►
From YouTube: City Council Study Session - 4 Feb 2019
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Good
evening,
everyone,
this
is
our
English
City
Council
study
session
on
February
4th
2019
and
about
six.
Oh
one,
I
know
that
council
member
is
on
her
way.
Otherwise
the
rest
of
our
council
is
here.
Our
first
agenda
tonight
is
standard
definitions
and
Finance
and
mystery
of
services.
Maria
Sebata
is
here
to
present
with
their
staff
on
the
standard
definitions
that
we've
been
talking
about
for
a
little
while
here.
Thank
you
good.
D
So
we're
here
to
discuss
the
standard
definitions.
This
is
the
third
time
that
we've
been
to
study
sessions,
so
we're
just
following
up
on
it.
The
main
objective
tonight
is
to
bring
forth
answers
to
questions
that
were
posed
on
November
26th.
When
we
last
presented
intention
of
bringing
forward
an
ordinance
on
February
19th,
a.
D
Little
history:
this
was
first
presented
to
City
Council
on
September
10th
in
a
study
session,
along
with
the
mandatory
business
licensing,
which
will
not
be
addressed
tonight.
There
have
been
a
variety
of
council
requests
regarding
various
information
since
a
bird
that
we
have
listed
here
for
reference
for
your
Ease.
If
you
care
to
pull
that
to
revisit,
or
if
you
have
any
questions,
we
can
gladly
answer
those
for
you
tonight.
B
D
The
standard
definitions
as
a
reminder:
it's
a
major
collaborative
project
between
all
the
Houma
municipalities
here
in
Colorado,
and
it
is
facilitated
by
Colorado,
Municipal
League,
and
the
objective
of
it
is
to
create
consistent
standard
definitions
across
all
the
Home
Rule
jurisdictions
for
the
ease
of
tax
payers,
so
that
they
have
that
continuity.
It
is
not
to
change
the
tax
base,
which
is
very
important.
D
D
On
the
screen,
you
can
see
that
these
are
the
Home
Rule
municipalities
that
have
adopted
the
standard
conditions.
We
actually
had
an
addition
to
this,
since
the
presentation
was
prepared
back
on
January
22nd
of
this
year.
Simo
Springs
can
also
be
added
to
this
list
that
they
adopted
so
there's
only
25
left
to
adopt,
including
ourselves.
D
On
reviewing
the
transcript
from
the
November
26,
the
council
study
session,
these
were
the
questions
that
were
brought
up.
The
general
or
the
greater
Englewood
chamber
of
commerce
survey
results
as
well
as
their
standard
definition
position
of
neutral.
In
addition
to
what
are
some
of
the
standard
definitions
and
how
does
it
relate?
In
addition,
how
is
it
benefit
and
what
legislation
was
a
connected
to
was
brought
up
multiple
times?
D
Our
responses
to
those
are
for
the
Greater
Inglewood
Chamber
comment.
Survey
we've
reached
out
to
them
and
just
recently
received
some
information.
It
was
not
what
we
were
hoping
to
receive
and
so
were
reviewing
that
again,
we
were
having
issues
getting
any
response
from
the
Greater
Inglewood
Chamber
of
Commerce.
Regarding
the
standard
definitions,
we
will
follow
up
the
standard
definitions,
the
legislation
that
it
was
related
to
was
the
Senate
concurrent
resolution.
D
1400
4,
which
has
been
provided
in
your
council
communication,
which
was
postponed
indefinitely
in
favor
of
Senate
joint
resolution,
1403
8,
which
is
also
provided
for
your
viewing
pleasure.
We
provided
the
survey
to
ace
which
was
requested
back
on
November
26th.
We
received
three
responses
and
the
first
question
on
that
survey
was
would
standardize
been
conditions,
be
beneficial
to
you
in
all
three
responses
or
yes,
the
three
sir
received
are
also
included
in
your
consul
communication
for
tonight.
Some
other
questions
that
we
received
is:
how
does
it
benefit
us?
D
Currently,
our
definition
for
personal,
tangible
personal
property
and
the
Engel
and
Municipal
Code
is
corporal
personal
property
off
the
top.
