►
From YouTube: City Council Study Session 10 Sep 2018
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/53675?handle=F26A9AFBCEBB43C5ACC3AFD7F1D4F68C
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/53674?handle=B37CF489AEED44CAAA1E6737A5AE21A0
I. Flood Plain Fee Waiver Discussion - Directional/Informational- 6:00-6:15 p.m
Community Development Director Brad Power and Chief Building Official Karen Montanez will be present to discuss additional permit fee waiver options for storm damage recovery.
III. 3075 S. Tejon Property Discussion - Directional/Informational- 6:15-7:15 p.m
City Manager Eric Keck and City Council will discuss the 3075 S Tejon Street property.
III. Break - 7:15-7:20 p.m.
II. Sales/Use Tax Code Definitions, Licensing and Occupational Tax Discussion - Directional/Informational- 7:20-8:50 p.m
Finance and Administrative Services Director Kathleen Rinkel will be present to discuss the Sales/Use Tax Code Definitions, Licensing and Occupational Tax Discussion.
II. Council Member’s Choice
III. City Manager’s Choice
IV. City Attorney’s Choice
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/53675?handle=F26A9AFBCEBB43C5ACC3AFD7F1D4F68C
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/53674?handle=B37CF489AEED44CAAA1E6737A5AE21A0
D
B
F
H
E
Thank
you
good
evening,
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
city
of
Englewood
study
session,
this
Monday
September
the
10th,
and
we
have
a
full
council
tonight.
Our
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
a
floodplain
fee
waiver
discussion
and
this
is
for
directional
information
and
community
development,
director
Brad
power
and
chief
building
official
Karen
Mont
Montana
Montana's.
E
B
It
hasn't
been
a
huge
volume,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
people
in
town
know
that
we
want
the
step.
This
sound
work
to
be
done,
so
one
of
these
that
we
would
like
to
do
is
extend
the
period
for
that
to
run
from
October
15th
through
the
end
of
this
year.
So
if
you're,
ok
with
that
modification,
we
would
we
would
come
back
to
you
make
that
appropriate
modification.
B
It's
it's
it's
more
art
than
science
to
try
to
determine
the
end
dates
of
these,
because
we
really
want
to
try
to
not
have
them
be
so
extensive.
The
people
just
are
continually
pushing
the
the
decision
making
on
their
properties
down
the
road.
So
we
think
the
extension
from
October
15th
to
the
31st
of
December
makes
sense
for
the
existing
fee
waivers
that
are
in
place.
B
The
second
thing
that
we
are
proposing
is
based
on
the
fact
that
Inglewood
has
a
lot
of
houses
that
have
either
basements
or
basement
units
that
are
rentals
that
were
built
long
before
the
code
changed
and
required,
egress
windows
or
emergency.
We
know
exits
in
those
dwelling
units
and
so
one
of
the
ways
that
we
want
to
incentivize
the
entire
community
to
consider
those
retrofits
in
homes
and
in
rental
properties
is
to
waive
fees
for
regress
windows,
and
we
were
proposing
that
be
for
a
much
longer
period
of
time.
B
It
would
essentially
be
from
the
storm
date
through
December
31st
of
next
year
of
2019
and
again
that
would
not
just
apply
to
the
flood
impacted
residence
residences.
It
would
apply
to
every
residence
in
Inglewood.
So
we
would
try
to
have
a
communication
strategy
around
that,
so
that
the
that
the
community
is
very
much
well
aware
that
that
that
waiver
would
be
in
place
and
maybe
that
that
that
helps
people
make
the
decisions
that
it
would
be
a
good
time
for
them
to
invest
in
those
types
of
retrofits
to
their
to
their
individual
properties.
B
One
of
the
things
that
that
had
come
up.
That
was
a
question
as
well,
which
was
whether
or
not
we
want
to
consider
waiving
fees
for
roof
replacements
in
association
with
the
events
of
July
24th,
and
we
outlined
some
of
the
issues
relative
to
that.
In
our
memorandum
for
this
evening,
the
one
that
I
think
that
that
will
touch
on
in
because
we're
not
recommending
that.
However,
we
are
looking
for
your
direction
on
that
particular
issue.
Tonight.
B
B
E
H
There
any
change
to
the
requirement
for
the
egress
window
itself
any
specifications
that
have
changed,
because
in
the
second
house,
it's
my
understanding
going
and
talking
to
some
people
in
that
area
that
the
second
house
right
next
to
the
house,
where
Rachel
past
he's
built
exactly
the
same
and
it
had
an
egress
window
and
that
that
egress
window
was
pushed
in
and
would
not
have,
would
not
have
saved
the
four
children
that
lived
had
their
bedrooms
down
there.
They
would
have
drowned
if
they
had
been
in
that
home.
I
H
No
requirement
so
if
we
could
have
some
just
just
some
feedback
on
those
kind
of
situations,
how
how
that
is
like,
where
they're
placed
on
the
building
and
if
there's
any
other
requirements
on
there,
because
it
really
breaks
my
heart
that,
even
though
the
other
home
had
one,
it
would
not
have
been
a
measure
that
would
have
saved
him.
But
thanks
for
clarifying
that
generally
I
think
you're
right
there
for
a
fire,
but
need
to
have
a
little
bit
more
information
and
you're.
Saying
that
we're
only
doing
this
from
to
the
end
of
the
year.
B
Let
me
clarify
the
existing
fee,
waivers
that
we
put
in
place
immediately
after
the
storm.
The
ordinance
that
was
adopted
on
August
20th
expires
on
the
15th
of
October.
We
are
proposing
for
the
existing
fee
waiver
process
that
that
go
through
the
end
of
this
year
for
egress
windows.
It
would
be
through
the
end
of
next
year.
Okay,.
H
All
right
and
then
I
think
I
requested
I,
don't
know
if
it
went
through
whether
we
had
a
process
for
somebody
to
go
ahead
and
have
an
appeal
process
that
I
had
heard
some
people
had
gone
ahead
and
asked
for
the
permit
tried
to
go
through
this
process
and
were
denied
and
I
had
asked
that
we
have
some
kind
of
the
review
appeal
process.
If
they
were
do
we
have
that
in
place,
and
and
can
we
get
a
the
copy?
Has
that
been
made
available
yet
of
what
the
application
process
is?
H
I
I
H
E
A
Sure
I
think
what
counselor
Barrentine
is
referring
to
is.
We
did
have
a
an
individual
who
had
a
classic-car
stored
in
a
self
storage
unit
down
off
a
Radcliffe
and
he
asked
if
he
could
get
a
flood
payment
for
that
and
we
told
them
that
that
did
not
qualify
because
it
wasn't
a
domicile.
It
wasn't.
A
home.
Somebody's
classic-car
in
a
storage
unit
isn't
isn't,
isn't
a
home.
A
H
E
B
J
E
A
Building
staff
went
around
and
and
door-to-door
in
areas
that
known
flooding
and
not
certain
that
included
the
entire
community
and
as
you're
aware,
we
had
persons
who
came
up
from
disparate
areas
of
the
community.
So
we
can
put
that
into
the
English
citizen
magazine
thing
for
this
next
edition
and.
C
I
would
also
support
the
fee
waivers
for
the
wind
and
hail
damage
that
occurred
to
those
houses
that
were
affected
to
the
July
24th
storm
looks
like
it's
been
pretty
minimal
so
far,
and
I
certainly
appreciate
that
those
are
more
likely
to
be
covered
and
can
be
a
little
bit
more
difficult
to
determine
his
had
been
damaged
for
years.
Was
it
this
most
recent
flood,
but
I
would
prefer
to
get
benefit
of
the
doubt,
and
I
would
like
to
see
those
waived
as
well.
Understanding
I
might
be
in
the
minority
on
that.
E
I'm
very
much
in
favor
of
the
egress
and
I
would
like
to
see
a
public
educational
process
for
us
to
do
that
and
I'm
sure
that
Community
Development
has
a
lot
of
ways
to
do.
That.
I
still
would
like
to
hear
folks
about
the
hail
damage
and
wind
damage,
I'm
a
little
bit
more
uncertain
about
that.
