Wellington Board of Trustees Regular Meeting and Work Session - June 13, 2024

4:53PM Jun 17, 2023

Speakers:

Ms. Patti Garcia

Dawn Peacock

Elizabeth Lophole

Cody Bird

Caitlin Morris

Mayor Chaussee

David Weigand

Brian Mason

Jon Gaiter

Ashley Macdonald

Rebekka Daily

Shirrell Tietz

Jon Gaiter

Dan Sapienza

Aaron Bradley

Melanie Murphy

Angie Billington

Lisa Sholay

Phyllis Mortensen

Steve Wynn

Matthew mullet

Corinne Brewer

Mr. Dennis

Jen Simmons

Keywords:

daycares

town

community

work

question

marijuana

setbacks

option

wellington

board

trustee

dams

change

trustees

ordinance

subdivision

larimer county

home

numbers

public comment

All right. I now call to order the June 13 2023. regular meeting of the Wellington Board of Trustees time being 6:30pm. Please rise for the Pledge Allegiance.

pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Miss Garcia negative roll call please.

Trustee Gatier?

Here,

Trustee Daly

present.

Trustee Mason

here

Trustee, Tietz

here.

Trustee Weigand

here

Mayor Pro Tem McDonald

Here

Mayor Chaussee

Here

are the amendments to the agenda this evening. Are there any conflicts of interest this evening? I will move on to first item being public comment. Please know that any person that desires to make a stock statement regarding the planning commission meeting held last week or the proposed asphalt plant that this board cannot consider any comments. At this time. There is an ongoing appeal on that decision, which will require the board of trustees to act in a quasi judicial role to ensure that all parties due process and rights are protected. We will not permit any public comment related to that meeting, or that decision at this time. There is a set process and we need to abide by the law. And when the time comes for considering the appeal. We cannot take comments on the topic into account. So please help us get through this evening. Without any issue. Now we'll move on to public comment, please state your name for the record and you have three minutes to speak.

My name is Don peacock. And this is just a very general comment. It is no surprise to anyone that I have had some serious concerns about things that have happened on the board. But I also want to make sure I give credit recorded where credit is due. You guys have tackled a lot of stuff that has been pushed down the road. And it has landed in your laps. And I appreciate the fact that you're taking care of it. Whether it's changing the rate structure for the commercial and residential water stuff, which I know is huge cross to bear and you got a lot of flack for it. I know that you're dealing with the cannabis stuff. I know it's not you're also dealing with the Boxelder dam stuff, which is a big concern. And all this stuff has come from years and years and years before you. And I just want to say I appreciate that you're doing the hard work. You're cleaning up fees, you're cleaning up different little pieces that are hanging around that should have been taken care of years ago. And so yeah, just from a resident want to say thank you.

Thank you

all right. I don't know when I'll

just state your name, where you live for the record, and then you have three minutes to speak. Okay.

So my name is Elizabeth loophole. And I live over on Sumner Street. And I had attended the meeting last night about the rezone and the replat. And I was confused because my letter stated that a Board of Trustees meeting was the 27th. But then I showed online that when I looked tonight, it said it was cancelled. So I didn't know like, is there another meeting time? Are we going to be notified about that because none of the residents know about that change, because all of our letters said the 27th. And then last night, there was a lot of comment about like 19,000 square foot lots. And when I looked I only could find one that was that size. And then there were a couple of 17,000 square foot lots, but then a lot of them are a lot smaller. So I just wanted to ask, like why are we jumping to a rezone when maybe you could just do a REIT plat and have it more like a smaller, you know, minimum lot sizes for that current zoning. And then also, you know, I'm a mom. So I know know that school buses are an issue the availability of school buses. So adding another 60 homes with, you know, that are going to be even for young families? Probably because of the price point. Like, are we prepared for busing? All of those extra kids? Because I know it's a problem. And then just about traffic changers with that many more cars coming in and out of those areas, because they know it's kind of, there's no lights there on a frontage road with cars, you know, turning left, or cars going off of the front of each road onto the freeway. You know, I just think there are dangers there that haven't been addressed. So that's all sorry, I'm not good at talking. Oh,

you're good. Thank you for your comment. Mr. Bird.

Thank you, Mayor Cody, bird town planning director. And thank you, Ms. Lophole, for bringing up the notices. Staff did notice that the notices that were mailed to residents had a date, that's an error because the board has canceled the June 27. regular meeting. So we are going to send new notices for the Board hearing for the item that Ms. Lophole brought up hasn't been presented to you yet. But you do have public hearings that will be scheduled for July 11 is the next regular board meeting and we will send you advertisements for those. Thank you. And thank you for attending tonight to bring that up.

All right, well, thank you for the public comment. Next item we'll proceed with this evening is going to be Miss Caitlin Morris, the town's community and business liaison. First of all, it's gonna be your introduction, and she has a presentation course. Or maybe it's just the introduction. Yes.

Did you see that look, a panic don't.

I saw I saw.

Hello, everyone, it's such a pleasure to meet all of you that I haven't met already. I've met a few of you already. And just an honor to be here and an honor to serve our community in this capacity. I'm just overjoyed, and so excited for the potential that this role can do. So thank you so much. And thank you to Kelly and Patti for the great welcoming and onboarding. Anything else you want to?

You want to explain a little bit about what you do. Okay, that would be great. Yes.

So a big part of my role is acting as the liaison to the Wellington, Colorado Main Street Program, which is a nonprofit organization serving the heart of our community, our downtown corridor. So very excited to work with that board and bring different programs and initiatives to our community. Separately, I get to be more involved in the community activities that we provide. So Fourth of July is right around the corner, and I have big, very big shoes to fill in courting coordinating this event, but great groundwork has already been laid to make it a huge success. So thank you to many of you who were involved in that. Additionally, business licensing and small business support, retention, and expansion is a big focus of mine. So working towards sort of gathering data on what is needed in that aspect of the position, currently on kind of a listening tour, so trying to have a lot of conversations with local businesses and, you know, key partners and stakeholders that have been in the community for a long time. So just getting those data points of sort of where we're at currently, in the community, what does our ecosystem look like? And where can we start to fill some gaps and, you know, create some change. So excited to you know, talk more about that as we get more data and move along.

Thank you. Anybody on the board have any questions or comments? Yeah, go for it.

I know, You've been in this role for a short time, but I can tell you that the feedback on your performance and your relationships that you've built already are outstanding. People seek me out to let me know how impressed they are with you, and what a great experience it is to work with you. So I've heard that all over the place. So I appreciate you so very much and this role is essential to our community. And I'm very excited and I think we have the perfect person in the spot in that spot. So thank you so much

goodness, well, thank you so much. I I truly this I would say have sort of an intrinsic need to be involved in my community on a deep and intentional level. And this, to me feels like sort of a calling that I'm honored to be able to work with Wellington in this way. So I'm very excited. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, next up will be the consent agenda, which includes the May 23 2023. Board of Trustees regular meeting minutes, resolution number 19 Dash 2023 resolution authorizing and temporary road closures for the annual Fourth of July celebration. May I get a motion to approve?

I'll make a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.

Second.

May I get a roll call please.

Trustee Gator? ia

Yes.

Trustee Daly?

Yes.

Trustee Mason?

Yes.

Trustee, Tietz

Yes,

Trustee Wiegand.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem McDonnell.

Yes.

Mayor Chaussee

Yes,

thank you.

All right, next item is action items. The first item is gonna be ordinance amending the town of Wellington's marijuana policy. The town attorney, Mr. Dan Sapienza and the planning director Mr. Cody bird will present this item to the board. Mr. Sapienza. Mr. Bird, please proceed.

Thank you. In your packet tonight, you have three different versions of ordinances that were recommended requested by the board at the last work session that took place in in May. The three versions are sort of different collections of options that were presented to you at that work session at the work session of your call, I think planning director Byrd put together a list of approximately, it'll say 2015 20 different things that could be done to change the marijuana ordinances to to affect different goals. And the board requested that we put together three versions of that we have option A, which in the work session packet was option A with one change to it is Option B, which in the work session packet was option C. And we have option C, which is the same as option B accepted as a 2000 foot setback from schools, which is the current setback from schools as opposed to Option B, which has 1500 feet in the back. And we also have we have, I believe, five different maps or you need to put in there at the request of the board. Three of those maps clearly show the setbacks using current land use for each of those proposed ordinances. And then we also had two separate maps one for option B and one for option C that also show the setbacks. If home daycares were included in those proposed ordinances, there's been as we've provided different maps to the board over the last six months or so that we've been talking about marijuana, it's always hard to we can only show so much on a map. So a number of the maps haven't showed all of those pieces. I do not know and maybe Cody has an answer to this real quick question. Does the Is this the home daycares as of today? Or is this last week?

The maps in your agenda packet. So, state licensed home daycares as of middle of last week when the maps were created.

And I believe one additional home daycare has opened since that time, so they're not actually accurate as of today. So in the town of Wilmington, there's no 18 licensed daycares. Last week there were 17. So, these change a lot. I believe it's right in the middle so it doesn't have a significant impact on the actual maps themselves. Option A in the packet makes no changes to the proposed set or to the setbacks for marijuana stores. They can open no closer than 2000 feet to any school, which is defined to include daycares, including home daycares, and it makes that explicit. It adds our three zoning districts to the definition of residential requiring a 200 foot setback from a residential district. That's kind of a clarifying thing that we think is necessary across the board. It adds discussion of neighborhood needs and desires considerations with local licensing authority. And the one change from what was discussed in the proposed ordinance a during the work session is with regard to the licensing the zoning and setback verification form that the applicant needs to fill out. When an applicant wants to apply for a marijuana license. The first step that they must go through is I need to get this form filled out where the planning director or his his or her designee looks at the proposed premises and determines whether it complies with the town's zoning ordinances. The change in ordinance eight here makes it that day that he approves it is kind of the binding date. So any changes from that date until when they have their licensing hearing which could be months really just due to the processes and the notices wouldn't apply. So when they fill out the zoning and setback verification form, the planning director or their designee has five days If and when that stamped when that signed, that's binding on the licensing authority. So that kind of rules out the issue of him or her filling out that form and then another, like daycare opening up later, which as we see, one opened up in the last week, so it does happen quickly. A lot of notice worth. Option B has a lot more changes to setbacks. It's kind of the the plan for option B was a bit more of a holistic look at all of the setbacks including increasing setbacks from residential districts, it does include our three zoning so increases that from 200 to 250 feet. It increases the zoning setbacks from public which would include parks and public buildings. Also the setback from other licensed marijuana stores. Currently, that's 500 feet, they'll be increased to 1000 feet. It then reduces the setback from schools from 2000 feet to 1500 feet and clarifies that home, daycares are not included in the definition of school. Home, daycares are uses that are required to be in any in any residential district, it is a residential use, by definition. So in this version, it's excluded those from the definition of schools, they would have the same setback that applies to other residential uses, which is in this one increase to 250 feet. It does also add the neighborhood needs and desires consideration from the local licensing authority. When you have the hearing for the Marijuana License, that becomes another thing for residents to be able to come and say, I do or do not want this. And so that's just another consideration that we think is important. ordinance version B, C and C in your packet is identical to version B. It removes home daycares from the definition of schools. But it does leave the setbacks from schools at 2000 feet, which it is currently as opposed to be which reduces it to 1500 feet. It increases all the other setbacks as noted with version eight. So those are the three options in the packet. Happy to answer any questions. Cody bird is here. I do I am connected to I think I'm on Zoom. I might need to become a participant if you'd like me to show maps on the on the screen if desired. I do have those loaded up. Certainly, if you have a question on maps, I would ask those out or for those questions to planning director Berg. Me. Happy to answer any questions for

you. I'll start with questions from board. Trustee teats. Um,

so my only question is, is I would like to if we can add the require the planning director verify setbacks, I don't see that in the version B is that something that would be able to fall into B or C?

Absolutely a B or C that that language is added to a specifically because a left in the definition of left in home daycares. And that's that's really the one we're concerned about that the issue being that they kind of show up unexpectedly and without any involvement of the town. So that's why I was left in a perfect certainly that language could be added to B or C to have that verification happen at that time.

So other than that, I would say that I am comfortable with the added language in ordinance version B, as long as we adjust that setback from the 1500 feet to the 2000 feet.