Your
heads,
who
knows
that
means
show
of
hands.
I'll,
be
honest.
More
often
than
not,
people
have
to
look
it
up
when
I
started
here.
I
definitely
googled
it
to
make
sure
the
definition
per
Merriam
Webster's
dictionary
is
having
consistent
of
or
relating
to
a
physical
material
body
such
as
a
know,
spiritual
or
be
rotten
material
or
intangible.
It's
still
pretty
big.
D
D
Another
definition
that
is
beneficial
is
software
program.
Currently
we
do
not
have
this
to
find
in
our
Municipal
Code
from
a
tax
perspective
back
in
1992
or
1986,
when
this
definitions
were
first
done,
I
believe
our
code
was
1986
and
but
the
last
time
this
project
was
undertaken
was
in
1992,
who
remembers
going
to
a
store
to
purchase
software
in
a
box?
I
sure
do,
but
how
we
download
all
of
that,
and
so
it's
very
confusing
to
taxpayers
on
what
does
this
fall
under?
Is
this
tangible?
D
What
exactly
is
it
so
by
having
software
program
defined
in
our
code?
It
will
alleviate
some
of
that
confusion,
and
that
goes
hand-in-hand
with
adopting
the
new,
tangible,
personal
property
definition,
and
so
it
all
kind
of
builds
upon
each
other,
and
ideally,
we're
gonna
have
that
gentleman
down
there.
Instead
of
all
the
question
marks,
he'll
have
a
light
bulb
and
his
questions
will
be
answered,
really
easy
and
he's
going
to
be
able
to
file
his
taxes
and
not
be
confused
or
get
frustrated
when
he
does
them.
B
E
D
E
D
B
B
H
Without
having
had
any
follow-up
conversation
from
2018
I
think
since
we
agreed
in
2018
to
postpone
the
process,
we
should
honor
that
commitment
and
do
it
now
and
I
believe
that
the
timeline
proposed
that
we've
used
before
seems
to
have
worked.
So
we
should
follow
it
and
planned
celebrate
another
citizen
coinciding
with
our
May
13
city
birthday,
recognition,
so
I'm
from
moving
forward.
Certainly
I
can't
see
any
reason
at
this
point
to
change
anything
I.
G
G
Cannot
answer
how
we
did
it
the
last
time
moving
forward?
We
would
make
sure
that
we
put
it
on
the
website.
We
could
end
it
out
in
our
email
blast
to
various
places.
I
would
also
recommend
that
we
do
sort
of
an
attractive
one
sheet
information
and
leave
it
available
in
our
facilities.
The
Maui
Center,
the
rec
center,
the
library,
so
that
as
many
people
as
possible,
see
it
and,
of
course,
here
in
the
Civic
Center
building.
B
E
E
H
H
B
G
B
So
we've
done
this
differently
the
last
time
around
and
what
was
really
nice
about
the
process
is,
it
was
open
nominations
we
had
I
think
we
had
several,
but
before
that
we
were
doing
it
on
her
own.
We
were
council
was
suggesting
who
put
in
we'd
have
two
or
three
names,
so
this
opened
it
to
citizens
to
recommend
which
we
felt
was
a
much
more
just.
C
B
Think
there
are
four
or
five
yeah
it
wasn't
like
we
got
20
it
was.
You
know
it's
a
little
bit
more
than
what
we
were
bringing
forward
as
council
members
yeah,
which
was
very
nice,
and
they
were
really
well
formed
and
it's
just
really
nice
to
have
and
I
think
it's.
You
know
it's
hard
to
pick
someone,
but
but
I.
Think
everybody's
honored
in
the
process
is.
H
H
B
B
G
Know,
what's
in
your
packet,
we
forwarded
a
letter
recommendation
from
the
chair
of
the
code
enforcement
Advisory
Committee,
asking
city
council
to
give
direction
to
the
City
Attorney's
Office
to
consider
a
changed
and
Municipal
Code
relating
to
the
removal
of
snow
and
ice
in
the
city,
and
since
that
is
a
City
Council
decision.