Although
I
think
if
this
happens
again
in
two
years
and
I
have
a
lot,
we
make
a
decision
at
that
point.
If
we
think
it's
important,
remember,
Martinez.
D
A
Keihin,
it
was
the
week
after
that,
the
building
to
put
two
actually
two
weeks
after
that
the
building
staff
went
around
to
those
areas
that
were
known
to
be
impacted,
so
in
some
cases
they
just
had
to
leave
a
card
and
others
they
were
able
to
talk
to
the
homeowners
or
tenants
at
those
locations
and
so
great
again,
it's
kind
of
hit
or
miss,
and
so
we're
happy
to
advertising.
Okay,
thank
you.
E
J
Thank
you,
I
really
like
the
egress
window,
fee
waiver,
I,
think
I,
like
the
duration
of
time
or
a
year
and
a
half
or
so
to
allow
for
that.
It
is
a
pretty
large
ticket
item,
so
I
think
if
folks
can
plan,
maybe
further
out
in
the
future,
I
think
the
the
duration
of
time
should
help
with
that
and
I
think
that's
a
really
great
idea.
J
D
Would
it
be
easy?
Could
it
be
beneficial
to
the
city?
Could
it
been
meeting
all
of
us
right
all
of
us
in
the
city
to
also
include
some
kind
of
information
about
just
how
that
works
such
that
we
can
educate
a
little
bit,
take
advantage
of
this
opportunity
to
educate
regarding
responsibilities
and
what
state
laws
may
say
about
what
we
can
do
or
how
far
we
go.
How
far
we
can't
go,
how
far
residents
should
go
in
terms
of
taking
care
of
the
egress
windows.
D
E
No
I
you're,
looking
at
me
but
I,
agree,
I,
think
the
more
information
we
can
get
out
there
on
egress
and
any
other
kinds
of
safety
issues
regarding
a
home,
particularly
for
fire
and
for
water,
is
just
the
right
time
to
do
it,
removing
ourselves
almost
a
year
and
a
half
to
really
get
the
word
out
there.
So
I
think
if
community
development
can
come
up
with
some
sort
of
a
plan
for
educational
pieces
and
communication
folks
can
help
with
marketing
roll
it
out.
E
E
L
When
this
comes
back
to
you,
it
will
come
back
in
a
different,
looking
ordinance
and
you
saw
it
the
first
time
extending
this
would
require
it
as
an
additional
ordinance,
but
one
of
the
things
that
director
powers
and
I
were
briefly
talking
to
you.
The
first
time
this
Orbitz
came
up
was
that
we
were
racing
to
get
something
out
immediately,
but
that
we
knew
we
needed
some
longer
term
options.
So
when
this
comes
back
to
you
and
I
think
we
can
have
it
back
to
you
on
the
17th
for
your
approval.
L
Having
to
deal
with
these
kind
of
situations,
instead
of
having
to
go
through
this
two-step
ordinance,
what
would
really
like
to
do
is
allow
the
City
Council
to
designate
an
event
a
an
emergency,
like
you
did
with
this
flood
event,
it's
a
local
emergency
and
once
you've
designated
an
event,
a
local
emergency.
You
can
by
regular
motion,
decide
whether
or
not
to
waive
building
fees,
and
that
way,
it's
just
something
that
you
can
do
quickly.
Then
a
subsection
B
will
allow
you,
as
a
council,
to
recognize
a
specifically
identified
danger
or
harm
within
the
community.
L
For
example,
the
lack
of
egress
windows
in
people's
homes
and
again
authorized
by
regular
motion
waiver
of
certain
fees
associated
with
correcting
whatever
that
danger
or
harm
is
so
that
we
don't
have
to
keep
jumping
back
through
ordinances.
Every
time
you
want
to
do
something
to
assist
the
community
with
these
kind
of
events.
So
that's
what
the
what
we
anticipate
the
ordinance
will
look
like
when
it
comes
back
to
you
next
week.
Thank.
E
K
I
actually
agree
with
staff
on
this,
because
roofs
generally
are
covered
for
storm
damage
on
insurance
companies.
Now
the
truth
is
we
had
to
replace
a
roof
that
well
we
wanted
to
go
from
a
shake
roof
to
a
regular
wolf.
The
insurance
company
would
not
pay
for
it,
but
it
wasn't.
I
mean
there
were
storm
damage,
but
it
was
really
thick
shapes,
and
so
it
stands
up
pretty
well.
So
I
do
think
that
if
storm
is
causing
the
roof
problems
that
most
insurance
companies
will
cover,
that's
all.
H
For
the
areas
that
were
in
the
flood,
however,
if
it's,
if
it
goes
past
that
deductible
piece
I
am
concerned
about
the
additional
cost
and
if
it's
not
covered
for
other
wind
damage,
because
that
could
be
more
than
I
mean
the
reason
that
we
had
from
talking
to
people
in
the
community.
The
reason
we
had
such
a
problem,
especially
for
those
two
homes,
is
that
you
had
a
fence
break,
and
so
there
are
other
damage
to
fence.
It.
H
C
H
If
it's
only
for
the
roughs
itself
than
I
would
then
I
would
probably
not
you're,
probably
correct
it
probably
already
is
covered
if
we're,
if
we're
just
doing
more
of
a
wind
damage,
and
that
would
include
the
roofs
because
we
had
the
fence.
I
mean
backed
up
the
good
water
enough,
so
that
have
broke
it
and
then
actually
made
that
whole
flood
thing
a
lot
worse.
So
I
wouldn't
support
it.
Then,
if
it's
only
for
the
road.
E
F
B
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
quick
clarification
to
councilmember
Baron
tines
discussion.
If
people
have
damage
on
their
properties
that
it
was
caused
by
the
events
of
July,
24th
they're
still
eligible
for
our
grant
program,
and
so
if
people
have
2,500
or
more
in
uninsured
costs,
they're
eligible
for
$1,000
grant
program.
So
we're
doing
that
as
well.
Okay
and.
H
B
What
we've
done
is
we've
expanded
the
program
so
you're
familiar
with
the
energy
efficiency
Englewood
program
that
we
do
home
repairs
that
are
that
are
basically
for
energy
improvements
for
income,
qualified
residents
of
Englewood.
One
of
the
things
that
we've
done
for
our
flood
grant
program
is
increase.
The
eligible
dollar
amounts
up
to
$5,000
for
those
same
income,
qualified
households
that
are
obviously
lower-income
and
are
struggling
with
the
recovery.
We've
done,
seven
residential
grants
so
far,
and
one
of
them
has
been
for
an
income
qualified
household
so
far.
Well,.
H
E
J
You
I
also
agree
with
staff
on
this.
The
roof
replacement
waiver
I
had
to
replace
my
roof
because
of
a
hail
storm
a
few
months
after
I
bought.
My
house
I
was
really
sad
about
it,
but
I
was
really
happy
to
know
that
my
homeowners
insurance
covered
it.
Thank
goodness,
if
not
I
would
be
in
in
a
pickle
for
sure.
So
I
am
supportive
of
staff's
recommendation
of
not
waiving
that
fee.
E
We
have
enough
of
resonance
on
no
on
the
roof
replacement
waiver,
but
yes
on
the
extending
of
the
date
of
the
first
one
and
then
yes
on
the
egress
window,
fee
waiver,
I'm,
okay
with
I'm
sorry
I
thought
you
did
you're
you're,
okay
with
the
roof,
yeah
I'm.
Sorry
I
thought
we
had
one
two
three
four,
but
everybody
went
to
weigh
in
I
weigh
in
I'm
in
favor
of
I
agree
with
Mayor
Pro
Tem
on
this
I
think
that
the
insurance
pieces
I.
H
D
The
last
month,
or
so
haven't
been
perfect
in
the
city
and
I
sort
of
deferred
to
a
little
bit
of
what
member
cuesta
brought
forth
in
terms
of
wanting
to
be
as
supportive
as
we
can
and
to
overlook
any
possible
thought.