So So option C

that would be option C. C is identical to B except 2000 feet for schools

and the neighborhood needs and desires would back into it. Everything in

B is everything in C is identical to Option B except this.

Okay, perfect, then I am option C.

Trustee Weigand

excuse me, currently with the changes that we're looking at here how many marijuana units would qualify for each spot for A, B or C?

Option A is the current really option A makes no difference, no change to our current setbacks. And under Option A no additional marijuana stores. There's really no place in town that currently meets the zoning. There's currently no place in town that meets the zoning and setback requirements under Option A under Option B. Trustee teets has a keener eye for the map than I do. I think under Option B up to three additional stores potentially and I don't want to say that we identified three potential properties. I don't even know if they meet sizing requirements or anything else but under Option B three additional properties including the current license. Good I would say are possibilities under Option See, I would say probably one additional license, one additional location would be opened up. Under current zoning, the current recurrent. Yeah, current zoning and land use. Do you want to know which way we're leaning? Right now? We're going to come back on that.

I don't know. And this time for questions that

okay

that Mayor ProTem Mason

no questions, just comment.

Trustee Daily

no questions as well. Looking forward to public comments. Thank you.

Trustee Gaiter

The only question I had was the language regarding the zoning that was added or the setbacks that was added in a that specifically states that the liquor license, or the local licensing authority and board adjustments cannot hear variances. Does that also included in the other two?

It is that language and apologize that is that is a change in these from our current ordinance. Under our current ordinance, it's it's silent on the issue of the variances for anybody. And that's why we've had applicants go to the board of adjustments, seeking variances from the setback requirements, but there's questions about whether that would apply to the local licensing authority. So under a, b and c, it clarifies that the local licensing authority cannot consider any variance. That of course, is different than the ordinance that were discussed previously this year.

Thank you. That's my only one question.

Okay. Thank you.

Now it's time for public comment. Those of you wishing to speak first podium state your name, you got three minutes.

Good evening. My name is Aaron Bradley and I live at 6563 Glow flower Street, which is less than 500 feet across from the proposed marijuana store location. This is the third time in about seven months that I've had to take time away from my family to be here to oppose the store. I asked the board of trustees to please disapprove the owners request to reduce the setback distance from 2000 feet to 250 feet, or whatever the numbers are, and take this location off the table once and for all. This location is not appropriate for a marijuana store. This location is right up against a residential area where my kids and other children in the neighborhood play in the Mountain View ranch on it. There is also a licensed daycare that is even closer, less than 500 feet to this proposed location. I believe that a daycare would be considered an education where kids gather they are taught they grow and they learn so it is a learning, organization or environment. The setbacks of 2000 feet have been written and approved for a reason and that is to protect our children and residents from drugs from drug dispensing companies. A 2018 Rand study found that young adults who live in neighborhoods with met with medical marijuana dispensaries tend to use more frequently. Youth were enticed by storefront, signage and advertising and living near dispensaries were associated with four to six times more usage for marijuana and surrounding neighborhoods. This also showed an increase in crime levels. A 2019 study performed by the University of Denver, Colorado found that neighborhoods with one or more dispensaries saw an increase in crime levels between 26 and 14 100%. Higher. They saw an increase in disorderly conduct robbery, assault, burglary and car for us car thefts. I have heard numerous residents speak here against marijuana store, but I've not heard anyone speak in favor of it other than the store owners. This should tell the board members to please consider the concerns of the residents and to consider other options that work best for the community and not permitted to build a building this medical marijuana store next to Mountain View ranch district. I believe that there are already two additional proposed marijuana stores and coming to Wellington, I have not confirmed or denied this. I don't know if they're coming or not. But I heard are two other possible sites near the Taco Bell area downtown. And honestly, that's more than enough residents could drive to these locations if they're constructed or they could drive to Fort Collins if they wish to endorse the police, not our neighborhood. There I believe that there are more suitable and appropriate locations to bill that do not involve setback limitations. I asked the board to consider locations north of town or were permitted that meet the setback requirements. As you vote tonight, I ask that you vote as if it's marijuana stores bill is being built in your neighborhoods, across from your house across from your children across from your family like it isn't mine. I ask that you listen to the concerns of the residents of this neighborhood being affected by your decision tonight. And I invite you to please come out to this neighborhood to see exactly how close this is. It's easy to look at a map and judge but unless you see it in person, you realize how close it is to housing. So I ask that you please take this off the table. Like I said this is the third time in seven months I've come out here to speak against this. I wish more people would turn out to speak against this. I am not against America. I am not against marijuana, but I am against this location for how close it is to daycares and residential. So I asked please find a better location that is not right across the street from my house, a daycare children and so forth. Thank you.

Thank you

Well, Melanie Murphy 35 at Fort Polk circle East. I am the proponent of TV and 300. As you know, I've been involved with this issue since the beginning and I've watched the town struggle with how best to oversee the marijuana dispensaries. Tonight, I'm here to simply ask that you view this like any other business rather than attempt to legislate morality or perceived vise. Option B addresses reasonable setbacks while still allowing for a free market business practices. Thank you for your time and your consideration. I appreciate everything you've done.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Angie Billington, most of you know me. I am the daycare business that is literally right across the street from me, like, literally right across the street from me, there is the little mahomes on the corner, it's easy, 513 Globe flower, there's a place where they have trucks, and then that was B word B, right across. And not only that, across from me, it's right across the parking lot from the trailhead activity center that many children go to. I have also noticed that a lot of children, a lot of teams, teenagers use that whole area for skateboarding. So there's a lot of child teenager activity in this area. I again, I'm not against the business. Again, the location is not ideal. And let's not forget that the Winnik park that many of you, we helped build many years ago, some of you are still on the board is right across is right down the street from here. So it is a child traffic, heavy parent, family traffic heavy area. And to put in I know my own daughter in Pennsylvania works at a medicinal marijuana. And I don't have a problem with it. However, the location where she works is not in a child trafficked area family Check the area and would you want to have that where it's not only going to bring that business in an area that's just not, it's just not even appropriate to my mind. But it will heighten the traffic. There's been a lot of traffic now coming in and out. Children are always playing out there people are walking their dogs, it is just not a space that I think the hooves you know, it's there, there's going to constantly be some kind of I think conflict going forward and it's not something we want to have. So having looking at alternate areas, even if you put even if this person put the business on the other side of this business park, it would be better. Same area, different spot, just not right there in space in eyes in front of where children are like given the corner, you know we're in this one is you can see that from the highway. That's pretty far away. That's not so close in proximity. So have you ever thought about having it just on an alternate place alternate space, there are areas there, they're empty, that that could be a compromise, but to have it within sight that close is just really really ask that we think about the rezoning. There is a reason we have that zoning. And this would be one of the reasons for that. So thank you.

Thank you

Good evening trustees Lisa Sholay, 7424 homestretch, Dr. O, I'm wanting to mention a few things one, this ordinance needs to be designed however you so choose, not based on one single property of a potential marijuana dispensary that hasn't been applied for yet, but on the benefit of the whole town, and then as people apply for licenses, that's a perfect opportunity to advocate for against a particular location. Additionally, I would like to ask you to consider option B. I think it shows good faith to the 50% plus one that voted for this while still protecting the interests of the entire town. If you do option C, at best, you're opening up one additional location which indiscriminately benefits one single property owner over anyone else and kind of restricts the free market process. I don't foresee any good businessman thinking that we need three dispensaries in this small town. But by limiting it to one option in the entire town, outside of one that has already been proposed, I think is just prejudicially benefiting that one property owner. If you go with option B with the 1500 foot setback, it doesn't substantially change much of anything. Hear, and frankly, would probably open up more desirable locations than the one that's been spoken of so far this evening. But, and I don't have a preference one way or the other. I don't use marijuana or anything like that. But I think that it's important that we're doing things that are fair, and equitable and knots making decisions, almost like spot zoning, but not zoning. Right. And so I would just ask you to really give a lot of thought to what is right, not what you would choose to do. But what you feel like is the right thing to do based on the vote and based on the intent of the vote when it happened. And I was going to say something else. I'm so sorry. It's been a long day.

You're fine.

I would advocate that you definitely removed the home daycares? I think it's it's going to be inconsistent at best based on when the information is available.

I'm sorry, Lisa, you said would or wouldn't?

I would get rid of the home daycare option. Oh, which brings to mind the other thing, I would just like to point out that we have several liquor stores in this town. That particular property that's been mentioned today, there's a brewery right there. Last I checked, three year olds and eight year olds don't have any Bakelite licenses to get alcohol or marijuana. They're both legal and they should be treated somewhat equally. And I think that that's really important. And I think when we're putting conditions on something that really shouldn't have separate special conditions, and we're paying favoritism to one thing over another. And I don't think that's the kind of town we really want to be. So thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Phyllis Mortensen. I live in the downtown area. And I don't have a speech prepared, but I can easily talk on the issue. And I'll just mention that I have talked many times on this issue before all of you, right, you know how I feel. I could tell you a lot of statistics on how marijuana and other drugs that brings are bad for any community. Marijuana starts out as a starting point for many people. But then I think they voted for the so called magical mushrooms, the psychedelic Delic drugs. And then we would have that next in our community. And then this goes on to hardcore drugs, if you want to, you could look at various other states that have gone before us in approval of drugs. Any center where drugs are apt becomes a center for crime. And I could quote a lot of statistics or find it and give those to you. Also, I would like to say that we do not want marijuana and other drugs in our community, as I've already mentioned, is a cause of accidents on the highway overdoses and many other problems. And we we, a lot of people in this community don't like it, but they're afraid to speak out in some cases. But we asked you to just say note make that we don't want drugs in our community. Thank you.

Thank you.

I would just like to offer an a clarification about the brewery which I do live next to that business faces towards the highway, not towards a nice neighborhood. And so the placement of the brewery is pretty far removed from any houses where it's not where you can see it had been had to walk around the corner. So it's not as close as the placement of this dispensary. So I think that's a good distinction to make. And having a business of such of this, having it facing outward towards more commercial property, I think we'd be safer traffic. You know, all those because that's right off the frontage road. It's different than placing this where you're going to have to go in front of houses for traffic into the parking lot. And right there across more Trailhead activity center is from other businesses. It's different than what she was mentioning. And I again, I don't have problem with this. I am all for growth. Those of you know me, I have always been for growth. But the placement is just not ideal. And we need to think about It's young. We want growth. That's not the problem here. What we want to do is hyper responsible. So it's just remember what we're serving all of the community. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Steve Wynn. First of all, I'd like to thank all of you and the staff for all the time you've put in on this. I know it's been a lot and it had to have been hard. And before we get started, I just wanted to talk about the in home daycare setbacks, but just to answer the misinformation about the location The direction that that the dispensary that's in question. Near globe flower is as far east as the descent as the brewery. And those face the highway. So it's pretty much the same as the as the brewery in those questions. As far as the in home daycares on May 16. In the trustees meeting, staff acknowledged that there was no other known municipality in Colorado that had required setbacks between marijuana businesses and in home daycares. And some of the possible reasons that I could see for this is as was also discussed in that meeting by some of the trustees, it poses no greater risk to the children than any other in that residential zone, and in fact, probably less risk because they're being supervised more strictly. And the area is already covered by the residential setback requirements as it should be, as it is in a residential area. Colorado statute HB 21 Dash 1222 requires local governing authorities to treat child care homes as residential property use in the application of local regulation. Also, according to the Wellington zoning regulations, neither a school nor a child care center may be located in a residential zoned area. Therefore, considering in home daycares to be the same as schools would be contrary contradictory to the current zoning regulations. So if a person truly believed that there is a greater setback needed from a dispensary to an intern in home daycare, and then the setbacks that are already set for the residential areas, because of safety, then they would also have to believe the reciprocal, which would be that if a dispensary was already there, you want to say that it should be the daycare cannot get opened within a third of a mile of that dispensary. And I don't think anyone here would want that to happen. So thank you for your time. Thanks for listening.

And thank you.