We're
bringing
it
forward,
as
presented
by
the
committee
for
your
consideration.
B
G
H
B
H
H
Don't
it's
unfair
to
extend
it
a
little
bit
just
because
of
life
events,
maybe
somebody's
in
the
hospital
and
your
whole
household
is
in
the
hospital
or
hospice
or
whatever
it
may
be.
I
mean
there
are
all
kinds
of
events
that
may
prohibit
us
from
managing
our
snow
removal
for
24
hours.
We
don't
want
to
prolong
it
and
have
health
and
safety
risks
like
come
back
to
the
city
and
be
sued,
because
people
are
falling
but
I'm
open
to
the
extension.
A
B
I
E
E
B
B
B
H
F
Pro
Tem
Russell
I,
just
the
reason
for
the
second
change
that
they're
recommending
would
stipulate
in
this
code
a
shorter
time
factor
for
the
removal
of
snow
or
ice
from
the
sidewalk.
The
recommended
time
from
a
door
tag
to
a
summon
should
be
shortened
to
between
5
and
7
days.
This
recommendation
is
designed
to
lessen
the
time
that
a
safe
hazard
exists
so
instead
of
giving
them
seven
days,
it's
giving
them
five
to
seven
days.
So.
F
F
C
F
B
Kind
of
comments
or
questions
I
have
I,
have
a
question
with
this,
and
so
maybe
it's
just
because
there's
some
mistakes
in
this
under
the
number
to
Ingrid
code
enforcement
advisory.
The
very
last
line
upon
receiving
the
written
notice,
the
property
owner
or
resident
then
has
another
21
and
immensities
14
days
to
mitigate
the
code
violations.
So
that's
on
the
second
to
go
around
right
so
that
there's
a
Miss
just
a
misprint
right
over
there.
B
But
it's
seven
days
for
the
first
one
and
then
another
four
to
14
days
for
the
before
then
it
goes
into
I
mean
there's
a
twenty
one.
So
I
think
this
was
confusing
to
me
and
maybe
maybe
we
need
okay.
You
can't
help
me
I'm
in
favor
of
it
being
seven
days
or
less
I.
Don't
know
how
you
could
say
five
or
seven
and
leave
that
up
to
the
officer
to
decide.
Is
that
what.
B
A
Would
agree
with
proton
that
either
the
five
or
seven,
but
what
the
teeth
of
this
is.
Is
that
somebody's
going
to
be
getting
a
noticed
after
24
hours,
which
is
more
reasonable
than
the
twelve,
but
it
won't
seem
to
be
as
long
as
we're
enforcing
that
piece
of
it
and
then
kind
of
following
up
in
Colorado
the
vast
majority
of
snow
melts
within
five
days.
A
However,
'men
tension,
I
believe
from
listening
to
the
meeting
is
that
we
take
hazards
out,
and
there
are
some
areas,
especially
on
North
Side,
where
it
becomes
an
ice
issue
Mars
in
the
snow
issue,
and
so
I
would
agree
to
going
to
the
seven
days
five
or
seven
whatever
you
guys
decide.
But
I
would
agree
to
going
to
that
piece
and
that's
when
people
would
get
the
would
be
expected
to
have
the
notice
done,
and
then
that
would
take
another
action
if
they
follow
it
up
in
that
online.
So
III,
agree.
A
I,
think
this
is
less
an
issue
for
snow.
It
is
for
the
ice
buildup
in
the
areas
that
we
have
that
become
very
serious
issues
and
can
be
go
more
than
a
month.
In
some
areas,
where
we
don't
get
that
melting
so
really
like
to
see
that
start
being
enforced
because
it
becomes
a
impediment
to
people
who
are
handicapped
and
elderly
using
being
able
to
get
around
so
I
like
that
they're
doing
this.
So
whether
you
do
agree
on
the
five
or
the
seven
is
a
little
consequence
as
long
as
it's
being
followed
up
on.
H
B
F
E
B
Am
trying
to
get
each
one
separately
and
then,
when
we
come
to
up
with
them,
then
we'll
all
be
brought
forward
together.
I
would
assume
yeah,
so
council,
members,
okay,
but
Heidi's
as
well.