You
know
any
benefit
of
without
situation
and
just
provide
support,
as
and
as
much
as
we
can
to
some
of
these
citizens,
I
mean
if
we're
paying
for
something
that
insurance
is
paying
for.
That,
of
course,
doesn't
make
any
sense,
but,
depending
on
the
circumstance,
I
just
want
to
be
as
supportive
as
we
can.
B
I
think
here
I
can
the
amplify
on
this,
but
it
wants
an
insurance
company
is
involved,
they're,
really
the
ones
they
were
steering
the
ship
in
terms
of
the
outcome,
with
a
contractor.
That's
used
in
that
type
of
thing,
so
I
think
it
might
be
very
problematic
to
try
to
intervene
and
direct
that
specific
money
back
to
the
homeowner
I.
Think.
I
It's
a
situation
where
we
could
waive
the
fee.
The
contractor
could
either
keep
that
money
and
they've
charged
either
basically
back
to
the
insurance
company.
The
owner
or
the
insurance
company
could
keep
that
fee
as
part
of
their
policy.
There's
no
way
to
determine
that
whether
that
money
would
actually
be
returned
or
taken
off
of
the
customers.
I
I
H
H
So
if
councilmember
quest
I
meant
citywide
during
this
storm
that
we
wouldn't
do,
that,
I
was
kind
of
wanting
to
make
sure
that
we
didn't
pile
on
to
the
people
who
already
had
significant
other
damage
and
would
probably
end
up
being
past
their
deductible
or
whatever,
and
you
made
the
comment
that
that
would
probably
be
covered
in
the
application
that
they
would
do.
You'd
know
that
information.
B
Well
again,
I
won't
speak
for
Karen,
but
I
think
it
when
we
get
into
the
the
water
damage
its
its
self
evident
of
when
it
happened.
I
think
roofs
can
be
a
little
bit
more
problematic
to
try
to
define
when
that
damage
was
actually
incurred,
and
since
the
we've
had
water
damage
from
areas
throughout
the
city,
we
don't
know
from
a
resident
standpoint
exactly
which
structures
were
and
were
not
impacted
and
so
I
think
the
the
issue.
B
F
H
And
that
speaks
to
the
point
that
I'm
bringing
up
and
that
I
think
councilmember,
wink
and
I,
and
if
this
is
the
direction
she's
going.
I
actually
agree
with
her
that,
if
the
hail
storm
hits
tomorrow
and
that
further
damages
a
roof
that
was
already
in
a
building
that
was
flooded.
Maybe
that's
something
that
we
should
consider,
because
it's
the
piling
on
of
this.
H
E
H
B
E
K
E
I
think
we
have
four
of
us
for
consensus
to
say
no
to
it,
but
I
am
willing
to
say
yes,
let's
figure
this
out.
If
we
can
get
more
money
in
the
hands-
and
it
may
be,
it's
just
simply
the
ones
that
have
been
identified
in
the
flood
area
that
we
know
it
had
some
particularly
difficult
challenges
with
all
the
other
pieces.
Is
there
a
way
we
can
add
that
amount
on
toad
there
grant
yeah?
E
B
B
I
should
also
point
out
we're
not
seeing
a
lot
of
reef
permits
so
far,
so
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
that
just
leads
me
to
the
conclusion
was
yes.
There
are
very
specific
properties
that
had
much
more
damage,
but
this
was
more
of
a
water
event.
It
seems
like
than
it
was
a
hail
event,
and
so
that
kind
of
colored,
some
of
our
thinking
in
terms
of
our
recommendation
to
you.
But
those
are
two
things
that
we
at
least
we
could
ponder.
B
One
is
very
obvious
if
people
are
not
insured
and
they
can
give
us
that
assurance
through
some
type
of
decline
from
their
insurance
penny
or
whatever.
Maybe
we
certainly
would
wave
that
we
could
waive
that
fee
and
then
I
mean
we
it's
it's
a
little
bit
more
of
a
gray
area,
but
we
could
possibly
try
to
link
people
who
have
had
both
water
and
roof
damage
for
a
combination
of
those
fee.
Waivers
I
just
toss
those
two
out
for
consideration.
B
E
L
Think
right
at
the
moment
that
step
one
is
we
bring
the
ordinance
back
for
your
approval
and
if,
if
you've
approved
that,
then
it
authorizes
you
to
act
by
regular
motion,
which
means
that
you
still
have
no
matter
what
you
do.
It's
going
to
take
through
October
1st
to
get
an
ordinance
passed
that
allows
you
to
take
any
actions.
So
there's
nothing.
E
Remember,
baron
chinese.
Here's
stick
up
still
because
you
want
to
speak
her
well,
okay,
so
summarizing
you
know
what
you
would
have
them
to
brainstorm
possible
ways.
I
think
the
underlying
feel
for
most
of
them
that
your
numbers
here,
if
you
want
to
add
any
more
in,
would
be
to
figure
out
a
way
to
get
the
money
in
the
pans
of
the
homeowner
and
not
the
hands
of
it's
company
right
and
more
for
the
the
amount
of
the
number
of
things
going
on.
B
E
C
E
E
C
A
Initially,
when
counsel
asked
or
agreed
to
allow
staff
to
bring
forth
the
ordinance
that
provided
for
a
permit
fee
waiver
for
this
issue,
we
kept
the
use
tax
out,
primarily
because
there
are
it's
not
just
the
city
of
Englewood
that
people
pay
use
tax
towards
it's
also
Arapahoe
County
city
of
Englewood
obviously
has
no
clear
authority
to
waive
any
use
tax
that
is
is
owed
towards
Arapahoe
County.
However,
you
could,
in
theory,
waive
that
piece
that
goes
towards
the
city
of
Englewood,
the
three
and
a
half
percent
use
tax.
A
So,
in
order
to
keep
it
cleaner,
it
was
like
just
don't
touch
the
use
tax
piece
just
deal
with
the
fee
piece.
That's
easily
controllable.
Were
the
city
now
our
council
now
to
decide
to
go
back
and
amend
the
ordinance
to
waive
that,
because,
obviously,
the
huge
tax
is
in
our
Municipal
Code
as
well
it
could.
It
could
be
done
for
the
property
owners
that
have
come
in
to
apply
for
a
permit
for
reconstruction
to
be
done.
A
Only
though,
for
that
piece
that
is
owed
to
the
city
of
Englewood,
not
to
rapaho
County,
so
keep
keeping
that
in
mind
as
well.
Plus
it
gets
administrative
Lea
a
little
bit
dirt
difficult
and
burdensome
for
the
finance
staff
to
be
able
to
control
that,
and
look
at
all
that.
So
that's
that's
why
we
kept
that
piece
out.
It
was
easier
just
to
bifurcate
the
permit
from
the
from
the
from
the
taxation.
E
J
K
G
D
E
A
M
The
process
would
have
to
be
that
the
contractors
would
have
to
provide
us
all
of
their
invoices.
They
have
typically,
if
they're,
pulling
a
permit
that
they'll
prepay
building
use
tax
up
front
at
that
point.
That
would
be
not
so
cumbersome
to
go
ahead
and
refund.
The
problem
becomes
when
they
do
not
provide
their
permit
to
the
various
vendors
that
they're
getting
their
supplies
from
they'll
accidentally
pay
sales
tax
or
local
sales
tax
to
those
jurisdictions.
M
M
The
whole
the
whole
idea
is,
if
they
give
them
the
permit,
we
have
reciprocity
with
the
local
jurisdictions
or
the
as
long
as
they
have
that
piece
of
paper
and
provide
it
to
the
vendor.
The
vendor
will
not
charge
the
local
sales
tax
rate,
because
that
will
be
considered
non
taxable
sales
because
of
that
permit
fee
that
they've
already
prepaid
that
local
use
tax.
F
M
H
M
H
M
The
individual
yeah,
but
if
it's
a
general
contractor
it
runs
it
again
into
the
whole
insurance
and
situation.
You
don't
know
if
the
general
contractor
is
going
to
go
ahead
and
then
pull
out
that
use
tax,
that
they
might
be
charging
the
customer
for
the
job
they
might
already
have
the
tax
rate
already
built
into
their
cost
of
doing.