So the daycare being there who would make it so marijuana can't go there. That's what I was trying to clarify that before. So just keep that in mind. rezoning with the daycare have been two dozen feet does not allow marijuana to go in there. So no, the daycare would stop marijuana from coming in. I mean, we see a video I think that has the broadest don't mean, super clear that won't change or can't change it by going in home daycare talking or closing. Because I got my head around in home daycare, any differences in residential? There are kids at now homes in old residential areas, unsupervised mother house, compared to ones that are under the age of six. Supervising? I mean, that doesn't exist. I think that I've been pretty consistent in saying, speaking about marijuana or things in general, especially as far as the setbacks and I've said it very consistently, I do not have to change it and setbacks. Quite frankly, if I'm gonna hold that line, I should probably toe the line of I don't necessarily think we should change the taxi. Right? This is what the voters voted. I'm not necessarily opposed to Option C. But I would still want to see the school and a commercial reason to doubt the possible changes. If we think there's a serious liability and the fact that we don't think that data isn't accurate, which is what I've heard tonight, I'm not sure that I fully believe that I think thedata is there, and I think it is accurate and it's just a matter of getting it looked up in the right way. But even still, I would not be opposed options see, but again, I would want to see 2000 nationalism.

Option B and C are both changing setback. So if you want to be consistent then choose Option A I want you guys to be men of your word. Follow through on what you say you're going to do, Mayor, I have a solution so that you can keep your promise to the residents that you won't have the pot shop next to these residents that have spoken. Why don't you rezone the pot shops to light industrial, that's the north part of town that's the furthest away from residence because you have the buffer of the commercial, so that there won't be this problem with the location. And you can open up three pot shops up in industrial. So I'm asking you guys to keep your word stay consistent to what you said you're going to do. And look at rezoning so that you guys can have three more pot shops, but not close to residential so that everyone's happy. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Matthew mullet live in this town. Like I mentioned before, I care for this town and want to see growth and I want to see good things happen. I don't think the daycare thing. I'm all for daycares. I mean, it's just there's not that our kids need daycares, of course and families need it. But I see no. I see. No. It doesn't fit residential daycares. It's not the schools. It's not the same as a school. So I mean, it's very simple. It's zoned in a residential community to be a home daycare. We're talking about different daycares different, but I'm talking about home daycares. So I think it's inconsistent to pass that as a school when it's not a school. It's a home daycare. So I think it's just a simple way to clear things up and keep things simple and legit. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Don Peacock, just really quick. I think that what everyone's saying about the home daycare thing being residential makes a lot of sense to me. I mean, that's what several zoning ordinances already cover and, and to have to have a house be a home daycare, and have three kids and to change it from a tuner 50 or whatever, set back to a 2000 or whatever, it just does not make any sense to me. But I also want to mention, I love Christine's idea. But I also want to mention that a work session is a work session. And that's where you're throwing ideas around and putting thoughts out there like, Oh, what about this? What about this now? No, maybe this maybe this, maybe that. And it's a work session. You guys weren't pledging else. During that work session. You were trying to find compromises trying to find common places to agree, and throw it ideas and, and and solve problems. And so I just hope that we keep in mind that that is what work sessions are and I would hate to think that anything you guys say in a work session is going to be you know, put out there as concrete you said this, you know, and that's what it is. You weren't campaigning at the work session. You're just trying to find a solution.

Thank you.

All right school area. I'd like to thank the Board of Trustees for spending an inordinate amount of time and resource resources on this amendment to the marijuana ordinance to make it correct and proper. I'd also like to thank staff for capturing every meeting and taking directions from the board. The first option goes against the board's will to place caps on dispensaries. It's a cap wrapped up in an ordinance. The packet clearly states that option one will have no more dispensaries in Washington. This will create a monopoly. With only one dispensary in town. This is not an option. It's anti business and rec then American. Option two reduces the setbacks from schools from 2000 to 1500 feet and takes out in home daycare. I coach competitive travel hockey for both my daughter's team and my son's team. The last eight years and recreational baseball I'm responsible kids from six to 16 years old. There's no way any kids are getting near a dispensary. dispensaries have more security than a bank and the time you drive into the parking lot to when you get your driver's license scan, you're being tracked and monitored. Further the small number of children that attend in home daycares are under the age of six. These kids are being supervised by adults paid to do so. No other municipality in Colorado that we're aware of a setback some place for home daycares. Option three, keeps the original setbacks in place, most notably the 2000 foot setback from schools as defined in the original ordinance. This option also removes in home daycares, but increases the setbacks and parks to 1000 feet from 500. It also increases the setbacks between other dispensaries from 500 to 1000. It's the board's intentions are to keep children safe, option three would be your choice. Also, just to clarify, it is this particular one is facing i 25. This particular piece of property was under contract before the in home daycare was purchased before the house was purchased. Two years ago, there's no roads connecting blood flower to this dispensary. You don't you don't go there to get to, you know, go by that street, you don't go down that road. So the kids won't on their skateboards will be fine. And I'm totally happy to answer any questions. And again, thank you very much for your due diligence on this amendment to the ordinance.

Thank you.

Anyway, I'm Corinne Brewer, and in my address to I can't remember 6679 Cranesbill street. So I live in the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the proposed location. And previous to that contract that you had, the zoning was for public use for the reservoir area, the retention water retention, so that never could have gone in there. So the fact that a house wasn't sold or daycare wasn't put in yet, I think is irrelevant, because you were always facing this challenge. And as a resident who's quite close to that location, I recognize this as the way towns going our country's going. But I really do think there's other options, maybe a fourth or fifth option, I'm can't remember how many options you gave. But again, rezoning to allow it to go into some of the industrial areas away from the neighborhoods. I think that the idea that changing setbacks for a daycare, I mean, what about those of us who live there with our children all the time. And it just so happens that I have six kids, I had them one at a time. But um, and I live in that neighborhood and I homeschool, it just sort of happened. It wasn't like a thing. And so I'm there all day with my kids. And that's more than just three kids in the home. And they're older than, you know, under six. So I think, honestly, to have a solution that would allow everyone to be happy would be to be away from residences entirely and not to reduce setbacks, but instead increase it around residential areas. So that those of us with children of all ages can feel that that's not impacting our house values and our children and and the area is a bike and play and everything I realized there's no connecting road at this moment. But you know, kids are everywhere. And the older they get, the more independent they are. So I think the idea of having, you know, in areas that aren't residential is fabulous, and I would vote for that.

Thank you

all once, going twice, public comments.

All right. Thank you for your comments. At this point, we will ask for a motion on this item and then we'll come back for discussion.

I move that we approve ordinance number oh 620 23 version B with amendments as the Board of Trustee deems appropriate.

I'll second.

What amendments are you deeming appropriate?

I was reading that I shouldn't have done that. I moved that we approve ordinance number oh 620 23 version B

I'll second

may get a roll call please. Oh, actually comment question. Yeah,

sorry. We'll start with trustee weaken.

Thank you. The marijuana passed by one vote here in town, and which was well won't even get into that. The people that voted against it deserve as much rights as the people who voted for it. It was voted on and it was passed with these restrictions on it. I think we need to keep it in place at the moment. And we need to see how it goes. I mean, we're very concerned in this town, about the effects, whether it's crime. That whatever, there's a lot of admin, I have a nephew in Oregon, he's a cop there. And since a past marijuana in the past all the other drugs, Portland has become a cesspool. And I really think we need to go a little bit slower here in this town, and see exactly what type of effects we're going to be getting from this. And I'm for AIG, and I will vote against B. Thank you.

Thank you. Because you Teitz.

Alright, so and taking public comment, and meeting with multiple people in our community, I will say that I was probably one of the most adamant people that this needed to stay the way it was. And then we learn and we move forward from what we've learned in the position that we sit in, we know there is legal liability, we know that there was issues with the very poorly written ordinance to begin with, and that created massive conflicts, this will have to change no matter which way we look at it in some aspects because of those legalities and issues. What I will say is, is I will not support ordinance version be, because in learning in the community, what I do know is is it was voted on and approved one vote 500 votes, it was approved, you're representing a mass of the community then and majority won that vote. So But everyone's vote still counts whether or not you voted for it or against it. At the end of the day in the community, the people I've spoke with that voted for it said they wanted the option and availability to purchase it here. They didn't say they wanted five dispensaries open. They didn't say they wanted three dispensaries open. They said the opportunity to not drive to Fort Collins to purchase marijuana. I get it gets expensive. Apparently, so is marijuana. So it's one of those things that when I look at trying to sum it up and see what works for everybody, what assists businesses in opening, whether that's one or 10 at the end of the day, but also protects our children. So we still have that responsibility and duty. The 2000 foot setback in option C safely protects our schools communities, because we also have to look at we have a new middle school high school, and the majority walking routes of those kids walking to school is Cleveland. They are going to be accessing Cleveland on a regular basis. I support the 2000 foot setbacks, but I also support a flexibility and understanding that areas need to be adjusted where we do face do face lawsuits at the end of this and it's not something I'm excited about. But every time we come up here and sit and speak we face the possibility of being sued over something. It's inevitable and we try to avoid it at all costs. This version See, handles everything that we as a group of trustees all bitten piece together want to deceive for the community, while still represents the true 2000 foot setback, which is I feel and speaking with the community, one of the reasons that vote was approved in the first place was because of that large buffer. So that's what I have.

Thank you Mr. Gator.

So I've been fairly consistent throughout this whole process. I agree that with what trustee teach said is that when the voters approve this, as a reminder was approved by one vote, we've heard that many times. And at least one person has told me that the reason they voted for it was because I know the arguments made constantly. Well, no one read it, they just read marijuana. I agree there was a lot of people. But if there was one person, which there was, then people cared about the setbacks, and I understand there were issues with that was put together. And I think we've worked hard to try and address a lot of those issues. We have had a store that has gone through the process to get their store approved. So we have seen someone work through even though there's a difficult process. So I have been consistent that I think that we need to keep with what the voters have asked for they wanted to have marijuana here in Wellington. There are options to go and look at other properties that are not currently zoned C three into have this rezone C three, there are other options to open a store. And I don't think that we should just be going through and changing the process for those. I also have concerns with changing and separating out the daycares that are in homes and saying, Hey, we have less protection for children in these areas, as well as looking at making changes and adjustments to setbacks, to say, hey, let's have these closer to schools. I understand that we have different setbacks than other municipalities. We're not other municipalities. That's, as far as I know, that's typically not been the way that we operate is just like, well, what are other people doing therefore we should do the exact same thing. There are a lot of things that other places do that shouldn't be replicated. We take a look at what other people are doing. We say what is right for our community here. And that's the focus of our what we should make decisions on. I would also like to move to amend option B. On chapter for the section that covers chapter two, article 14, section 70. A to A where it says retail or medical marijuana store licenses shall not be permitted to be located within 1500 feet of any parcel containing a school and to read 2000 feet.

A second.

Thank you.

Trustee Daily

Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I think you need to handle the motion to amend the underlying motion before moving on to the other rules here.

So it's debatable. Does anybody want to debate this?

I would like to please. And I think it would be, you know, in the future, it would be nice that we had all discussed the motion at hand prior to making an amendment so that everybody can be heard on those items. And that would be respectful process. So items, I wanted to mention the thing that really stuck out during public comment. And that's what I'm commenting on this what we heard from the public who came tonight, things that really stood out to me is regarding daycares. Our land use code, I looked it up, it's on section 445. It does indeed say that there is no residential permitted use for college schools or technical schools within any residential district zoning district. So therefore, as determining and treating a daycare as a school actually goes against our own code. I never considered that before. And I don't know why. Because I love the land use code. So that was a great call out there. And I think very significant regarding daycares. Beyond that. I've heard the word on American several times tonight, both in combat and in honor board. And it really speaks to me. So when we're up here debating the outcome of an election, that is on American voters determine the outcomes of election, we should not have input on that the voters worked. And that's how our process works. We respect the outcome of an election. We shouldn't say but this many people but this many people, it won. And that's what our community said, and that's how our election process works. And I'm American, and I believe in that additional vote that happened that day on the ballot was how many people wanted to increase sales tax beyond the sales tax, or if marijuana was sold here and that also won. So what I do want to mention is that we are considering changing many parts of this or units, many, many of them involve setbacks. Why draw the line? On this specific one? When in option B, we're actually increasing many of the setbacks based on public comment. Now we're hearing, I went further from residential, I don't want a marijuana district, they should be further apart from each other. You know, all the other additional setbacks that should be further from public properties, right? We're increasing all those with the exception of one of them that's been decreased. So why are we drawing the line there, we're saying, I won't change any setback that the voters voted for yet we're in most of these, we're changing four of them. But this is just one more of them. And if you look at 15, under feet, if you look at the maps, I mean, from ice down, this is on the other side of come and go, that would be the distance that you're considering. That's a long ways. So if there's a significant distance that you want from schools that is accomplishing that within 1500 feet. So I think that's really important, the other unAmerican thing that I heard and was mentioned as unAmerican is restricting free market, enabling competition, and letting really people know that Wellington is here to have opportunities for businesses. And not only that, we want you to be successful, we want you to have opportunity. Now there's no market for it. That's the businesses this decision whether or not they can have a successful business, but I'm not wanting to tell them that they can't try or or to buy ordinance make it so they can't even have a possible opportunity. So that's really important to me. That additional tax benefits from marijuana sales was indicated to be used for its recreation for entire community seconds. So that would be some of the benefits there. But that's why Stanford 1500 feet and Option B I would not vote for the motion to amend.