Okay,
great
all
right
into
the
one,
which
is
the
habitual
offender
remedy,
they're,
suggesting
that
a
person
would
not
be
allowed
to
receive
more
than
five
violations
in
12-month
period.
The
sixth
violation
will
go
directly
to
a
summons.
I
Thank
you.
I
have
a
question
about
how
many
habitual
offenders
we
have
in
this
type
of
violation.
I
know.
Depending
on
your
house
spaces,
you
have
the
problem.
The
ice,
melting
and
I've
seen
lots
of
books
around
just
even
the
last
couple
days,
chunking
out
the
ice
patches
and
so
I
wonder
if
there's
a
way
to
kind
of
what
we
can
do
to
help
habitual
offenders
in
the
situation.
I
F
You
commander
Englert
shared
at
one
of
the
meetings
that
95%
of
people
that
receive
a
ticket
there's
voluntary
compliance.
So
I
think
this
is
more
addressed
to
parts
of
the
reason
that
I
believe
that
this
code
was
being
enforced
is
because
it
was
not
enforceable
because
by
the
time
the
snow
falls
and
if
they
don't
do
anything,
then
seven
days
this
most
of
the
snow
is
going
to
melt
and
so
I
think
that
the
code
enforcement
advisory
committee
is
trying
to
make
this
code
more
enforceable.
A
I
want
to
make
sure
that
anybody
who
is
disabled
or
elderly
or
is
having
some
kind
of
physical
issues
and
I
know
that
other
communities
have
had
like
a
snow,
burgade
or
something
going
on
I've
actually
heard
in
one
community,
not
around
here,
but
one
community
where
the
snow
Brigade
was
so
good
people's
kind
of
stop
shopping.
You
expect
it's
never
good
to
do
it.
Well,
the
city
isn't
gonna
double,
but
at
the
same
time
I
don't
want
to
become
too
punitive
to
people
who
may
have
health
issues
or
something
going
on
I.
A
Remember
one
time
in
a
big
snowstorm
we
went
around,
they
came
out
with
poco
for
us.
Actually,
one
of
the
people
shuffling
that
day
was
the
author
of
this
and
they
came
out
with
cocoa.
We
were
not
aware
that
he
had
just
had
heart
surgery
and
we
were
just
having
fun
and
going
around.
We
didn't
even
realize
so
if
there's
some
way
to
identify
that
before
it
gets
too
far
into
a
process
where
people
are
either.
A
B
E
You
I
hear
somebody
gets
to
six
offenses
in
12
months,
I,
wonder
if
they
own
the
snow,
shovel
I
would
think
that
there's
something
going
on
there,
otherwise
and
I
would
think
up
to
that
you've.
Had
you
mentioned
a
ticket
air
pro
Tim
Russell
I'm,
assuming
when
you
say
ticket,
that's
something
on
their
door,
that
isn't
they
need
to
go
to
a
court
or
anything
like
that.
E
I've
got
to
think
that
by
that
six
one
code
enforcement
has
identified
a
home
that
this
is
some
it
might
need
assistance
or
whatever
reason
can't
get
to
that
full
doubling
practice
by
themselves.
So
I
think
six
to
me
is
more
than
enough
in
this
particular
case.
If
you've
gone
six
times,
it
is
worth
mentioning
it.
That's
a
hazard.
I
mean
that
to
me
is
a
perpetual
hazard
to
somebody's.
Let
go
that
month
that
much
so
I
would
I'm
supportive
of
this.
Thank
you.
B
J
K
F
I
do
know
that
the
ice
even
now
is
still
an
issue
in
a
lot
of
places.
Today,
even
though
we've
had
a
few
days
over
50,
so
I
I
think
that
I
don't
necessarily
want
to
be
punitive
six
six
times.
I
do
believe
that
people
and
identify
their
neighbors
also
and
and
help
their
neighbors,
so
Thank
You,
counselor.
A
B
B
G
J
B
It
and
who
still
stayed
cold
enough
to
keep
it
there
right,
okay,
and
that
would
take
that
would
take
a
long
time
of
no
Sun
and
burn.