H
Business
with
they
can't
do
that
I
mean
they
have
to
show
the
tax
on
there
and
their
information,
because
I
have
to
pay
it.
So
there
has
to
be
the
documentation
for
that,
but
it
would
be.
There
would
be
something
in
place
for
anybody
doing
work
on
their
own
and
they
might
be
able
to
go
through
the
process
that
you
already
have
set
up
through.
That
will.
H
Could
go
ahead
and
apply
for
that
through
that
grant
piece
or
whatever,
if
they're,
if
they're
already
doing
the
work
and
they're
qualified,
then
it's
probably
going
to
be
part
of
all
of
this
process
that
we're
doing
in
some
way
or
another
it's
going
to
be
identified
already.
It's
not
just
everybody's
use
tax
we're
talking
about
no.
H
M
B
H
E
I
D
D
B
Keeping
very
accurate
records
for
the
people
who've
taken
out
applications
for
our
grants
and
people
who've
requested
more
information,
whether
or
not
they're
in
the
process
of
gathering
their
receipts
for
their
expenses
and
then
obviously
the
people
that
we've
paid
we're.
Keeping
all
that
that
very
closely
recorded.
E
N
D
E
That
you're
asking,
but
what
if
we
it
seems
like
it's,
it's
the
most
vulnerable,
those
who
don't
have
enough
insurance
and
it's
just
really
piling
up
on
them
for
all
the
different
things.
Is
there
a
way
to
identify
the?
It
would
not
be
very
many
where
there
is
sales
and
use
in
the
Englewood
system
that
they're
paying?
Can
we
relieve
them
of
that,
and
or
would
it
be
worth
it?
Would
it
be
better
instead
to
raise
the
amount
of
money
that
we're
giving
for
Grants
and
just
not
be
bothered
with
all
the
craziness?
Well.
B
When
you
look
at
the
cost
of
the
labor
to
to
do
that,
that's
your
call
we'll
take
that
direction,
but
that's
that
was
one
of
the
considerations
that
we
had,
which
was
the
thousand
dollar
grant,
was
really
intended
to
kind
of
cover
that
type
of
expense
as
well
and
to
make
it
a
little
less
bureaucratic
on
our
side
and
a
little
bit
more
facilitative
on
the
recipient
side.
Thank.
E
E
H
Barrington
I
I
think
with
your
inclusion
of
the
of
this
charges
in
that
thousand
to
five
thousand
dollar
relief
that
they
could
get
through
that
application
process
if
you're,
including
those
charges
in
there
that
they
can
get
reimbursed
for
that
and
I,
would
want
them
to
be
reimbursed
it
to
be
qualified
to
be
reimbursed,
regardless
of
who
they
paid.
If
they're
getting
that
grant.
H
If
that's
part
of
the
cost
of
what
they're
doing
to
their
home
to
improve
it
and
make
it
safe
in
the
city
of
Englewood,
then
I
think
we've
kind
of
got
it
covered.
So
in
that
case,
then,
if,
with
that
caveat,
then
I
would
go
with
the
staff
recommendation,
understanding
that
it's
covered
in
the
thousands
of
five
thousand
dollars
correct.
F
H
E
E
H
E
A
Thank
thank
you
mayor
members
of
council.
This
particular
item
came
forward
at
the
request
of
the
people
who
are
renting
the
teeth
on
fire
station
from
the
city
of
Inglewood.
So
if
you
go
back
to
June
of
2016,
that's
when
the
initial
lease
was
performed
with
American
striping
was
name
of
the
company
I
think
it's
a
DBA
that
they're
operating
under,
but
they've
now
entered
their
third
year
of
this
particular
lease
about
early
August.
A
They
approached
the
Community
Development
Department,
at
least
a
representative
from
Keller
Williams
commercial
approached
the
commune
of
element
Department
seeking
to
see
what
it
would
take
to
acquire
the
station
and
they
obviously
put
forth
a
letter
of
intent
which
is
included
in
your
packet
this
evening.
So
really
this
comes
down
to
a
policy
discussion.
Staff
is
not
making
any
recommendation
here.
It's
just
a
policy
discussion
of
the
City
Council.
Do
you
desire
to
see
that
Harvey
Enterprises
doing
business?
A
American
striping
continues
to
lease
this
station
from
the
city
or
you
would
declare
it
surplus
now,
just
to
digress
a
little
bit
any
time.
Any
property
is
declared
no
longer
used
for
municipal
purposes.
Typically,
there's
an
auction
process
that
goes
by
this
particular
lease
agreement
that
was
entered
in
2016
had
a
right
of
refusal.
First
right
of
refusal
clause
placed
within
the
lease
which
essentially
said,
if
at
some
point
in
time
in
the
future,
during
the
time
of
their
lease
that
accounts
declare
this
property
surplus,
it
stipulated
what
would
have
to
happen.
A
What
would
have
to
happen
is
that
a
party
wishing
to
purchase
that
would
need
to
get
an
MA
appraisal
to
determine
what
the
value
of
that
property
is
and
then
acquire
it.
So
the
letter
of
intent
that
we
received
was
a
little
bit
odd
in
that
it
doesn't
conform
or
comport
with
the
lease
agreement
which
basically
again
articulates
that
if
this
were
to
become
available,
they
are
required
to
get
an
MA
eye
appraisal,
as
you
can
see
from
the
the
actual
lease
itself.
This
is
a
bless
you.
A
This
is
a
20
year
lease
a
20
year,
lease
that
there
and
again
the
third
year,
so
the
release
rate
and
this
year
would
be
42,000
heretofore.
They've
been
paying
thirty
thousand
a
year
to
be
in
that
particular
facility.
We
appreciate
the
fact
that
they
are
doing
extremely
well
in
our
community
I
think,
as
we
heard
before,
they've
gone
from
five
employees
to
22
and
are
bursting
at
the
seams.
They
are
looking
at
adjacent
properties
on
T,
hone
and
and
the
Dartmouth
area
to
expand,
and
we
would
certainly
love
to
keep
them
in
Inglewood.
A
J
A
Certainly
I
think
I
would
come
have
to
have
some
study.
We'd
have
to
come
forth
with
a
recommendation
and
enunciate
to
you
why
we
would
feel
like
a
certain
piece
of
property,
wouldn't
be
necessary
for
municipal
youths
any
longer.
This
hasn't
happened
during
my
tenure,
but
for
this
particular
property,
when
the
City
Council
of
2015
may
of
early
2015
made
the
decision
to
contract
with
the
Denver,
City
and
County
of
Denver
for
fire
and
EMS
services.
This
particular
property,
you
know,
came
forward
because
it
wasn't
needed
any
longer.
A
If
you
look
at
our
agreement,
which
goes
another
I
think
we
have
another
17
16
years
now
and
in
the
agreement
is
crazy
to
2035
2036
time
timeframe,
it
was
determined
that
we
wouldn't
need
to
utilize.
The
t
home
fire
station
as
Denver,
has
several
fire
stations
that
surround
this
community
and
serve
Englewood,
including
station
36,
which
is
located
and
Sheridan,
which
also
is
operated
and
maintained
by
the
Denver
Fire
Department
station
23
station
22.
That
are
also
in
this
sphere
of
Englewood
that
responds
to
Engle
at
any
time.
A
There
is
a
cataclysmic
event
that
requires
more
than
the
resources
that
Englewood
has
or
that
the
Sheridan
station
would
provide
to
us.
So
that's
why
this
lease
came
forward.
Initially,
the
council
at
that
time
decided
that
it
was
not
in
their
mindset
to
want
to
sell
this
asset.
They
wanted
to
keep
the
property,
and
so
in
an
effort
to
try
to
leverage
the
property
that
we
have
and
the
best
way
possible.
That's
when
an
RFP
went
out
for
the
leasing
of
that
property,
and
that's
that's.
A
Why
we're
here
this
evening
talking
about
this,
but
typically
again,
to
answer
your
question:
if,
in
fact
a
parcel
of
property
or
some
sort
of
municipal
asset
wasn't
required
any
longer,
we
would
come
forth
to
the
council
and
ask
that
council
to
declare
that
surplus.