May I get a roll call or anybody else go on.

I just want to get a quick clarification from trustee Gator. Basically the amendment is to approve options C

no we're not debating options. See the amendment is to change the setbacks. Yes, the setback is the same as the setback in option C but it is a different motion because we're eaten on. Yeah.

That's the premise of practically it

is the same motion. Now let's see. If the amendment is approved, the amendments denied and it says be

understood yet. So I would be voting no on the unamended option B I agree with trustee Gator. Rather than reduced a setback for option B to from schools to 1500 feet. I think it's important that we uphold the will of the voters and retain the 2000 foot setback from schools. As we consider removing 18 in home daycares from a definition definition of schools. Regarding in home daycares, I share the same concerns that Mr. Sapienza pointed out during the work session, which is that the Colorado shines website is in fact very difficult to navigate. If you take that out to a 10 mile radius. In fact, none of the points on the map are actually in Wellington. They're all in Fort Collins. If you move it down to a five mile radius, nine Chin's show up of 18 daycares. So I think that adds a significant burden on both applicants and staff as far as that goes to, to have to navigate that site and really, truly figure out where these things are. Option C, which is? Well, the Yes, adds additional protections for residents, including moving the residential setback to 250 feet from 200 and increasing the setback from public property from 500 to 1000. So I am for the amended motion.

Anything to debate?

Yeah, just I would be in favor of the amended amended motion with an additional amendment that daycares and preschools are removed from the definition of schools, as we've discussed, as coming up as

that is how it would be. Yeah, that's even wasn't even it will be specifically states that in home, daycares do not count as schools that is in the text of be already. The only amendment that I just did was the setback from 1500 up to 2000. So the amended amended motion would remove in home daycares from the definition of schools.

Yeah, let me I'm gonna I'm gonna put some clarity out there. So, trusty Gaiters amendment to be in theoretically makes BC.

Alright. Okay.

Okay. All right, I got it I so appreciate trustee Daly's comment that it would be better to have the debate before we make.

Yes, yes. Forward.

At this point, is there anybody else who wants to debate this amendment to the motion?

I have a question. What is the third property that you identified? I can't I can't find it. Like Cleveland, and

it's, uh, it'd be like Cleveland and by the bank.

Yeah. Kind of it did meet the,

its potential, its potential

one thing too, you got to remember, this is a living document, we can change it. Okay. So if we look at this, and if everything just goes together, fantastic. We have great results. We can open it up even a little bit further. But again, that kind of where I'm at just I think we need to go slow.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. So now, we need to take a roll call on trustee Gatiers. Amendment of the motion correct. Now that's not voting on the move. Now. We're moving. Oh, no, they're just voted to amend it.

Make it a roll call, please.

Trustee gaitor?

Yes.

Trustee Daily?

No.

Trustee Mason?

Yes.

Trustee. Tietz.

Yes.

Trustee Wiegand.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem McDonald.

No.

Major C

yes.

123452 photos five to two.

Okay, so it's amended.

Alright, we will continue the discussion. We'll go back to trustee Daly. from where we left off before it was amended. Do you have any comments, concerns on the motion that you have stated?

No, I think option C provides all the other items that I'm in favor of including increasing setbacks from items that we've heard from the community that they wanted to do from public from store to store for residential. I heard those concerns tonight. So those are included within this to increase setbacks on those items. I do you think it's very unfortunate about the schools though, because you know, what, our vote in a way is eliminating opportunity. And I think that's a shame. But those other portions of option C are essential to moving forward with marijuana and Wellington. So I do appreciate all the other parts of it. I just It's just a shame that I felt like we're eliminating competition by doing so. while still protecting kids. So I don't think that was a concern of B or C.

Thank you. Trustee Mays. Pro Tem.

Well, I'd like to thank the community in the public for your thoughtful and respectful and educated comments this evening been critical on the evolution of this process. And I really appreciate all of your time that you've put into helping us make this decision and have this discussion. I'd also like to thank legal counsel and Mr. Byrd for the outstanding job that they did putting this presentation together this evening and boiling down these options. This has not been easy or pleasant. So thank you so very much your time and thank you to my fellow trustees for doing our very best to have respectful and thoughtful discussion about this topic. That's all I have for this man.

Okay, thank you. Mister the timer for myself. Um, yeah, I already asked you right we can. Perfect. Okay. Um, yeah, I mean, thank you to staff. To the residents to this board. We have gone round and round and round on this thing. We have good options. In front of us, nothing's gonna make everybody happy never does. I remember when I first got elected, somebody told me if you're making 50% of the people happy, you're making more people haven't been any other mayor ever has. So that's something I've taken with me. And these decisions don't come lightly by any means. I mean, I'm starting to look more like Mr. Wiegand, because I'm Grace showing up, you know, no disrespect. And you know, it's a process, it takes time. These are hard decisions. Well, we have to make for this town. I've grown up here. I mean, I've been here, man shoot 2526 years now. This is this is my town. I'm not here to do anything to harm it to harm the people in it. I love this town. And the decisions that we make are going to affect this town, down the road. For a long time, we're going to have a major part in what this town turns into in 1520 years. And we need to be looking forward. And that's why I think the ordinances that have been presented to us have the options that make them scalable, make them to where they can be ran throughout the growth of the town, and they're not going to necessarily have to be readdressed. I don't I wish no other board has to deal with this. I believe my other trustees probably feel the same. And so we you know, with that being said, I am strongly for See, I think it's it's the best option. You know, what, with what we're faced with, with the facts that we were given, and, you know, to the public comment of the recordings and the things that I've said in the past, you know, we are here to learn and through those work sessions through those meetings, things change, opinions change. I you know, you get new information, you got to go with it, you got to use that information. You can't throw it to the side and stick where you are, morally where your compasses anything of that nature, we need to protect the citizens of the town. Liability wise, there's a lot that goes into this that maybe a lot of the people don't understand. And so that that's that's where I'm at. Thank you, but we I stopped before my time went off. Um, that being said, hearing no further comments. We're going for a roll call on trustee gators. amended motion are we going

to the amendment by trustee Daly the

roll call on the amended motion? Simplify it.

option option D with the amendment. It was motion by trustee Daly and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McDonald roll call Trustee Gator?

No.

Daly?

Yes.

Trustee Mason

longtime coming, Yes.

Trustee. teats.

Yes.

Trustee weekend.

No.

Trustee McDonald?

Yes.

Mayor Chaussee?

Yes.

Final vote is five to two Motion passes.

Thank you, staff.

Thank you. Thank you to everybody. Okay, we're on to the next item. We're going to close the regular meeting and we're going to open up the liquor license. Well, you know what, let's take a short recess. Five minutes

I got my list.

All right. After recess, I will now open the liquor licensing authority board. Time Being 752 P and the only item on the agenda the visa special event permit application for the Fourth of July beer garden hosted by the American Legion. Do

you want to roll call Mayor?

Oh, yeah, that'd be a good. Make it a roll call please.

Trustee Gator

here.

Trustee Daly

present.

Trustee Mason

here

Trustee Tietz

here.

Trusty Wiegand

Here

Mayor Pro Tem McDonald

here.

Mayor Chaussee

here.

Okay, on to the agenda for local licensing. Special Event permit for the Fourth of July beer garden posed by the American Legion Post 176. To administrator Miss Garcia and the applicant representative Mr. Dennis hips egg will present this item to the board Miss Garcia.

Thank you, Mayor and Trustee Patty Garcia town administrator. So this is a special event liquor permit for the Fourth of July beer garden being held in Centennial Park similar to how it was held last year. The information is in your packet. The event date and time is 10:30am to 4pm. The setup can begin as early as 6am with teardown ending as late as 8pm. Mr. Dennis hip sag is here to present this item and tell you a little bit more about the event

basically going to be the same thing done the last couple three years, nothing's going to change. It's all the same set up our tents have some vendors have a few bands, few breweries, of course, security will have plenty of security. So that shouldn't be an issue. Like I said, it's basically the same thing we've done in the past.

So there has been no negative feedback from any of our reporting agencies, between LCSO and Wellington Fire Protection District are in support of the event. And I believe that can you explain a little bit about how the response will be handled and how entry will be handled as far as checking for underage drink

tips certified folks at the front door. So I'll be checkride use of course, we're gonna do something different this year we've got a wristband, what's got five tags on it because the limit is going to be five drinks. And you have to tear those tags off in front of the server so that nobody can be swapped and given somebody else 10 Drinks instead of just five

anything else? That's a good improvement.

I know I was gonna say that. Thank you.

Now just for Board of Trustees Tommen and open it up for public comment as well please. Thank you. Thank you

start with college board the Board of Trustees trustee Gator. Yes,

I did have a couple of questions that you mentioned there will be security I was looking for you as kind of one spot you guys check to know security won't be hired but then like two boxes down it said LCSO So are you guys paying LCSO? Or how's that working with security?

Yeah, we're gonna rent three of those guys from LCSO. And of course, we'll be there as well. There'll be 12 of us probably. I don't know. Okay.

It just was clear because it was in one spot. I said no, but then right underneath it said yes. And then you said yes. Okay. Second question. I like to change with the risk man's within the gated area, will anyone without a wristband be allowed into the fenced area or only people with the wristbands are allowed into the area where liquor is being served?

Those people will be allowed in no one, unaccompanied? minors? Of course. So, but other people will be allowed and if they're of age,

okay, so if they're over 21, they can come in, and children can come in if they're accompanied by the parents. Okay. Yeah. The that's good to hear. Thank you. I appreciate you guys adding that in. The one question I didn't note. In others, the issue of the bathroom area, people go out the exit to go in the bathroom. And I stopped by for a little bit last year and actually saw someone walk out leave their beer on the ground next to a kid and then like, which was the whole point. So I didn't know if you guys had a plan on how to keep that from happening to make sure people aren't bringing liquor outside of those boundaries and the use of bathrooms, the key area,

usually we have somebody at each entrance and exit, and there'll be monitoring that. Okay. All right, thank you.

cross your t's?

Of course, mine is going to be ADA focus. But I'm sure it doesn't surprise you how many ADA parking spots do you plan on having I noticed on the map, but townhall only has two labels? Do you plan on labeling more of them?

I think that's how we're able to have I think we're stuck with to

is to ADA parking. And for the Fourth of July, you're only allowed to have two is there a way that we can typically in years past we set aside an area during the parade where there is areas for only handicapped parking? Is there a way that we can set aside areas for ADA parking there is

that area right behind the town's building that's over there. And

we could we could certainly work with with with the group. There will be parking at Town Old Town Hall as well for ADA. And that's that's a bit of a jog over there. I will say that though. If parking is not available for the public during the event, we're not the town is not required to provide ADA parking, we're technically not providing parking for the public for this event. Although we do choose to go above and beyond to provide ATA accessible parking near Old Town Hall. But that is not required. This this event is something that we could certainly work and see if that is the desire of the Board of Trustees, we could we could find additional spots potentially in and work with Caitlin to see you know where on the map that that could go. There are three spots, I believe in front of the municipal services building. So potentially, all three of those could be reserved, that might be the best solution.

Then I would ask for my trustees to agree with me that we need to find possibly an additional option for inclusion for ADA, there's more than three people that have a disability. We're talking about 10s of 1000s of people. And there's more than three that attend that have a ADA accessible van or equipment that they're going to need to load and unload.

I have a quick question. Is ADA parking part of the liquor license? No. No, I think that would be fantastic when considering the event, the way the events functioning, but for this given hearing that we have in front of us, that's not a consideration for liquor license. But great recommendation. Absolutely great for our community, but just not applicable to this hearing.