Oh,
so
it's
more
getting
at
the
frequent
fliers
of
this
than
anything
else
in
trying
to
set
up
some
policy
for
that
yeah
I
am
I'm.
Fine
I
would
prefer
to
set
this
third
one
around.
B
What
we
know
is
going
on
and
what
we've
seen
and
what
could
help
with
it,
then
to
just
randomly
pick
five
four
or
five
six
or
eight
I
I
agree
with
you
know
the
comment
that
six
seems
like
a
lot
in
the
course
of
a
year
certainly
does
to
me,
but
it
would
be
nice
know
where
we
hit
that
threshold
and
what
the
cases
were
that
brought
that
about.
It
seems
a
bit
unusual,
so
I
don't
know.
B
I
would
like
to
have
a
little
bit
more
info
for
that,
but
it
seems
like
you're
all
playing
with.
We
do
move
forward
with
all
three
the
way
they
are
I
think
that's
true
right.
We're
ready
to
go
forward
all
right,
great,
so
I
think
we
have
some
sense.
It
can
bring
something
back
to
us
and
another
point
where
we
can
rediscover.
K
B
A
K
B
I
B
A
K
F
K
It's
not
part
of
the
nuisance
abatement
code,
but
the
way
our
code
is
written
is
most.
Enforcement
goes
back
through
the
news
and
sub
8
mint
code
provisions
with
the
this
7
days
21
days.
It
makes
sense
when
you're
doing
a
nuisance
abatement
that
you
put
a
door
hanger
on
someone's
door
and
give
them
7
days
to
get
the
trash
or
whatever
out
of
their
yard.
Putting
a
door
hanger
on
this
door
and
say
you
have
7
days
to
get
rid
of
snow
and
ice
is
a
joke
because
it
snow
and
ice
are
gonna
melt.
K
So
you
can
door
hang
or
me
always
you
want
to
do.
It's
not
gonna
make
a
difference.
So
the
nuisance
abatement
enforcement
provisions
are
not
a
cross.
Sport
applicable
they're.
Also,
the
enforcement
provisions
we
use
within
the
zoning
code
and
we're
discovering
as
we're
writing
the
short
term
rental
code
and
the
Adu
that
they're
they're
just
not
giving
the
enforcement
authority
that
citizens
I
think
think
the
cone
forcement
officers
have
they
don't
have
that
authority
under
the
news
and
sebade
meant
enforcement
provision
so
to
go
back
and
rewrite
the
nuisance.
K
Abatement
enforcement
provisions
to
provide
snow
and
ice
separately
is
a
little
bit
more
complicated.
It's
a
lot
more
complicated
than
it
sounds,
and
it
actually
requires
this
council
look
for
enforcement
across
the
board
and
I'm
I
think
that's
a
discussion
you
need
to
have
sooner
rather
than
later,
but
I'm
not
prepared
to
bring
all
of
that
back
to
you
tonight.
It's
just
something
that
we
was
struggling
along
with
up
to
this
point.
H
Customer
a
week,
thank
you,
mayor,
Burton,
I,
think
this
is
perfect
statements
of
the
perfect
opportunity
to
weave
these
uncertainties,
these
two
dues
or
clarifying
moments
into
our
proposed
pause
for
the
committee,
so
that
such
that,
once
we
are
as
we
are
evaluating
and
if
we
vote
for
it
in
the
next
meeting
as
we're
evaluating
what
has
been
and
what
should
be,
we
can.
We
can
think
this.
H
F
K
Me
clarify
in
actually
it's
a
response
to
the
first
thing.
Mayor
pro-tem
has
stated
that
she
was
concerned
about
the
process.
This
has
actually
been
a
discussion.
I
think
I've
been
to
the
cone
force
an
advisory
committee
meetings
three
times,
and
this
is
everything
they
bring
up,
has
value
and
it's
valid,
but
we
keep
bumping
into
this
same
issue
and
that
is
the
code
was
written
20
and
30
years
ago.