Real
property
has
not
transpired
again
in
the
four
years
that
I've
been
here.
Other
property
has
we've
declared
other
vehicles
at
that,
and
that
is
no
longer
needed
for
municipal
purposes
that
you
have
sent
to
auction
equipment,
auctions
or
just
auctions
in
general.
A
Certainly,
a
council
can
open
at
any
time
when
we
first
went
into
this
particular
agreement.
It
was
studied
extremely
diligently
and
when
we
first
entered
into
this
agreement,
the
fire
budget
for
the
city
of
Englewood
was
about
roughly
a
little
bit.
Shy
of.
Well
was
nine
point,
one
million.
But
if
you
subtract
out
the
fire
marshal
function,
should
we
kept?
A
We
decreased
that
cost
by
over
three
and
a
half
million
dollars
in
our
first
year,
so
the
agreement
itself
with
Denver
fire,
like
I,
said
as
a
20-year
agreement,
and
it
would
take
if
I
recall,
correctly,
17
years
into
the
agreement,
to
get
back
to
the
point
where
we
were
when
we
had
Englewood
fire
from
a
budgetary
perspective.
So
it
was
economically
fortuitous
for
this
community,
but
more
so
the
number
of
resources
and
the
types
of
equipment
that
we
get
from
Denver
fire
well
exceeds.
The
capacity
of
anything.
A
Englewood
could
ever
have
been
able
to
do
on
its
own
or
with
its
reliance
upon
what
used
to
be
now
or
still
is
until
the
end
of
this
year,
Littleton,
Fire
and
Rescue
as
well,
a
South
Metro,
Fire
and
Rescue.
A
good
example
of
this
would
be
you
know,
July
24th,
a
but
I
hate
to
bring
that
up
again
with
the
flood.
We
had
technical
rescue
teams
that
were
here.
We
had
the
dive
team
that
was
sent
here.
A
If
you
look
at
what
is
going
on
with
with
respect
to
fire
and
EMS
across
the
country,
even
here
in
this
region,
you
see
consolidating
going
on
so,
for
example,
Littleton
is
now
moving
to
South,
Metro,
Fire
and
Rescue.
You
see
a
number
of
small
departments
now
who
are
asking
themselves.
We
can't
sustain
ourselves
because
we
don't
have
enough
personnel
or
we
can't
afford
the
capital
cost.
D
D
E
E
G
I
have
a
question
in
terms
of
the
pricing
per
square
play
and
just
understand
the
sell
price.
We
have
that
area
zoned
as
industrial,
correct,
there's
other
comps
within
the
packet
that
are
a
mix
of
industrial
residential.
Does
that
depress
the
sale
pressure
to
press
the
square
footage
if
we
still
have
its
own
as
industrial?
It.
A
A
That's
going
to
drive
up
the
cost
of
per
square
foot
as
well
as
the
finishes
floor
finishes
as
well
as
if
tenant
finishes
inside
for
office
space.
So,
there's
a
lot
of
factors
that
drive
that,
and
so
comparing
a
former
fire
station
to
an
industrial
building
is
really
tough.
So
that's
why
there's
a
number
of
factors
that
an
appraiser
would
have
to
utilize
in
ascertaining
what
the
cost
and
value
of
that
land
and
the
improvements
would
be.
H
H
I
think
the
concern
lies
in
what
mayor
Olson
brought
to
us
and
that's
a
city
manager
Keck
that
the
information
we
have
is
all
provided
by
them
until
this
council
makes
a
decision
of
whether
we
want
to
sell
it
or
not.
We
don't
really
have
a
basis
for
what
we
would
sell
it
for
who
else
might
come
to
the
table.
They
have
the
first
right
of
refusal,
but
not
the
first
right
of
refusal
at
the
price
that
they
offer.
H
So
we
would
have
to
make
a
decision
of
what
we
were,
what
we
were
doing
first
and
that
would
be
first.
Are
we
going
to
let
this
property
go
given
the
build-up
of
density
in
the
area?
I,
don't
know
whether
we
shouldn't
have
a
conversation
of
what
we
think
service
in
that
area
would
be
for
Inglewood,
whether
it's
ever
necessary
or
not.
For
that
to
be
a
government
facility
in
the
future.
Ever
again,
Denver
fire
made
that
decision
that
they
would
be
working
out
of
some
other
station
and
that
they
didn't
need
it.
H
H
Industrial
property
is
coming
very
scarce
in
this
area
because
of
the
residential.
But
if
we
thought
that
the
real
future
for
that
area
is
going
to
be
a
different
zoning,
then
we
would
want
to
make
that
determination
and
what
we
were
doing
to
look
at
selling
this
and
that
could
significantly
change
the
price
of
it.
So
we
would
have
to
have
all
of
the
players
at
the
table.
H
Once
we've
made
those
decisions
on
whether
we're
going
to
sell
this,
obviously
the
first
thing
being
whether
we
would
even
sell
the
property,
because
we
don't
know
who
would
come
to
the
table
at
that
point,
what
kind
of
suggestions
they
may
make
or
whether
they
want
to
do
a
PUD
or
rezone,
or
whether
we
would
so
I
think
for
a
little
information
lead
arrived
on
and
what
we
would
be
doing.
I
appreciate
them
coming
forward
with
it,
but
there's
so
many.
H
The
first
thing,
I
really
think
we
need
to
decide,
is
whether
for
any
safety
or
government
purpose
we
may
ever
as
council
member
wing
brought
up.
We
are
not
locked
in
to
Denver
fire.
That
is
a
yearly
contract
that
we
do
so
we
would
need
to
make
determination
first
on
so
many
levels,
to
kind
of
step
up
to
that
and
get
to
that
point.
H
E
E
So
that's
why
I'm
saying
I
would
say:
note
I,
love
this
organization.
They've
been
great
I
hope
they
don't
leave,
but
this
is
a
bit
of
the
tail
wagging
the
dog
for
me
tonight.
So
I
would
prefer
to
say
no
to
this.
At
this
point
it
doesn't
mean
it's
a
no
forever,
but
if
council
would
like,
we
can
put
it
on
the
agenda
for
a
study
session
to
look
at
that
property
and
decide
in
the
future.
Do
we
want
to
let
it
go
to
surplus
or
do
we
want
to
keep
it
where
it's
for
now?
C
I,
for
starters,
thank
you
and
congratulations
to
Americans.
Trophy
there
attends
simply
they
tacked
on
more
jobs
for
the
time
being,
I
think
their
offer
was
just
over
500k.
The
value
of
that
least
taking
three
years.
One
through
twenty
is
almost
nine
hundred
thousand.
We
could
just
write
out
that
lease,
assuming
they
don't,
we've
made
$900,000
over
selling
property
I.
Think
Inglot
citizens
are
expecting
us
to
be
much
more
savvy
with
their
resources.
We
made
a
resume.
K
Agree
with
Marilyn
and
councilmember
quest
I
believe
in
I
do
greatly
appreciate
American,
striping
and
and
kudos
to
them
for
how
they're
growing
their
business,
but
I
do
believe
that
we
do
need
to
be
very
wise
and
what
we
do
with
our
property
and
you
can't.
We
can't
create
more
property.
We
only
have
so
much,
and
so
at
this
point
in
time,
I'm
not
interested
in
selling
it.
E
J
E
Looks
like
we're
fully
in
agreement.
One
thing
I
would
be
concerned
about
for
American
striping
would
be
we
want
to
be
their
their
home
and
I
hope
they
wouldn't
leave
for
this
I
know
they
are
thinking
of
buying
that
other
property,
but
hopefully
they
can
lease
from
us
and
buy
the
other
property,
and
we
have
a
long-term
relationship
right.
E
A
Again,
this
is
what's
brought
forward
by
them
and
I
appreciate
what
they're
trying
to
do
and
they're
looking
out
for
their
own
destiny
and
how
to
control
it.
But
I
think
many
reasons
why
not
to
make
this
property
surplus
have
been
articulated
tonight
and
I
can
certainly
convey
that
to
them.