Sorry, thank you for labeling the handicapped access for the bathroom and the sidewalk.

Thanks, again,

never done. Curious question. Will you be hosting any of our local breweries at this event? Oh three, and

we'll be there. Excellent.

The American Legion has done a fantastic job putting on a safe and responsible beer garden event for the Fourth of July and I really appreciate how they help extend this event throughout the entire community and not just one small location. Thank you for putting on and taking on this liability of hosting and beer garden for the Fourth of July support this application. Mason

I just want to say thank you Mr. Hip sag and the American Legion for helping to make the Fourth of July a success. You know that's the beer garden is a great addition to all all the festivities that we've got going on that day. And I just want to thank you guys for that. So

above everything else, thank you, sir, for your service and for everybody else who's members of the American Legion who consistently and always are giving back to our community. I appreciate it so very much. I have no doubt that this Event will run as smoothly with all the best practices that you have learned throughout the many, many, many events that American Legion participates in. So I appreciate all the safety considerations, tip train cert certifications, all those kinds of things. It's going to be a fantastic time. Thank you, sir.

Yeah, great event last year. You guys put on a really good show. I mean, you're there a security you got all local breweries. I mean, I recommend people go check it out. It's worth it. More activities in town for the Fourth of July. Just keep rocking it. I'm all for it. May I get a motion on this item? Please?

Make a motion that we approve the special event permit for the Fourth of July beergarden.

I'll second.

Make it a roll call.

This all public comment.

Public comment please. Thank you. Thank you,

Trustee you. Now for public comment. Going once,

going twice, so okay. Now make it a roll call please.

Hey, it was motion by trustee Mayor Pro Tem McDonald seconded by trustee Mason. Trustee Gator?

Yes.

Trustee Daly?

Yes.

Trustee Mason?

Yes.

Trustee. teats.

Yes.

Trustee Weigand.

I want to thank the American Legion and Yes. Mayor Pro Tem McDonald Yes.

Mayor Chausee.

Yes.

Motion passes.

will now close the liquor licensing authority time being 8:02pm and reopen the regular meeting. time being 8:02pm. All right. Reports town attorney Mr. Sapienza

coming up beginning in July, we're going to begin our what we're hoping to become a regular thing for the Board of Trustees, which is updating various portions of the municipal code. We'll beginning with chapter 10, which is the general offenses at the town of Wellington. So that's something to look forward to. Also over the next month or so you'll be hearing a lot from me on a number of issues that are going to be coming in front of this board. So I look forward to working with you all over the next short while because we're working a lot together. Thank you,

Administrator,

Mr. Sia. So we will be looking at some options for ADA parking for Centennial Park for group for the event, I think it's important to provide that option. I don't know some of you know, some of you don't know, my husband is handicapped, and we do have a handicap placard. And there are times that we go to places where all the handicap spots are taken. And so it's a matter of me like dropping him off and assuming he's okay. And then me driving around trying to find a spot. So I understand the need, and we'll see what we can what we can drum up to to accommodate for that. As a reminder, the next board of trustee meeting has been cancelled as the board of trustees will be at the Colorado Municipal League annual conference. So our next regular meeting won't be until July 11 2023. Thank you.

Thank you. Staff Reports. Anybody, anybody know? For reports, start with first the daily.

At the same time as brew fest, adjacent at the skate park, there will be a group of volunteers by the name of skate well, that will be throwing in events for kids at the skate park. So they're going to be having a bunch of activities and helmets available. All kinds of cool things are going to be happening at the skate park, during similar hours is brew fest, great place to drop your kids off. Think about that. But those are fantastic volunteers. I want to talk about them real quick. One of the guys who is part of skate well, is also responsible for a lot of the enhancements of that park. So you'll see it's under construction at this time. That's done primarily by donation by volunteers and a very small port part of the Parks and Rec budget very small, they really pull it off and bring all these assets together and then provide the hard work to get it done. So these fantastic volunteers are giving that back to our youth and doing events like this. So they're super amazing. If you want to learn more about that or anything associated with Parks recs, open space and trails, you can come to our meeting tomorrow. That will be here at 6pm. And we talked about all things parks and recs, open space and trails process what stands for so if you have any considerations or want to learn more, or want to give us your input and what Wellington needs, we want to hear from you. There is a specific part of the agenda that asks for public comment. And you can also see what the projects that we are working on a ninth grade class at Wellington High School actually submitted a presentation to sa did as part of a class project, to say why Wellington needs a rec seven. It's really cool, great content, I really enjoyed seeing it. And I can't wait for more people to see that presentation. I love seeing the community involved. And I'll definitely make sure that post gets to see that presentation as well. Other items going on, we talked about going to CML, Colorado Municipal League conference, it's going to be in Aurora. And it is invaluable. We're going to learn for the best practices of every municipality in Colorado. How are they pulling it off? How are they offering affordable housing? How are they helping their community grow? What are they doing for economic development, we're gonna go learn from the best and, and bump pads and minds with everybody that's leading Colorado. It is such an amazing conference, we'll come back invigorated with new ideas and ways to get things done. It's going to be amazing. So I can't wait for us to come back and share what we've learned with the community. The other thing is, it's summertime, kids are out and about and usually up to trouble not usually sometimes up to trouble. So this is a small town. Do you see my kids not acting right? You say something to them, you yell at them, and I will do the same to yours. Okay, that's what we depend on in Wellington. So let's keep community safe and clean. And watch our kids collectively. Thank you guys.

Christy Gator.

All right. So a couple of things that I did want to highlight. I know it's been a busy winter, but back I believe was the beginning of the year did a Saturday morning at a coffee shop just Ziggy's invited any of the trustees who wanted to come and members of the public just to come and have a conversation I sometimes it can be scary to come up to the board and be in front everyone and talk but sitting across the table and just opportunity to ask questions. So July 1, at 10am. I'll be at Ziggy's from 10 to 11. So any members of the board who'd like to show up, it'd be great to have you guys come out to that. And any members of the public, if you want to be able to just sit and talk to the board about some issue or whatever and not be stressed out about it, you're welcome to come, you can come for an entire hour, you can come for five minutes, you can come for whatever. So I want to encourage you guys to do that. One other thing that I did want to bring up just what the board is. I continue to have concerns with our finances. We've had issues with retaining talent within our finances for the town, we continue to have problems with not having accurate information. There have been concerns raised in the past about what type of controls that we have in regards to checks and balances with spending of taxpayer dollars. And I think I know we're looking at potentially hiring an outside firm, I've raised this multiple times over the last three years. We currently have a situation where we have a position that is a shared position between the finance director and a treasurer, where the treasurer reports to the Board of Trustees with the finance director reports to the town administrator. And I really think that we need to make sure that we have a good system of checks and balances. So whether we bring in an outside firm as we're looking at doing right now, or whether we go back to hiring an internal position, that position needs to solely report to the Board of Trustees there needs to not be this lack of clarity about whether or not the financial side of our town has a clear road to the Board of Trustees if there are any concerns that they have about controls. So again, whether we go with the firm whether we hire internally, I think that we need to make sure that we need to adjust how that position reports. That's all I got. Thank you. prestaties. Yes,

I would like to say that just kind of stemming off of what trustee Gator said I do support looking at how that structure functions as far as the treasurer and finance director, and making sure that we have those protections where we have someone reporting directly to our board. But making sure that our town administrator has all access to numbers and data that she absolutely needs. So I'd want to make sure that that also was in place as well. I will be present at the July 1 meeting at Ziggy's I don't leave until the second but other than that, I'm looking forward to I had a discussion a very good discussion with administrator Garcia yesterday as well as an email from Mr. Billy our parks and rec director. And I'm looking forward to hearing ideas and discussions about setting up ways to track our parks and rec for damage improvements, stuff like that. I'm hoping that they bring something to the budget this following year that helps keep us accountable to what we're investing our taxpayer dollars into. But also safety side of it with neighbors had watched programs possibly being introduced at the town's Night Out neighborhood night out items. So I think that's an awesome idea to get our community involved in helping keep our parks safe. The other thing I'm looking for is an update on the Humane Society contract with costs. So I know that that was a huge concern as their contract is, is it more than doubling? Patti, is that?

No. And I will send an email out to the trustees, we did meet with the Humane Society yesterday, I haven't had a chance to pull all of my notes together, but I will get you all updated. There are a couple of options for their contract. Our initial contract has not been updated in probably seven years. So the cost they are not recovering their costs right now. But they do have so we could keep our current contract or go to more of a full service contract, which is the almost doubling piece. So I will send information out to the trustees once I can gather all my notes together. Awesome. Thank you for asking. Yes.

The last thing on my list. I would love if we can have a listing of all of the businesses that joined the Wellington community park Fourth of July event where they're going to be having the car show to that's something that I kind of hoped for in previous years that we would be able to have a listing of everything that would be available over in that park for businesses and stuff like that. It never got accomplished. But I would love to be able to share that information and get it spread out so we can support budding businesses with the possibility of maybe setting up a permanent future here in our town. That would be awesome. Thank you,

Trustee we

have no report. Thank you,

thank you. Pretend

I'd like to thank the Larimer County Sheriff's Office for shaming me into participating in my ride along it was it was a wonderful, fantastic opportunity. It was eye opening. I got to witness marijuana DUI arrest. It was a very enlightening and educating experience. And I really appreciate the opportunity to bond and to get to know our local sheriffs and law enforcement a little bit more closely. I appreciate the opportunity to build relationships. Thank you so much for riding in the car with me for so many hours. It was it was really great. And the value that we get out of our Larimer County Sheriff's Office contract is tremendous. I mean, they provide us with a huge amount of resources that are just top notch. And we are very lucky to have them in our community. And then I would like to thank Miss Garcia for all of her hard work. And for staff always working to do their very best, it is very, very difficult to take direction and make decisions from seven different people. And I'm thankful that we only have to worry about trying to guide and direct report one person. Thank you for leading our community and the staff and helping us make good decisions for this community. My

trusty Mason,

no report.

I don't have anything to report. Other than like working with you guys. So you got that. All right. I will now close the regular meeting. And we will enter a work session

explained some real quick mayor. Just the Yes, sorry, concern was raised earlier about the motion to amend but I made the reason that I made that was not meant out of disrespect. I'm only able to make a motion when I have the floor. I only have the floor during my time to speak unless it's given to me separately. So that's why I made the motion during when I had the floor. It was not intended as a disrespectful thing. That's all. Thanks, Trisha. Good.

Okay, now I will close the regular meeting and we will enter the work session time being 8:14pm. First thing on the agenda is going to be the city's work session discussion of the Saddleback division development agreement, Mr. Byrd will be presenting to the board.

Good evening, Mayor and board members, Cody bird planning director wanted to cover just a couple of kind of ground rule items real quickly to be in a work session. You know, you can't make any decisions. You can't negotiate. There's all those rules in place for your meeting procedures. And I'm highlighting that because this particular topic will be a future subject that'll be presented to the board for public hearings for a reason and a replat. And I don't want to get into any of the procedural elements for that particular case. But what we wanted to do is to highlight for you some of the nuances and complexities of the existing development and existing development agreement, so that you're not handling public comments and trying to understand the history behind this project. So that kind of in a nutshell, really, what we're trying to do tonight is provide you a baseline of information regarding what has happened in the past where we're at today, and a couple of the nuances for this existing development agreement that has some pretty complicated pieces to it. We want to give you an opportunity to hear that and ask some questions to understand kind of what's behind this. And I also want to acknowledge that we have a couple of members of the development community here tonight as well, that have some additional information that they could share. There's a slideshow, great brief slideshow in your packet. And we'd like to invite them to present that information for kind of frames to why they're looking at changing some of the ideas behind the subdivision. So just real quickly, I'll highlight this is the project that we're presenting to you tonight is for the Saddleback subdivision, I'm gonna step here to the map real quick. property's about 80 acres on the South side of town, it's located adjacent to GW Bush Avenue. This property was annexed and zoned in the town, annexed in 2016. zoned at the same time, and then plotted in 2018, including the development agreement for that subdivision plat. At the time that that that subdivision plat was originally being contemplated and considered by the town presented by the developer town administration was was really looking for how do we provide some different variety of lots in our in our community, there was a push to wanting to have larger lot sizes, a lot of homeowners as they transition from entry level home or first time homebuyers to keep them in the community, you want to have different options for them to kind of scale into to move into. And that was pushed pretty hard by the town to require that larger lot size. Going through a lot of the the town's comprehensive plan, infrastructure master plans, water rates, wanted education requirements, water efficiency plan, all these things have have taken place, a lot of work has gone into improving processes and development procedures for the town since that original approval in 2018. And we're looking at things a little differently than the town was at the time that development was approved. So that kind of frames the context for where are we today. Those larger lots, this particular subdivision does not have non potable water sources for it. And the increasing water costs may put those larger lots or homeowners who have to pay for town treated water to irrigate lawns on large lots and where the town would have to perpetually provide that irrigation water, the owners would have to through their purchasing price provide water, but town can then treat for irrigation may not be in alignment with the town's goals and plans today. And so town staff asked the developer to look at what are some other alternatives. The developer took that to heart and said, Okay, let's look at this differently. And what can we do to help balance that water scenario? So that kind of frames the why and I think at this point, I'd like to introduce Jen Simmons. I'll let you do your own introduction, because I don't want to claim your credentials. But I'm going to run the PowerPoint presentation for that presentation, same slides that are in your packet. I'm just going to run them through the meeting if I can be advanced to a panelist and we'll get that up here in just a moment.