K
K
That's
why
I'd
like
to
suggest
at
this
point
that
this
initial
change
go
back
to
Co,
enforce
an
advisory
committee
for
them
to
review,
because
I
think,
in
addition
to
them
getting
to
see
the
changes
and
getting
to
work
through
the
changes
which
is
helpful,
I
think
it
also
gives
them
a
broader
understanding
of
all
of
the
pieces
of
the
code
that
have
to
be
rebuilt
to
allow
to
allow
any
changes.
I
think
there's
a
perception
that
that
it's
pretty
simplistic
and
you
can
just
whip
it
out
in
an
hour.
K
A
I
would
agree,
I
think,
maybe
then
it
does
to
go
back
to
code
enforcement.
So
far,
what
I've
heard
was
that
the
reason
that
there's
a
conflict
to
culty
and
enforcing
this
is
because
people
will
just
ignore
the
law.
They'll
ignore
the
notice,
that's
given
them
and
now
I,
don't
know,
I
can't
repeat
exactly
the
words
that
the
attorney
city
attorney
said,
but
I
find
that
somewhat
troubling.
Is
that
we're
having
a
confused
about
doing
this?
A
Because
we
expect
that
the
citizens
will
just
ignore
the
summons
that
they're
given
or
the
notice
that
they're
even
or
that
they'll
blow
it
off?
And
so
maybe
that
needs
to
be
a
better
discussion
with
counts
with
the
code
enforcement
board.
I,
don't
think
that's
confusing
in
there
and
twenty
and
thirty
years
ago
they
were
able
to
enforce
this
part
of
the
reason
that
this
is
coming
forward
is
because
we
currently
aren't
important
what
we
currently
have
and
there's
been
some
problems
too
councils
or
three
councils
ago.
A
Apparently
Council
made
some
determinations
and
certain
things
could
be
waived
or
you
could
do
it
two
or
three
times
and
then
ignore
it
for
the
rest
of
the
time.
So
there
was
some
miscommunication
there
that
was
never
cotta
fighting
some
kind
of
ordinance
or
official
policy.
So
I,
don't
think
that
it's
the
fact
that
it's
confusing
or
that
the
citizens
would
ignore
any
summons
or
law,
or
that
we
could
have
this
particular
piece
be
different
for
the
enforce
from
the
snow
and
ice.
Then
we
do
for
the
dogs
or
for
noise.
A
B
You
I
did
not
hear
the
city
attorney
say
that
there
is
any
problem
that
you
just
mentioned.
I
think
I
think
what
I
heard
her
saying
and
you
could
diamond,
but
you
correct
yourself:
yes,
because
that
would
they
did
not
at
all
your
her
say
that
this
is
not
that
we
don't
enforce
and
that
that's
a
joke.
I
think
we're
saying
is
what
I
understood
is
that
it's
gonna
come
out
and
so
telling
somebody
you
got
do
it
in
seven
days.
It's
gonna
be
gone
anyway.
Do
you
want
to
do
you
want
to?
You
know.
K
That's
exactly
what
I
said
and
and
I
hope
you're
all
hearing
me
very
clearly.
If
we
have
one
set
enforcement
provision
that
goes
across
all
of
the
codes,
sometimes
it's
applicable,
and
sometimes
it's
not
and
I-
think
the
code
enforcement
advisory
committee
have
found
a
wonderful
example
where
it's
really
not
applicable.
K
Of
course,
we
want
to
give
people
seven
days
to
clean
the
trash
out
of
their
yard
before
you
issue
a
citation,
but
do
we
need
to
give
them
seven
days
to
get
the
snow
and
ice
off
their
sidewalk,
while
children
are
trying
to
slip
their
way
to
school?
It
we're
trying
to
do
everything
with
one
hammer
and
we
need
to
go
back
and
fix
it.
I
think
coma
force
and
Advisory
Committee
are
correct.
K
We
have
to
go
back
and
set
it's
just
it's
not
when
we
fix
that
we're
fixing
the
entire
press
and
enforcement
provision,
and
it's
actually
a
discussion
that
we're
having
back
and
forth
of
planning
and
zoning
right
now
as
well.
So
I
think
it's
an
opportune
time
to
to
correct
in
those
provisions.