I
believe
they're,
probably
watching
this
tonight's
meeting,
and
so
again
we
think
thank
them
too.
They've
been
fantastic
tenants
and
just
unbelievably
amiable
folks
to
work
with
and
have
done
a
nice
job
in
making
enhancements
to
that
property.
That
they're,
using
today
great.
F
F
F
G
F
G
G
G
E
C
F
C
F
E
E
G
C
A
E
A
H
E
We're
on
to
item
number
four,
which
has
sales
use
text
code,
definitions,
licensing,
an
Occupational
tax
discussion.
This
is
directional
and
informational
tonight,
so
our
finance
and
administrative
services
director
Kathleen
wrinkle-
it's
here
to
present,
along
with
a
wonderful
news,
I
believe
she's,
going
to
introduce
and
go
ahead
and
take
it
away.
Sure.
N
E
N
So
good
evening,
Council
tonight
we're
here
to
ask
for
your
direction
on
some
proposals.
We've
brought
this
forward
in
March,
saying
you
know
we're
coming
we'd
like
to
make
some
proposals
on
sales
and
use
DAC
occupational
tax.
So
here
we
are
so
tonight
we'll
take
a
look
at
the
standard
definitions,
update
which
Jenny
will
take
us
through
we're
asking
to
require
a
license
of
all
businesses,
rather
than
just
our
retail
businesses
and
Heather
will
take
us
through
that,
and
the
associated
code
changes
that
we'd
have
with
those
things
and
then
proposal
for
a
table.
M
M
This
project
was
a
major
collaboration
between
the
sales
tax
administrators
of
the
surrounding
jurisdictions,
not
only
in
the
Denver
metro
area
but
around
the
state
of
Colorado,
and
it
was
facilitated
by
the
Colorado
Municipal
League.
The
main
objective
is
to
have
a
standardized
definitions
across
the
jurisdictions
within
Colorado,
and
these
definitions
are
to
provide
clarification
and
consistency
across
the
jurisdictions
and
adopting
these
definitions
will
not
change
the
existing
tax
base
and
that's
the
major
intent
of
these
standard
definitions.
M
The
Colorado
Colorado
legislative
history
that
brought
this
particular
project
into
existence
was
back
in
29
or
2014.
Excuse
me,
the
Colorado
General
Assembly
was
putting
forward
a
proposal
for
a
constitutional
amendment
to
standardize
definitions,
and
this
amendment
was
eventually
abandoned,
but
out
of
this
Senate
joint
resolution,
40
no
38
ask
CML
to
develop
a
package
of
standard
definitions,
and
this
was
a
project
that
was
similarly
conducted
back
in
back
in
1992
and
we,
as
the
city
did
adopt
those
standard
definitions
at
that
time.
M
M
And
if
City
Council
so
directs
within
the
latter
part
of
this
month
and
throughout
the
month
of
October,
will
work
with
the
City
Attorney's
Office
to
review
and
provide
an
opinion
that
the
standard
definitions
will
not
affect
our
current
tax
base.
Because
if
that
were
to
occur,
we
would
have.
We
would
be
subject
to
a
taper
election
and
assuming
that
no
tabor
election
is
required.
We'll
draft
an
ordinance
to
adopt
the
standard
definitions
upon
City
Council's
direction
will
also
make
tax
matrix.
M
That
is
also
included
in
tonight's
package,
available
to
the
business
community
and
provide
them
a
one-month
comment
period.
So
they
could
provide
us
with
any
questions
or
concerns
they
have
regarding
the
standard
definitions
and
between
November
and
the
end
of
the
year.
We'll
provide
City
Council
with
the
comments
received
from
the
business
community.
During
that
comment
period
and
draft
standard
definitions,
ordinance
again
with
the
assistance
of
the
City
Attorney's
Office.
M
And
then
this
this
slide
right
here
just
provides
you
some
of
the
appendix
and
reference
information
that
we
have
included
in
the
packet
there's
a
letter
from
the
coalition
of
organization
that
that
have
supported
the
definitions.
We
have
the
angle,
would
tax
matrix
that
we
have
reviewed
internally.
We've
looked
at
our
current
code,
looked
at
the
standard
definitions
and
determined,
you
know
whether
or
not
that
they
would
affect
our
tax
base.
K
E
O
F
O
O
O
Local
businesses
don't
always
realize
that
they
might
be
subject
to
use
tax,
because
it's
something
that's
not
very
well
known,
despite
our
effort
with
the
website
and
those
type
of
items
to
get
the
word
out
there
when
we
go
and
conduct
an
audit,
businesses
are
sometimes
surprised
when
we
identify
use
tax
liability
and
we
have
to
assess
that
this
can
lead
to
negative
perception
of
our
city,
which
is
what
none
of
us
want
here.
Some
additional
benefits
to
requiring
all
the
businesses
to
be
licensed
would
be
access
to
monthly
training.
O
O
If
you
do
tell
us
to
go
forward
and
we
update
the
ordinance,
what
we
would
do
to
reach
out
to
those
2,200
businesses
that
aren't
licensed
with
us
is
every
form
of
communication
possible
from
emails
postcards
to
the
website,
as
well
as
social
media,
including
Facebook
next
door
and
paper
methods
of
the
citizen
or
The
Herald.
Another
idea
is
the
Inglewood
Chamber
of
Commerce
and
we'd
actually
discussed,
possibly
a
billboard,
just
something
to
get
the
word
out
there,
although
not
sure,
if
you
guys
would
like
a
billboard,
but
it's
an
idea.
O
We
would
also
allow
an
amnesty
period
of
3
to
6
months
to
allow
businesses
to
become
compliant
in
this
time
frame
so
that
nobody
is
blindsided.
We
don't
want
that.
Nor
do
you
all
if
a
business
does
not
get
licensed
according
to
the
ordinance
after
that
period,
we
would
strictly
enforce
the
$500
fine,
as
allowed
by
our
code.
O
Some
other
code
changes
that
we
would
like
is
to
move
from
a
perpetual
license
to
a
biannual.
This
will
allow
us
to
stay
more
in
tune
with
the
businesses
that
are
operating
within
our
municipality.
In
addition,
we'd
like
to
clean
up
the
coat
sorry
clean
up
the
code
language
so
that
it's
clearer
for
our
taxpayers
to
understand,
especially
if
we're
asking
another
twenty
two
hundred
businesses
to
become
licensed
with
us.
We
want
to
make
it
as
easy
as
possible
for
them.
We'd
also
like
to
improve
the
language
for
the
building,
use,
tax
rate
refund
requests.
O
G
O
Given
how
our
code
is
written,
a
lot
of
businesses
don't
realize
that
they
do
owe
us
that
use
tax
and
without
the
businesses
being
required
to
be
licensed.
We
don't
know
that
they
exist,
so
we
might
be
missing
them
in
audits,
they're,
not
voluntary,
voluntarily,
remitting
it
to
us
and
by
having
all
the
businesses
be
licensed.
Our
goal
is
to
increase
voluntary
compliance.
O
G
F
F
G
O
O
Well,
it
is
per
our
code
that
they
do
have
a
use
tax
liability
if
they
have
not
satisfied
the
sales
tax,
and
so
if
they
are
licensed
and
they're
occurring
and
remitting
to
us.
Accordingly,
then,
if
they
were
to
get
audited,
they
would
not
have
a
deficiency
if
they
did
occur
in
remit
accordingly,
and
they
wouldn't
have
any
penalties
and
interest,
and
so
that
does
work
out
for
them
it.
O
F
M
H
K
N
H
Cost
was
gonna
be
somewhere
around
two
hundred
two
hundred
and
thirty
nine
okay.
So
my
concern
is:
is
that
the
legislature
goes
to
standardized
the
general
legislature.
The
real
politicians
go
to
go
to
standardize
this
and
they
dump
it
and
they
put
it
on
the
back
of
CML
to
go
ahead
and
start
getting.
This
done
and
I
would
kind
of
like
to
know
why
they
abandoned
the
amendment
in
2014.