Good evening, Mayor trustees. My name is Jen Simmons and I'm with Dr. Horton. However, I am here with sage Holmes and Darren Robertson and Mark afro, who I suspect you all know. Tom Dugan is also here. He's with Pine Crest planning and design. And we also had a water engineer with Vidler water. Andrew ales who helped with many, many calculations that I'm not capable of. So as Cody mentioned, the original plan was approved back in 2018. It has 153 locks in the average size of the locks is 10,292 square feet, so roughly a quarter of an acre. There are many lots that are larger than that. And the overall goal with this application that Cody mentioned is to reduce the overall irrigation both in the online irrigation and also in the open space irrigation. The proposed average lot size of this plant that you will consider at a later date is roughly 6517 feet with a total of 211 Lots. Next slide shows an exhibit of the difference between what's currently planted on the right hand side of the pages in your packet on the left side of the screen that's being shown. Existing plat shows those approved plotted lots at 80 by 140, or 75 by 115. The proposed slots are averaging in size of 6210 square feet, so quite a bit smaller. And that's the reason for the rezoning is to allow that smaller size not to change the type of uses that's, that's currently permitted. After discussing this proposal with staff, we anticipated a worst case scenario of everything being planted as sod and so that's why with the exception of the square where the house would be a little patio area and the driveway everything is shown as green anticipating sought, which is the highest water use. And we use the numbers out of Wellington's last landscape master plans. So that was an extremely useful document. And it's really, really well done, your staff deserves many kudos for it. Currently, the approved plat has an average of 7685 square feet of pervious area. Let me say that again, 7685 square feet that's bigger than the proposed lots. And all of that could potentially be sorted and irrigated. In the proposed plat, the average pervious area is 3910, roughly half the size. We anticipate restricting the landscaping able to be planted in the front and side yards, thereby limiting the amount of water needed to irrigate that will accomplish this through strong covenants, including similar language in the development agreement. And requiring builders to install the front and side landscaping. I don't know how many of you actually have bought a new home. When the landscaping is already done, it's less likely to be torn out and redone. A lot of hard work. So so that's our proposal moving forward. In terms of looking at the building permit revenue, with the additional lots, there will be additional tap and sewer fees as we are requesting to increase the number of plots. This could help pay for your infrastructure, as well as providing just shy of a million dollars to the other funds, including parks, roads, fire and library. The total difference between the platted lots, and the proposed lots is just over $2,000,000.53 Lots to generate an additional $2 million to the town's finances. So again, just a quick recap. We are requesting that there are additional lots able to be planted that the rezone is allowed reducing the lot size, we would restrict the use of turf, we would contribute over $2 million in tap and impact fees and provide a housing product that can be attainable to any folks that otherwise maybe wouldn't be able to purchase those larger lofts. Happy to answer questions as I said the rest of the team is here as well. And thank you for your consideration

Trustee Gator?

So do does anyone know what we're looking at roughly with the irrigation needs on the because if I recall correctly, our average use was roughly 7000. So I think indoors typically around 4000 and then outdoor was depending on the size of light around 3000. Does anyone know roughly what we were looking at when we were estimating things out? On the original lots versus the new proposed lots?

Can I first I'm sorry, shuffling things around because you repeat the first part of your question.

Yeah, so the question is, what were the numbers we use when we're calculating water usage on the original and then also on the smaller lots that would how much was obviously indoors probably not going to change but what was the indoor and mountain what was the outdoor now?

You're you're referring to the graphics that was shown? The are you talking about the town's process

in general. So I understand like within the proposal, you have the number of lots and the fees. I understand that that portion but The whole issue, right, we're trying to put less of a strain on the water system because there's not a non potable system. Right, they have to use treated water for irrigation. And so the idea is do a smaller area since half the size in terms of what's being provided? What were you assuming would need to be used in terms of water use? On the original lots? How much water's gonna be used monthly, roughly? And then how much on the proposed smaller lots?

I don't know that we have you guys. Has your analysis looked at the gallons? Is that would that be a helpful metric? I don't know that that those numbers are available for this. We're I think the intent was to present the conceptual ideas as opposed to the the specific numbers that will also say to the town staff is we hear the the request that's being made to look at the water differently, we did encourage some different ideas for how to look at how we use water in areas where water is scarce, like a subdivision with no nonprofit system. But I also have to admit that town staff has not agreed to any numbers, specifically, those are strings that are still being vetted. And that really wasn't our appreciate the question. It's a good question. We're definitely taking some notes. But that was not something that we intended to answer tonight, just because we didn't want to get into a negotiation for sure. No.

Yeah, Trustee Gator, I may be able to help you with that my lot size is roughly 7000 square feet, I use approximately anywhere between about 8000 to 10,000 gallons a month during the summertime.

And I was just going to note, some of these labs are 19,000 square feet 80 or 90 feet by 140. So what we're trying to do is take those labs and make more open space in taking them down to 54 feet, and only 110 feet deep. So there's actually more open space between the meadows and the back of the lats on the other ones. And so the HOA can can maintain irrigation of dryland grass, which then conserves water too. And we really feel like with with the development agreement, and strong covenants in the builders install on the landscape, and we can control and maintain a certain amount of water can only be used on the front

and side yards. Okay, so that's really with the HOA be able to use non potable water on the open space? Or would they still have to be using treated water?

We talked about using treated water to get it established and maybe renting a fire hydrant and putting in a irrigation system, but then in a year or two after it's established being able to pull that?

Yeah, cuz it's gonna maintain itself once it's established. It's

similar to the native grass that we did along Highway One on on segments. It's coming. Great.

Okay. So the reason I bring it up, as I understand like, we're reducing the lot size, which makes sense, but I think that it's something to consider is when we're reducing the lot size, we're also increasing the number of lots, right? So if we're using double the water, then it makes sense to do that. But if it's not doubled irrigation water is being used, are we actually using less water? Because we're taking more shares? We're requiring more water for indoor use before it comes into it. So that's why that I think that we need to look at that because it's, it's there's multiple sides to it. Yes, we're using less water on one lot. But we're also increasing the number of lots by 62. So there's going to be a lot more lots using water, which are using Yes, less exterior water, but they're also using that three to 4000 gallons average interior water use as well.

So well, that's when we'll have the water engineer building work and town staff. Okay, that's what they're doing. We didn't feel like tonight, we're sure we'll be able to have that information. Okay.

I think those are certainly the questions that town staff is asking. And again, we specifically told the developer and their team that we didn't want to get into those conversations tonight, because those conversations will come before the board at a later date. And there will be much more detailed information available for those. We haven't forgotten about it. But tonight just was not the right setting in a work session. But good questions, and we intend to answer all those good questions.

Trustee Gator? Do you have anything further there?

Or

the only other thing that I do? I understand I appreciate you guys trying to work with our water situation that is in my only concern is that trying to build more smaller homes, it's nice to have that variety. That's something we've talked a lot about, and not just having all the smaller trying to figure out the mix of that. And obviously, I guess there'll be more of a conversation. But that's the only concern I have is that if we keep putting in smaller homes, does that not? Does that take away that opportunity to have some of those larger homes? So I don't know the answer to that question. But I think it's something we need to consider as we go forward.

I mean, there's other sites that can be better that might be coming forward that can have larger lots and a better mix. And we can still build a 2500 square foot house on the small lots. There's a product out there for it, and it's more attainable for the homebuyers. Okay, right now it's really not. I also want to point out guys and I apologize I've tried to make it to every meeting. I am going to be out of town but yet staff we're trying to get this thing in motion to work Yep. Oh, who am I and Mark and I worked together, we'll be at the July 11 meeting, I am going to be out in the country. So that's kind of why we said this works. So I appreciate London's getting from the guest.

Seats. I

would love to walk through what you guys are. I would love to walk through what you guys are presenting, I see very two large maps in front of us. So I think this is kind of an introduction to what the Saddleback in Greer, is that people settled back. Okay. Okay, perfect. So I would love to see an introduction to what they kind of tentatively planned and what the new plan is, because this is my understanding, this is an introduction to the Saddleback, we are going to be hearing a lot more things come before us eventually. The only question that I have, besides the introduction to what you guys are doing is how many affordable homes which means those poems that you said, there's an actual math for that when it comes to building an affordable house? How many lots in the subdivision are going to be classified as affordable?

I don't think that I appreciate the question. I definitely appreciate the sentiment behind it. I don't know that we have those answers tonight. And I don't know that it's appropriate for the work session yet since that that type of question can come up when the board is considering it for your future considerations. So it's really probably a little too deep for tonight's conversation, you're getting into kind of contractual obligations and considerations that are really more appropriate for your public hearing items. Our intent was to provide the background context for the subdivision and the basic premise for the subdivision as opposed to the the nuts and bolts and specific numbers and figures.

Okay, I apologize, because there was just a contract and a memorandum for public improvements in this. So it this doesn't involve this contract whatsoever. It's just an overview.

So the the agreement that was put in your packet is the existing approved and recorded public document for Saddleback subdivision. Nothing secret about that. That's the existing agreement for the current layout for this subdivision.

Okay, so this is not the new presentation. That's, that's,

that's background information. And my apologies, because I definitely could have probably got

in there. So I just wanted to make sure.

My apologies for that oversight. While we're on the topic, the agreement that's in the in your agenda packet is the existing approved development agreement. So that was included as a way to help orient you to as things progress, if if approvals are given and cetera, et cetera. The development agreement as exist is predicated on existing conditions. And if those conditions are changed, it would necessitate taking a look at the development agreement. So we wanted to put it in front of you, it's 14 or 15 pages of there's a lot of meat in there. And so that was the other the water conversation was certainly something I wanted to bring to your attention and give you some background on the development agreement was the other part of that. So it might be helpful to kind of touch on that real quickly. And I don't want to bore you with the details. But just to kind of highlight what that agreement says. And that would need to be looked at as you move forward in future meetings. But it's it's noteworthy. And I provided just a really brief overview in your in your agenda packet in the memo. You can see this site has a lot of moving pieces to it. Just to kind of highlight for you the way this was looked at in the past this subdivision is adjacent to subdivisions that were being dark during the recession. A number of those lots sat vacant changed during foreclosures and other things vacant lots. And not being able to find a clear record on exactly what happened. When staff did some digging into this. We looked back, we couldn't figure out why didn't Ronald Reagan road get extended from McClellan all the way east to the edge of the property line, which is a typical requirement of the town. same thing was true with water, sewer, water line loops, sewer lines should all be extended the edge of property when a development is proposed and builds. GW Bush Avenue did not get paved and improved all the way to the end of the property line. So when when the developer came through town in 2016 to 2018, staff was looking at Why didn't these things get done? And we made those obligations of the development to provide that development pays its own way. In this instance, probably the prior subdivisions should have paid for some of those improvements. But they didn't we couldn't figure out exactly why. We said the town can't absorb those costs. Development has to pay its own way made this development agreements say that the developer has to make those improvements including off site improvements for Ronald Reagan for GW Bush a waterline loop. There's oversizing for sanitary sewer that was identified as a need for areas to the north as they are annexed and developed in the town someday, that they will need to have capacity to convey those flows. So there's an oversizing for sewer included in this agreement. There's other off site development costs and obligations, including stormwater, sewer, the or stormwater conveyance, at least, there's existing historical flows from the north that kind of pile up on Ronald Reagan Avenue currently. And as the roads improved, we required the developer to not only build that roadway in a way that would allow the historic flow to pass, but they have to make it better, they have to accommodate all that off site in addition to their own on site, stormwater drainage, and it has to be sized appropriately which included making that change channel or swale, larger to accommodate those flows. So there's there were a lot of moving parts with how to handle existing conditions that this development was, had to carry the burden on. And then we had the same conversation about Ronald Reagan Ave, I can lean over and point