But
it's
gonna
happen
overnight.
I
would
need
at
least
at
least
four
weeks,
maybe
six
weeks
to
get
out
just
that.
The
changes
to
the
enforcement
provisions
that
we're
discussing
ask.
B
A
question
we
move
on
to
that.
If
we
were
to
do
change
one
and
change
two,
would
that
be
a
problem?
Would
that
create
a
snowball
effect,
or
is
it
just
the
third
change
this
violations
and
then
you're
summoned,
because
it
seems
to
me
like
going
from
12
to
24
hours?
Does
that
really
mess
anything
up
at
all?
No
did
we
do
that
in
the
time
yes
and
then
on
the
second
one?
Could
we
say
you
have
five
days
to
get
it
taken
care
of
rather
than
seven
or
is
that
where
we
start
getting
out.
K
B
F
H
I
simply
want
to
maybe
make
a
closing
statement
that
I
appreciate
what
the
City
Attorney
is
saddened,
that
these
provisions
need
to
be
reviewed
and
that
it
all
seems
logical
to
me
and
forward-moving
for
the
city
I
think
it's
extra
work
and
extra
benefits
in
cities.
The
city
attorneys
willing
to
go
to
the
code
enforcement
group
and
share
this
new
information,
and
you
guidance,
yeah
I,
just
think
it's
good
I
think
we
should
move
forward
in
this.
Thanks
for
the
discussion
in.
E
Think
I'm
the
outlier
here
I,
would
not
like
that
to
go
forward
the
exempt,
for
instance,
one
example
used
no
stops
falling
it
5:00
p.m.
than
the
5:00
a.m.
to
get
it
shoveled
up.
At
the
same
time,
that
means
you
have
5:00
a.m.
to
5:00
p.m.
presence
on
our
block,
where
there's
a
lot
of
people
walking
to
the
park
where
they're
walking
down
that
sidewalk,
pushing
the
snow
and
more
like
bid
and
for
my
so
I
would
still
stick
with
12
myself.
B
B
Right
looks
like
we
up
fairly
strong
consensus.
Iii
will
weigh
and
I
have
trouble
with
24
because
of
the
very
reason
I
have
some
people
who
are
challenged,
able
I
believe
in
my
neighborhood
that
worry
about
things
like
and
cleared
up,
but
I
think
we
try
and
help
each
other.
So
hopefully
neighborhoods
are
keeping
out
look
out.
That's
my
only
concern
is
that
that
that
get
done
gets
done,
I'm
less
worried
about
taking
people
than
I
am
about
helping,
but
elsewhere
Barrentine
and
then
I'm.
A
Not
interested
and
moving
it
forward
without
all
three
in
considered
at
the
same
time,
I
think
they
were
kind
of
a
package
deal.
So
I
would
like
to
have
the
conversation
happening
with
code
enforcement
until
we
change
anything
so
I
don't
want
a
piecemeal
this
like
that,
to
change
it
at
all.
I'd
rather
leave
it
and
have
the
conversation.
F
Actually,
I
agree
with
that
I
think.
Perhaps
we
should
just
with
code
enforcement,
Advisory
Committee,
but
also
if
we
do
move
ahead
with
the
24
hours,
that
doesn't
mean
we're
putting
the
other
two
things
on
hold.
That
means
we're
still
moving
forward
with
those,
but
not
as
quickly
the
the
24
hours
would
be
immediate
and
the
the
other
two
changes
would
take.
Maybe
six
weeks.
K
What
I
heard
was
a
consensus
on
all
three
points:
okay,
we
can
bring
the
snow
and
ice
change
back.
That's
just
that
one
little
section
we
can
rewrite
that
quickly
and
even
have
it
back
to
you
in
two
weeks,
I
mean
that's,
not
a
problem.
It's
rewriting
the
nuisance
of
it's
rewriting
the
enforcement
provisions
because
they
incorporate
so
many
sections
of
the
code
that
was
gonna
is
we've
actually
already
started
on
that
it's
it's
complicated,
because
we
have
to
go
back
through
every
provision
of
the
code
to
figure
out.
How
will
it
impact
this
section?