H
So
I'd
like
just
a
little
bit
more
history
on
why
they
abandoned
it,
because
if
it
wasn't,
if
it
wasn't
palatable
to
them
at
the
time,
especially
with
them
looking
at
getting
a
state
sales
tax
and
then
taking
the
pool
of
money
and
then
redoing
it
out
to
us
I'm
concerned
that
this
I'm
concerned
about
why
they
garnered
CML
to
start
doing
what
might
be
their
dirty
work
on
there
depending
on
why
they
dumped
it.
And
then.
H
M
H
Then
because
then
it
looks
like
they
kind
of
went,
hey
CML
go:
do
we
don't
think
we
can
do
so
I'm
a
little
confused
about
that,
also
with
us
being
a
home
rule
and
each
individual
municipality?
Why
I
think
there
might
have
been
pushback
before?
Is
that
I
believe
that
this
might
take
away
some
local
control
from
us?
I
mean
you?
H
The
I
don't
think
that
it
necessarily
is
a
benefit
or
not
a
benefit
to
a
business,
to
make
it
an
even
playing
field,
because
none
of
the
no
accountants
have
to
be
licensed.
I
have
a
business
license
right
now,
so
I
mean
it
isn't
a
benefit
of
one
to
the
other,
because
we
don't
require
it
of
any
of
them
right
now,
where.
M
Would
benefit
is
some
of
those
businesses
that
operate
in
multiple
jurisdictions
that
they're
they're
aware
that
they,
if
everyone
it
has
to
be
licensed
in
those
surrounding
jurisdictions
around
us,
there's,
businesses
can
come
in
to
Englewood,
set
up
shop
and
then
they're,
not
they're,
not
permitting
the
tax
that
it.
That
is,
do
that
that
they
would
have
to
pay
in
another
jurisdiction
which.
H
M
H
H
Of
your
service
industry,
ones,
I,
don't
know
if
we
want
to
break
that
out.
What
I
have
a
problem
with
is
is
some
of
the
concerns
where
we've
already
had
problems,
with
the
use
tax
being
charged
and
audits,
like
for
pizza
parties
for
some
big
industrial
place,
they're
having
a
pizza
party,
that's
already
paying
the
tax
that
we're
not
kind
of
keeping
within
our
own
understanding
of
what
we're
charging
and
we're
losing
some
businesses.
H
K
Actually
appreciate
councilmember
Martinez
question
about
what's
in
it
for
the
business
owners
and
they
we
don't
have
any
liaison
or
any
representation
for
the
business
owners
in
this
city,
and
so
it's
like
taxation
without
representation.
We
all
sit
here
and
decide
yeah
we're
going
to
increase
the
use
tax
on
you
and
they
have
no
representation
because
they
don't
live
here
most
of
them
and
and
the
employee
benefits
are
the
roads
and
bridges,
and
things
like
that.
K
One
thing
that
I
think
we
need
to
remind
ourselves
is
that
every
business
owner
on
Broadway
and
in
this
city
are
paying
four
times
the
amount
of
tax
that
every
residence
is
paying
and
I
was
talking
to
a
business
owner.
That
told
me
that
some
of
these
businesses
are
paying
ten
thousand
dollars
a
month
in
property
taxes
that
are
coming
back
to
the
city
in
infrastructure.
I
think
my
concern
is
that
we
need
to
be
business
friendly
and
not
want
to
just
get
every
penny
that
we
can
out
of
them.
K
K
M
I
guess
we
need
to
know
a
little
bit
more
of
the
specifics
of
that
particular
case,
but
I
mean
use
tax
as
a
complementary
tax
to
sales
tax.
So
every
everyone
pays
the
sales
tax
it's
use
tax
become
it
becomes
a
use
tax
when
they
haven't
paid
the
sales
tax
on
something
that
is
taxable
and
bring
it
into
the
city
of
Englewood
or
they
pay
something
below
the
three-and-a-half
percent
Thresh.
You
know
local
tax
and
then
then
they're
paying
the
difference
between
say
they
purchase
something
in
Littleton
for
at
three
percent.
M
We
would
only
charge
them
the
difference
between
the
three
and
a
half
and
three
percent
that
they've
already
paid.
So
it's
something
that
they
would
normally
pay
sales
tax
on,
whether
they're
in
the
city
of
Englewood
or
in
a
surrounding
jurisdiction.
So
I
don't
think
it's
a
an
additional
tax
that
that
is
being
required
of
them.
It's
it's
something
that
we
require
of
our
residents.
When
you
and
I
go
shopping,
we
all
pay
sales
tax,
there's.
E
E
H
N
H
M
O
It's
actually
you've
probably
heard
about
it
more
on
the
news
around
tax
time
that
now
there's
a
line
on
the
Colorado
State
return
for
individuals
to
remit
use
tax
when
we're
finally
filing
a
sorry.
Finally,
our
individual
Colorado
State
returns,
so
use
tax
has
been
the
words
been
out
a
lot
more
over
the
last
I'd
say
four
to
five
years,
and
it's
not
a
new
tax.
It's
just
simply.
O
If
somebody
would
have
gone
to
retailer
right
over
here
down
the
street
and
bought
something
and
paid
the
7.75%
tax,
it
would
be
a
fully
satisfied,
but
if
they
go
out
of
the
jurisdiction,
they
go
to
an
incorporated
Arapahoe
County,
that
city
taxes
is
not
being
satisfied
and
we're
just
simply
asking
for
that
to
be
remitted.
Accordingly,
it's
from.
O
E
Want
to
remind
people
as
we
keep
going
here,
is
that
we
asked
staff
to
bring
this
forward.
We
asked
them
to
look
for
ways
that
we
should
be
looking
for
revenue,
and
this
was
one
that
we
talked
about
maybe
several
weeks
ago.
So
it's
not
something
that
they
just
dreamed
up
out
of
the
blue.
To
figure
out,
we've
asked
them
to
come
forward.
We're
gonna
have
more
come
forward,
I'm
sure.
So,
let's
be
kind
to
those
who've
worked
really
hard
on
this
member
quest.
Are
you
the
next
or
member
Sierra
I?
C
O
O
O
C
C
O
And
we
definitely
that's
the
same
method
that
we
had
planned
that
we
did
for
our
mini
residen.
We
went
online
as
I
mentioned.
We
would
also
reach
out,
via
the
Herald
in
the
citizen
and
online
social
media,
next
door,
Facebook,
possibly
presenting
at
the
Englewood
chamber
of
commerce
any
way
possible
to
reach
out
to
these
businesses,
because
we
don't
want
anybody
to
not
be
aware
of
this
change.
If
it
does
happen,.
C
E
M
Would
say
it's
it's
pretty
accurate
that
our
community
development
G
is
individual.
He
gets
downloads
from
the
county,
I
think
either
quarterly
or
monthly,
but
I
could
double-check
that
information
for
you
so
there
if
there
are
any
new
addresses
or
new
Suites
added
to
the
buildings,
he'll
have
that
information
loaded
into
land
track,
I.
E
Think
one
of
my
concerns
would
be
on
slide
20
with
the
personnel
costs.
If
we
did
that
automatically,
and
yet
we
were
off
on
her
mark
with
what
it
would
be,
what
the
revenue
actually
would
be
to
cover
I'd
want
it
to
at
least
cover
the
costs
of
what
it
was,
and
then
the
second
question
is:
when
other
cities
have
come
around
and
done
this.
Do
you
know
of
any
more
recently
that
have
that
have
kind
of
pulled
this
in
to
have
more
consistency
and
what
the
impact
was
on
businesses
did
they
leave
town?
E
I've
heard
that
from
other
cities
and
always
been
surprised
that
we
don't
and
that
that's
kind
of
my
third
question
is:
we've
had
this
code,
just
like
a
lot
of
other
codes
that
we
don't
enforce
and
I
know.
Mayor
pro-tem
has
been
concerned
as
well
of
us
about
other
kinds
of
enforcement
of
codes.
It
seems
really
unfair
to
me
that
we
have
some
folks
that
are
not
actually
paying,
and
yet
we
have
a
code
that
says
they
must.