this section,

you can see that the road, Ronald Reagan Avenue is shown on plotted to extend straight east. And if you've familiar with that side, or looked over there, that straight road going east is going straight up a pretty steep hill, which is really not typical designing roads straight up. But we couldn't require the developer to plan a road off of their property, we do anticipate that that road alignment will change in the future. And so because development is required to extend roads and utilities to the edge of their property line, we identified this platted roadway as not being a likely location for a future eroded probably come north and kind of curve following the contours of the land. But the development can't just ignore the problem and say, well, we didn't do it. And there's no money to do it later. So we required in the development agreement, a cost estimate and escrows for those funds will be available, when the next property comes to develop. There's money in the coffers, that this development would have otherwise been responsible for, but not knowing what that alignment is gonna look like the town will have the funds in escrow to help pay for those improvements for future development. That's in a nutshell, complex, complicated. There's a lot going on. And that was the reason why we wanted to introduce you to these concepts before you're also being presented with, here's the plat documents, here's your public hearing procedures, here's all the things that you have to consider and weigh in making your decision. And I really just wanted to take an opportunity to introduce you and give you a chance to digest it and ask some questions. So with that, I would gladly answer any any questions keeping in mind we're in a work session. Discussion, my apologies for the confusion earlier. But I can certainly help answer any questions on background involving this development.

Just beginning questions on back end, on background background.

Maybe our quick question, and and I don't know if this would fall within it, square footage of the homes that you guys are looking at building over there. And also to is there green space between the meadows and the new addition? And the last question will be for Cody traffic. It's a horror show over there right now trying to get on to the bridging get out of town, you're going to Okay,

so we start with the open space. If there's open space currently with the approved plat, I believe it's roughly 60 feet. Now we're going to take 40 or 50 feet on the back of the lots of backup to the meadows. So now there'll be 90 to 100 feet of open space. That'd be dryland grass, conserving water. And the second Oh square footage of homes. Honestly, I see the square footage of a home being able to still do you know, 25 2700 square foot two story or a 1600 square foot ranch. Yeah, so we'll be I don't see a lot of three car garages. But I see a lot of two car extended garages or deeper garages. But again, there's a product out there that's more attainable, more affordable housing with this change in in conserving water.

So just

saw at the microphone that you asked another question about traffic and that is certainly a consideration but it's going to come before the board and public hearings and more information will be present on that that's just a little deeper than what we were going to cover in a work session. But we understand that that it was a topic that will be discussed in the future.

I have a quick infrastructure question. So the wastewater treatment plant It is south east from this location Correct. Reach out straight south.

Yeah, it's, it's pretty straight south.

Okay. And our waste water flows to the plant, or do we have to pump it to it?

This particular subdivision would be gravity flow. So it would just flow naturally.

Okay,

that's it. That's my only question.

I mean, subject to, like engineering design and approvals. And but yes, that would be closed.

Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is there's that little brick. Semi place. Right. There's that subdivision couldn't go right there.

If the block already. Yeah. already approved and planted? Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Trusty Mason,

I've just got one question. And really, it's for clarity for the residents. I think I already know the answer. But these will all be single family homes and not multifamily homes, considering it's being moved to our three.

The existing subdivision plat was for single family, the, the new proposal that isn't yet presented to the board, but will be includes single family detached homes.

On the background, I mean, you guys, I don't really have many questions there. I think it's great that you're, you know, working with what we have for water treatment, and things of that nature, and just the way water is going for the state. I think it's smart. Going about the way you've always created a quality product, and support the town. So I really appreciate you taking the time to do this, bring this before us and talk to us.

So I have a couple questions regarding if I can. The Wellington waterways or landscaping irrigation design manual, is that what you guys were saying that you're using best practices from or like making these decisions and choices based off of I love it. Okay, I love that. I was thinking the square footage for the lots seems very familiar. And so my lot, 6600 square feet of downtown Wellington are all very similar size, to the ones that are proposed. My house has a much smaller footprint, but I think the idea of a lot is definitely family friendly and things. So I think that's kind of cool is I'm considering or trying to like, get perspective on the size of the lot. So it's really similar in my mind to downtown neighborhood, right? Same size lots, probably a little bit bigger houses. But so I think that's cool. And at the concept of adding a little bit more not necessarily diversity, diversity to housing, but least scale of pricing potentially could be really cool to see how that might work. The other consideration, I thought we were talking like the costs of irrigation to the homeowner, is really, I guess the consideration I'm thinking, you know, not all 200. And some homes are going to be built this year, right. So primarily, the majority of these homes, I would assume would be built after all of our plants are online, which is fantastic. So the burden in my mind, like, I don't know if that's a consideration, really, because we'll have the water to sell or one that was all the water but really will help those residents with their costs. I think that's great. I used to live in Park Meadows. So paying for outdoor irrigation. I would be rough. So I understand how that might be so but I'm really excited to see people use our manual. I think that's great. I don't have any other questions other than I wanted to provide some that prospective lot size to where I live. Perfect.

Yeah, nicely. We held up on this site. Probably what, two and a half years ago, Cody came to me and said, Stop, we can't do it. We can't do it the water, the site would have gone through, you know, two or three years ago. We're glad it didn't because look at what happened now with all the water situations. How can you imagine to be the homebuyer that has a 19,000 square foot lot. So but yeah.

Any further questions on the background or what was presented?

I don't have any questions. I remember when we when we did that. And the the intent was bigger estate lots and the concessions were because we were in an economic downturn and we are trying to encourage more residential homes with the hope that more residential homes would bring more commercial business. So I think that we're willing to evolve with how the community has evolved. So it's an interesting product that you presented.

My only one other question was, is do we have a requirements for the irrigation related to non potable Britain? Is that written into the town's thing? And does their contract previously supersede if we do have that the developer must have the raw water to water, the irrigation?

So the good question, but I think it's twofold. And I'll start by saying that at the time of this original approval, as I kind of introduced earlier on, the town hadn't been through its more recent processes of looking at comprehensive plan, land use, water efficiency, infrastructure master plans, all those things, water rates, that the the town does have an has had obligations for residential homes to provide the raw water contribution requirements that satisfy the water needs of those homes, those as this board knows those numbers have changed over time, sometimes dramatically, sometimes, very minimally. But we continue to look at those to make sure that they're dialed into the right amount of water that a home has to provide. The context that we're looking at in this scenario is that as part of the comprehensive plan update, one of the criteria that was identified this should be evaluated as adequacy of public infrastructure adequacy of water supply, and I think that was going to logically lead to in any new annexations being proposed or new developments being proposed, whether they have a potable irrigation requirement or a non potable irrigation supply available is going to be a factor that we have to look at. And so I think that our staff is certainly looking at things differently than maybe the town had the opportunity to look at in the past. But every project is still required to provide the raw water dedications applicable to that particular development. Currently, the raw water dedication requirement for residences point two five acre feet, for indoor and point two, five for outdoor irrigation. If there's a non potable system, the point two five acre feet for outdoor irrigation is not usually a factor because the water's coming from a well or some other source. So it does have compounding implications on the cost of developing homes when you also have to go out and acquire the watersheds to meet the contribution requirements for irrigation. Did that I that was a little long winded was that. Okay, perfect. Great. Thanks for the question.

Good, good, everybody. Good. Thank you. Hey, thank you.

Thank ya. I hope this was helpful. It was intended to be a overview and there will be more forthcoming as one of the residents mentioned in the public comments their town has sent out notices for public hearings for this development. The date changes, you know, you're going to be at CML. So we are going to be re advertising that public hearing for the board to consider this and it will be for July 11. So thank you very much for your attention this evening. Thank you

all right on to the final item for this evening's work session is going to be a presentation on the B dams presented by Mr. Bob Galley.

awesome to see you with that account starting.

Yeah, I'm walking sorta. So thank you. Thank you. That's nice. Do you promote me?

Yes, thank you

I'll just share my screen.

I have it ready. We're good.

Okay, let's start.

Good evening, Mayor and trustees. So a few a few of you may have seen this presentation before. But things have progressed a little bit and we might be coming to the end of this saga relatively quickly so wanted to give you an update. I believe this might get discussed at your joint work session with Larimer County as well coming up so anyway, so we could so the B dams, person thing you want to know is what is the B stands for? And I think it stands for the Boxelder basin. All of these creeks that have the dams on them are in the box elder basin. It's a little bit shrouded in mystery but anyhow, so what are they? They're five primarily flood control dams located on three the creeks within this basin. This map shows the locations of those be two is on Box Elder Creek, and you can see Rawhide there to get a general feel for where it's at. With the reservoir B three is on Coal Creek and before is on Indian Creek, the five and B six are both tributary to b two. So the real issue with these of these three dams that are little bit loaded down in the watershed, each one of these has extremely large earthen embankment be two I think it's close to a mile long it's 45 feet high a primary outlet structure emergency spillway. And they do provide extremely efficient like control for instance, b to the 100 year flood flow rate coming into the into b two is 17,000 cubic feet per second. The 100 year flood coming out of b two is a little over 300 cubic feet per second. So they're like outrageously effective flood control structures that were built by the SCS which is now the the Natural Resources Conservation Service NRCS. The sponsor at that time was North pooter and Larimer County. So SCS is primarily an ag oriented federal agency. And so the primary purpose was for ag purposes to protect some of the farms downstream, but they also serve the they also protect some of the communities so Wellington, Larimer County, Fort Collins, and Tenma are all reaping the benefits of these dams. So just to emphasize the importance of these dams, that first bullet point there. have gone on to the second one. I'm sorry, I keep thinking I have internal payer. So that the difference points 17,000 CFS and 300 CFS is huge. So this weird looking map here is one of the exhibits that came out of one of our reports. And you can see 10 myth, sorry, Wellington is, oh, I can't point but it's underneath the blue blocks. That's kind of midway. Yeah, that's Wellington. Blue blocks, it's the white blocks underneath the blue launched. So that would be the 100 year floodplain if the two were not in place. In other words, about three quarters of the town would be in the 100 year floodplain almost half potentially in the floodway, which is completely undeveloped, right. So it's Wellington just wouldn't be able to exist. These be dams in place. There's also several important floodplain management tools that make the based on the assumption that the B dams are, are functioning and in place, including all the box seller stormwater authority improvements. Without the B dams. Those don't even come close to doing what they were designed to do. The floodplain mapping from the NFIP, the payments, regulatory floodplains are all based on the assumption that these dams are in place, which is why our floodplain is this wide instead of this wide going through town. And of course, all the masterplans that people have done really any drainage project it's it's near these creeks. They've all been designed and constructed under the assumption that they've been answered there. So they need to stay there is the idea behind that slide. In the mid ends, 2000 tans, b two B three and B four were reclassified by the state by the state. The SEO the engineering office to high hazard that's the highest hazard that means that there is the potential for loss of life damage to property, the highest level of potential flood risk associated with that, when you so dams are basically designed based on how much damage they can do when they fail. And so you have to design to accommodate a certain size of storm event. And NRCS is requirement was what's called the probable maximum flood, which is anywhere between 20 and 30 inches of rainfall. And in a period of time in which individual storm Excuse me. So, back then, the NRCS came back and said, these dams had been reclassified, we need to do some improvements, or the state engineer's office is going to ask us to remove them, which would result in the previous scenarios describing so they went through a couple of years worth of work with all the local sponsors that are that are involved. Now, Wellington doesn't seem to have been involved back then. And I can't really find any evidence that they went to any of the meetings. But Larimer County, or Collins, Tenma, North pooter and of course, NRCS. And their standards, their design standards are such that that resulted in a series of projects about $30 million. And I wasn't here then. But I think that that number staggered some people and they made like, literally staggered back to their office and forgot about, I don't know that anybody could was able to come up with that kind of money at the time. It's an excellent. And it was put on hold so and 2018.

