the hearing, but um I could we we could provide that, yeah.

Okay, great, great.

Okay, I will uh close the public hearing.

Um we have two um motions tonight for two resolutions.

Uh the first one get that up in front of me here.

The first one is um a resolution uh 25206, which is the resolution of the town council town of Erie approving a site plan for the Erie police station expansion.

Do we have a motion to approve the site plan?

Motion to approve, second.

We have a motion and second, all in favor say aye.

All opposed, say no.

All right, we have a site plan.

We'll move on to the second resolution, which is resolution 25207, a resolution of the town council of town of Erie approving a special review use for the Erie police station expansion.

Do we have a motion to approve?

So move second.

I heard the first seven.

All right, counts Councilmember O'Connor has the second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye aye.

All opposed, say no.

All right, we have it.

The groundbreaking is on Thursday at 11 a.m., I believe.

And I'm looking forward to being out there and uh celebrating uh uh this great expansion.

And mayor, if I can, I just want to thank the council, uh mayor town managers for this process.

We're very excited.

We think this is gonna really serve the town into the future, and we appreciate your support and all the work it took to get here.

Um, it's gonna be a long two-year project for us, but uh, but we're gonna have a great space to work out of and serve this community for years to come.

So thank you for your support.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Thanks.

All right, that will bring us uh back uh for council member reports and announcements uh tonight.

And um any volunteers to go first?

That will bring us uh back uh for council member reports and announcements uh tonight and um any volunteers to go first all right council member uh bear and then we'll just go to her left and uh all the way around um I had um the sad but honor to attend um Senator Faith Winners memorial at the Capitol um this last week and it was really inspiring to hear um remembrances of her my my own remembrance of her is working with her on transportation issues and legislation um she was a fierce advocate for um the unheard voices and and I really felt like she was always looking for who's not at the table um and I appreciate her leadership she was remembered for always saying lift as we rise I'm wearing um this orange ribbon in her remembrance the orange orange was her favorite color um and her daughter spoke at her memorial and just spoke about her mother's warmth um and also that she was not a perfect person but she um was so dedicated and and what an honor it was for me to be able to work with her um and so uh I'm thinking of her family as we go through the holiday season.

Um I also wanted to say welcome to our new town attorney Miss Brina Mang.

Thank you so much for being here and I'm excited to get to work with you and on upcoming issues.

And I also want to say thanks to the chamber for such a fun parade of lights and um it was a little bit warmer this year and I was really happy to not be so frozen and um thrilled that most of the council was there and um thanks for letting us use your truck and for organizing us.

I kind of raced from Denver down back to Erie for that.

So I barely did anything to help but thank you for organizing.

So um other than keeping your good dogs on a leash that's all I got.

All right great councilmember Mortalero.

Yeah I I just want to thank and and congratulate the chamber on another successful parade of lights.

The kids were awesome uh and uh it was it was a lot of fun and and glad that most of us were able to take to get there for it.

So thanks a lot.

All right Councilmember Hoback.

Dirage I'm about to come up with something I have nothing all right that's okay.

All the way around you I had uh attended the consortium of cities meeting for economic development along with Julian.

We gave an update on what we're doing and we heard from other cities what what they're putting in for economic development.

That was one thing Parade of lights was good even we all had a lot of fun and after that uh council member Martellero and O'Connor we hanged out for some more time.

It was more bonding for us.

And uh thirdly I wanted to remind about what we spoke in the retreat like ground rules treat each other with respect.

I wanted to reiterate that because these microaggressions are not going to help anyone we need to be more bonded and treat with respect even though there is something that is not that's not we agree with we it can be told in a better way that's right.

Thank you.

All right councilmember O'Connor I know it was said before by other council members but welcome to our new town attorney um it was I had the pleasure of meeting with this morning it was nice getting to chat with you.

So welcome to the town um and also along the lines of what uh councilmember Passar Melly just said about the parade of lights um it was fun it was a blast um I thanks to the chamber um I enjoyed we um council member hobeck more to Laro Councilmember Bairron we all hung out at the chamber um it was just nice to sit around um and hang out with Santa Claus and Miss Claus and other things and uh and then yeah as Councilmember Pessar Melly mentioned the uh councilmember more talero and all the three of us went out afterwards and it was nice just to you know hang out with your fellow council members so oh sorry outside of work that's right non work no business with disgust so thank you thumbs up already all right all right pro 10 uh yeah thank you uh yeah for everyone's out at the the parade of lights uh it was great time um yeah there's great participation for the public um and uh wasn't as cold as as previous years but I appreciate the yeah uh council member o'connor brought all kinds of heated jackets and stuff you know so yeah we we we stayed warm out there um uh for staff I've got like three bags of that um those minutes so uh I'm gonna leave those here for y'all to partake in um but uh yeah uh thank you uh there is a airport meeting coming up uh uh on um I think it's the 18th um and uh we are going to be uh discussing um uh uh uh fees uh for for the airport so um uh if uh you're interested in that uh just uh show up or in the uh

So uh I'm gonna leave those here for y'all to partake in.

Um but uh yeah, uh thank you.

Uh there is a airport meeting coming up on um I think it's the eighteenth.

Um we are going to be uh discussing um uh uh uh phase uh for for the airport.

So um uh if uh you're interested in that, uh just uh show up.

We're in the uh room where is it right back here behind this wall.

So thank you.

All right.

Sounds good.

I'll uh I'll close it out.

I'm uh I'm uh experiencing a little bit of FOMO.

I uh miss the Parade lights because I was at home with COVID, the end of it, and uh that was a bummer because I knew you guys are having a good time.

I was there the year before and uh oh my gosh, the number of people so I can only imagine what it was like a year later.

So 2026.

I will try to keep healthy so that I could be there with this uh group.

Um the chamber, I met with the chamber board this uh morning.

I tend to meet with them every other uh month.

Just good general overall conversation.

They would like to get a state of the town um meeting that they want to help coordinate um for the chamber members, and if there's extra spaces, they would open it up to the public.

So I think they'll be reaching out probably to you, uh Malcolm to see how we can help accommodate um such an event.

All right, that is all I have.

It's ten well it's not, it's nine fifty-eight PM.

So I guess um to uh Harry Brennan, uh the night is still young by two minutes.

Um but I still will adjourn the meeting before ten PM.

This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.