The communities got back together. This is one of the first things that was handed to me when I started here. And those communities again, in PAC, Wellington, Tenma, Fort Collins and Larimer County, looked so we got together, there was kind of a stakeholder group that had some Finance Directors and people like that on it, and then the technical evaluation committee that had one representative from each of those communities, and I was on there for Wellington. And we decided that there might be a better approach towards designing these improvements. And we talked to the state engineers office, and it looked like there was some potential for being able to kind of downsize or reevaluate the hazard and the risk associated with these dams. And so we hired a firm called seh.

Next slide.

And in cooperation, there was an agreement back then we're all five of us, decided to kick in $50,000, to hire a consultant to relook at this whole mess that we've gotten ourselves into. Part of that was working very closely with the state engineers office on kind of a new approach to dam design or dam, I should say, design criteria, which is based more on well, we'll get to that in a second. Sorry. So anyway, so we reviewed all the existing information. And we wanted to determine if additional modeling was needed, I wanted to get with the state engineers office and kind of get the Feds out of the picture because of the standards that they were bringing, and develop some kind of potential cost sharing proposal for achieving these, these improvements. And I think that's where it collapsed last time. So Kelly, the next slide. So the results of that study, and again, this was done in cooperation with attack state engineers office in seh. But the state had kind of a different approach that was more based on instead of just kind of setting a particular design event storm event, it was based on looking at probable failure modes, the consequences of that failure, and potential mitigation measures. And putting that data into almost kind of a matrix where there was a bit more of a sliding scale there was more more nuanced in the way in the in determining the improvements that are required to meet the rules of that state engineers office. So the results of that study and I have that study back there, it's 564 pages. Where that b two, B three and B four all have a low failure likelihood with a high probability We have loss of life and property damage. And it's that low failure. likelihood. That's the key part here, right? So generally speaking on these dams are very robust. And it's going to take a really large storm to overtop earthen embankment so that it might fail. Some of them only overtop by a foot or two, right? Some of them that they all function right up to pretty close to the PMI for the probable maximum flood. And so that calm those combination of factors kind of allow the state engineers often say, Well, you don't have to improve this to pass the PMF. Because there's things you can do to mitigate this. And those those mitigation measures were a flood early warning system, which consists of rain gauges and depth gauges, and it's real time and, and people like us can, can look at that, and then do things from that day to evacuations, road closures, things of that nature, and emergency action plan, we've all bought into an operations and maintenance plan. So, though, that was all good news, right, so then we immediately were able to kind of start focusing on the solution and what it cost sch was also under contract to prepare a cost share model that was based on that was based on really a quantification of the risk in terms of property damage and threat to human life. And that's generally expressed as a kind of a depth and velocity. So the higher the velocity, the flow, the more dangerous dangerous it is. And of course, the deeper it is, is also dangerous. And so those generally go into the factor. So this model took into account every piece of property affected by this dam break. And it was a huge, a huge model. And so at the end, we got results from that which seemed consistent with my experience dealing with this kind of thing. And develop kind of some specific proposals for meeting the new requirements of the SCO operations and maintenance. We determined that we wanted to a create a fund so that we don't have to go through this again in the future. And if, if we were to put some money in escrow, if you will, we would be able to use that money to make a major repair to one of the dams say the spillway cracks up breaks up, it needs to be replaced, there's a concrete spillway on b two is almost 200 feet wide. And we kind of arbitrarily came to the number of a million dollars or $1.2 million for that, based on what we thought a couple of major repairs might might cost. These percentages right here, those come out of the model. And basically these are the numbers that it was determined based on damages to those towns. Now we're immediately downstream of the embankments. And if they were to fail, Wellington would get wiped out, you know, there's no other way to say it. That breach event would just not have as much impact on Larimer County or Fort Collins, because of further downstream flood wave like this kind of attenuates as it moves downstream, and 10 with as well. So these were the numbers that were based on that really kind of a financial damage model to determine how to break out the cost to the various participants. So these numbers apply or proposed to apply to the creation of this fund. And to the emergency action plan, the additional costs for that and the annual operations and maintenance as well. The flooding of the well. We're basically going to glom on to let Larimer County's existing they call it an early flood warning system. And the capital expenses for including the monitoring that we need. And then computer power for that is about total of 100 grand. So we split that one five ways. So 20. So we we might have touched on this in the budget discussions. But we did knowing that this was out here, we went ahead and put it in the CIP and the five year plan in the budget. So it's in so these numbers right here, which are the results of all those calculations that we just went through, are in the budget, and they haven't changed since then. So you can see that, you know, the total cost to us over the next five years. Is that $487,000 number that will be the time that this fund is established. And the idea is that that they'll bury interest. And we won't need any more contributions to that. The only cost after this five year span would be the operations and maintenance costs, which you can see is the third line there. It's on the order of 1212 or 13,000. A year for that. And that's, that's kind of it. So where this is at right now is that the some of the attorneys for the communities have been working on a draft agreement between the participants to make this happen, basically, and we've gotten the draft here fairly recently. Dan's reviewing it, all the attorneys are reviewing it, all the TAC members are reviewing it. But right now, it looks like what we've agreed to, or I would say, where we ended up with where we ended up with the TAC anyway. And so wanted to bring that and then see if you guys any questions or wanted to know more.

I am grateful for this. So and one of my experiences lately is having to purchase additional flood insurance for a property that was located in a flood zone. This actually helps aid and assist our residents and being able to afford their homeowners insurance without having to buy additional flood insurance. If you are reclassified in FEMA, then you would have to acquire additional insurances. So this is huge. I'm in full support of splitting, I understand that 33.5% As we are the first downstream from it. I'm looking forward to hearing more as a comes to fruition. I like the fact that this is already in the budget, and is set aside as far as CIP. So thank you very much for having that force thought to put that in. But this is important to have extremely important. Thank you.

Trustee Gaiter

the question I had is I know that study was done back I'm assuming somewhere in the 2018 to 2020 timeframe that kind of worked through all the calculations and things I don't know with four columns is continued growth north, if that changes anything, I know the big thing that comes to mind is mon Tada. And I don't know where that falls on this map here.

Part of part of the agreement is going to be regular updates to the kind of the stats and the numbers that come out was based on so as a community grows, what you'll see is it Larimer County's stuff that used to be in Larimer County and mana got counted towards their their cost is now going to move into into towns and cities. So on top is not in there right now. It's really only existing properties. Sure, though, that will be accounted for in the future.

Okay, I should know like, because I know the floodplain, like there's a blue line. And I don't know if it falls within that somewhere, that's just I want to make sure that I get it right. We're the ones that are closest to that. But at the same time. As much as I'd love to think that in a perfect world, we continue to have an expensive 12 to $13,000 a year. In the real world, that's those numbers are gonna go up, everything just gets more expensive over time. So what might be 12 or 13,000, back when the study is done could very well be 15 to 20,000. Today, could be 3040 5060 80, grand, another five years, so it goes up. And so I want to make sure that as other places are growing, I know we're gonna grow. So we may have more people in the floodplain. But other places are going to grow as well. So I want to make sure that we're paying for what portion is ours, but also as other places expand that we're not stuck with that. And then you had mentioned briefly so the funds that would be set aside for the operation and maintenance fund, that will be set aside into some kind of an interest bearing account so that it's not just sitting there doing nothing, but it's actually hopefully ideally replenishing itself over time.

That's the idea. Okay.

The the percentages that are at least in the current draft, I want to say the percentages are updated every few years. And then I think every five years, the overall calculation method is made of reevaluated. So there's at least an intent to look at that on a regular basis. So that's all the details of how that might be done as being

right. Washington with us having a higher percentage of decision making is that just each body gets one decision even though we're paying the 30% cost. That's so we're paying 30% of the fees For getting that makes sense. If we're, if there's fine, everyone gets, you know, 20% of the decision. But we're paying 30% of the cost. That's another

think each body at the moment each body gets one, essentially, why would I believe that? My head,

right things that results that I didn't necessarily agree with. But part of having a regional effort of cooperation requires that sometimes, but there are some some kind of rules for how that happens, like I proposed with this agreement that you'll hopefully be seeing pretty quickly.

I guess, the big thing that I want to make sure with is basically, if we're in a position where we're going to be forced to expend more money on the part of the town that that I guess maybe that comes back to us as a board to prove but that we're not forced to, you know, we're not forced into paying more of this agreement that really is not to our benefit by the other members of the board. But it's like, hey, well, while a 10 year with the higher percentage, so you have to pay more of this, even though it's not beneficial to you. But that makes sense. I want to make sure that we're protected. Because we're expending 30% of the costs on everything.

I didn't agree more. That's one of the reasons this took so long.

Out of curiosity, is this project tied in with the Boxelder stormwater authority?

No, not really. It is, it is in the hydrologic sense, right? If this, if this project doesn't go forward, these dams have to be removed. And in the case, all the boxes are for more authority improvements or non functional, because the amount of water they were designed for, is going to increase by a factor of about 100. But no, no tie in terms of relationships or anything like that.

Not totally separate.

Yeah, I did, I didn't know that. I didn't know a lot of attacks, this

is just such a significant risk. Right. And we're the most impacted. So I appreciate that. We've been actively involved in this whole process at this point. And I mean, we're gonna have to do to make sure presidents are secure and safe. So I get it. I'm just curious if there's any other potential models that could be utilized? I know, this one seems like it's very significant. And a lot of work has gone into it. I'm curious if there's any other way to look at it for the cost sharing of like, people impacted? Or, or, you know, I don't know if this is so complex, but I'm just curious if there were different options to say, 33% here, but this separate model really says this. And could we negotiate somehow, I don't know. I have no ideal end. But if there are alternate models to consider, then maybe we could have some

issues power really complicated. Yeah, there was a whole range of factors

or unknown.

Potential loss of human life. And then other factors about property damage, and all that is generally based on the hydraulic condition that's created at those various spots. And that condition gets milder as you go downstream, it's that way, at all. times, you

just don't know if they're like different weather models, or you know, those kind of things,

we did actually use the, what I would say is probably stayed at our model which the SC o had been working on, so it kind of almost piloted this with them. And the results speak for themselves in

terms of where we're at.

Well, Director going this is a heck of a lot better than 30 million bucks. So I think I think that's good. I've only got one question. And that would just be is there any possibility that one of our partner communities could pull out of this agreement or anything like that?

In the real world? No. Because they're as concerned as we are. We're Collins has a lot of money put into flood control improvements, which kind of become worthless at that point. So I would say that, that the issue is probably going to come down to money and authority and those kinds of things, which are, you know, typically the real issues that that kind of tiny things, but the agreement or the draft agreement that we've got right now doesn't really allow for that. But you guys will see a lot of these details here pretty quick.

Great. Pro 10. My ultimate question was making sure as to we get

appreciate all the work that's going in there. I've been out here 30 years now and I think I've been through the 9798 flood whatever that was. I lived right over there next to it and 6/9 grade, Spring Creek Write that one. And saw the one that hit Longmont. I mean, it's amazing. You wouldn't think you start talking about 2030 inches of rain on the event that would cause it, you think it's pretty much non existent, but it can happen. So I'm glad we're being proactive. And I sell flood insurance. And I know what it is. And I know it is not cheap.

Well, I'm not we're not trying to put you out of the house. No, no,

I hope you do that. But yeah, and the bad thing about flood insurance, it really doesn't pay that well. So it's better to mitigate it up front. So appreciate what you're doing.

Oh, yes.

There's a lot of guidelines to it, I think you have to have three adjacent properties being flooded at the same time, more than ever to cover. So it's pretty particular. But like extended

warranty on your car? No, I mean, this is exciting. It's nice to see it starting to come to a close. You've put a lot of time and effort into this. So thank you for doing that. And then Dan worked the other attorneys.

Yeah. It's,

I mean, we've had good questions. Yeah, I think we'll just continue giving us updates. And we'll see what we got to do and get this taken care of. Right.

So you will have a similar presentation next week. When you're with a County, the county will be participating interested Gator, it may be a good time for you to bring up those allocation thoughts as well at that time. So, again, we wanted to prepare you for that meeting to hear from the town of Wellington before you heard from anybody else on this topic. So thank you. Thank you, Bob. Great job. All right. Well

now, exit the work session. Reopen the regular meeting. time being I don't know. Oh, well, that was scripted. All right, adjourn. Thank you. I