E
O
We
we
definitely
agree,
I
mean
it's,
you
know,
there's
only
so
many
hours
in
a
day,
and
only
so
many
people
on
the
staff,
but
we
absolutely
are
trying
to
reach
out
to
as
many
businesses
as
possible
and
keep
them
informed.
We
do
offer
a
monthly
tax
seminar
that
is
on
our
website.
We've
also
started
putting
that
on
the
next-door
platform,
as
well
as
Facebook,
to
try
to
reach
out
to
as
many
individuals
as
possible
and
let
them
know
about
that.
O
We
included
one
of
the
topics
on
it
was
what
is
use
tax,
and
so
we
are
trying
to
spread
the
word
as
much
as
possible
just
to
get
it
out
there,
because
it
is
something
that
if
you
read
the
code,
it's
out
there.
If
you
go
to
the
website
it's
out
there,
but
sometimes
people
it
just
it
doesn't
register
and
we
want
to
help
them
understand
what
their
liability
is.
H
O
H
H
Nobody
would
actually
think
that
that
would
be
that
they're
skirting
the
law,
so
I,
don't
know
whether
we
have
an
education
piece
of
it
or
that
if
we
haven't
been
enforcing
things,
I
I
think
we
need
to
come
to
a
determination
on
how
putting
that
forward,
because
that
is
onerous
to
somebody,
and
that
would
be
blood
they
would.
They
rightfully
would
feel
blindsighted
on
the.
H
H
I
meant
for
our
proposed
budget.
Have
we
do
we
have
that
in
there
of
what
we're
anticipating
on
collecting
on
any
of
the
audience?
Okay,
so
that's
I'm,
just
trying
to
ask
that
information
and
how
we're
coming
up
with
that
we're
going
to
cover
239
or
$236,000
by
the
audit
and
what
historical
information
we
have
that
that
what's
going
to
cover
that,
so
if
you
could
provide
that,
that
would
be
helpful
as
well.
That's
all
I
have.
M
Councilmember
Barrentine
on
slide
20,
we
do
indicate,
based
on
actual
the
2017
average
business
use
tax
reported
we're
averaging
on
those
who
have
remitted.
We
would
collect
three
or
3109
dollars
now,
if
you
multiply
that
by
the
450
mm,
I
believe
that's
where
we're
getting
our
14
or
1
million
four
hundred
and
five
felonies
are
all
that.
That's
based
off
of
current
information
that
we
have
no.
H
I
appreciate
that,
but
what,
but
that
current
information
has
little
doesn't
correlate
over
to
what
we're
trying
to
do
one.
You
would
have
additional
audits
that
would
have
to
happen
and
the
additional
licensing,
that's
what
the
236,000
I
thought
was
supposed
to
another
day:
nine
yeah
right.
So
that's
the
additional
piece,
not
what
you've
got
already
I
mean
you're
talking
about
the
increased
educational
piece
and
more
than
likely
increased
audit
piece
to
go
ahead
and
bring
those
businesses
that
haven't
historically
had
to
even
be
licensed,
let
alone
report
that
tax.
M
Guess
I'm
confused
because
the
additional
revenue
that
we're
anticipating
that
we
would
receive
in
a
full
year
would
be
approximately
1.4
million
dollars,
but
because
we're
gonna
incorporate
a
three
to
six
month.
Amnesty
period
we're
looking
at
half
a
year,
so
our
first
year
we're
looking
between
500
to
a
million
dollars
of
additional
use
text
that
we're
anticipating.
N
H
The
reason
that
I
asked
for
businesses
that
had
been
audited
as
we
were
move
in
this
process
that
may
have
left
the
city
is
that
I
want
to
know.
If
council,
member
old
Russell's
point
could
be
well
taken
that,
if
we're
using
a
process
that
they
feel
his
own
rest
or
even
I
mean
whether
they
think
it's
fair
or
not
it's
their
reality
and
they
get
to
leave
if
they've
left
after
being
audited.
That
would
make
some
impression
on
me
so
I'd
rather
not
charge
as
an
example,
the
pizza
thing
and
go.
H
J
D
D
D
F
E
So,
in
the
interest
of
time
we're
at
8:45,
we
have
two
different
pieces
of
information
that
you
want
us
to
give
you
direction
on.
Do
you
are
you
counsel?
Do
you
want
us
to
go
to
the
third
one
I
think
the
next
one's
going
to
be
even
harder,
but
do
you
want
to
make
some
directional
decisions
or
information
to
them
for
the
first
two
and
then
see
where
we
are
on
the
third.
E
J
H
I'm
not
for
the
standardized
definitions,
until
we
have
information
on
exactly
why
32
municipalities
remain
to
adopt
that.
I
think
that
this
is
a
issue
of
Home
Rule
and
some
of
our
own
industries
and
I
want
and
I'm
concerned
about
the
push
for
the
state
piece
of
it.
Along
with
what
the
mayor
said.
For
me,
great.
C
I
wonder
why
those
32
held
out,
and
maybe
it's
just
a
parent-
they
dragged
their
feet.
Maybe
there's
a
good
reason
as
well.
I
certainly
appreciate
the
local
control
and
there's,
if
there's
specific
things,
that
we
need
to
hold
on
to
it's
something
I'd
like
to
consider
a
little
bit
more,
but
it
sounds
like
is
you
can
begin
the
viewing?
You
would
also
get
the
information
back
almost.
E
Am
in
favor
of
this
because
we're
a
long
way
from
approving
it,
so
it's
getting
it
in
front
of
the
attorney
I,
actually
think
it's
going
to
take
a
long
time
for
this
to
this
project,
even
get
done,
probably
I.
Let
you
weigh
in
on
that
and
whether
this
has
got
a
timeline
to
it,
that
you're
clear
about
I.
L
E
The
meantime,
some
of
the
other
requests
for
information
could
be
that
I
would
also
love
to
know
a
little
bit
about
I
mean
one
of
the
questions
is.
Why
haven't
we
done
this?
So
we
can
ask
what
are
the
other
30?
Why
haven't
we
done
this?
Has
it
just
been?
It's
escaped
us
in
time
or
maybe
because
we're
one
of
the
32.
So
just
the
city
didn't
answer.
I.
O
Went
to
the
CML
meeting
back
in
July
and
it
was
regarding
the
sales
tax
project
and
there
were
some
municipalities
that
their
code
is
just
such
a
mess
that
it's
becoming
quite
the
endeavor
to
go
ahead
and
revise
their
ordinance,
and
there
were
a
large
portion
that
we're
working
on
adoption
in
the
same
process.
We
are
analyzing
it
with
their
counsel
and
those
type
items.
So
there's
some
of
the
process
there's
some
that
are
going
along
with
us,
and
so
it's
just
you
know
everybody
has
to
each
the
room.
Perhaps.
O
E
Willing
to
do
that
that
would
be
great
we'd
find
out
a
little
bit
more
and
I,
also
I,
so
I
think
we
have
enough
to
move
it
forward.
I'm
I
actually
think
this
would
be
better
for
business
overall.
They
have
some
streamline
and
not
have
such
a
confusing
thing,
because,
especially
those
are
between
several
cities.
It
just
makes
it
clearer,
which
is
why
the
state
wanted
to
do
it,
but
I
think
it
was
actually
local
control
that
made
them
back
off
from
it.
E
That's
my
understanding
of
it
when
it
when
CML
was
proposing
no
against
it
was.
This
does
not
allow
for
local
control.
Let
us
voluntarily
do
this
and
leave
it
up.
That's
your
understanding,
too,
but
anyway,
we
can
get
more
information
for
that.
I
I'm
sure
someone's
more
knowledgeable
than
I
am
okay,
so
on
do
the
next
one,
which
was
a
second
one.
That's
standardized!
No
sorry
the
business
yeah,
so
the
proposed
tax
code
change
to
require
all
businesses
to
license.
Where
are
we
on
this
one?
G
Same
here,
I'm
in
favor
of
moving
forward
with
the
code
change
I
see
it
the
other
way
around
in
terms
of
there's
1,400
businesses
that
are
following
code
and
yet
we
don't
have
2,200
that
are
following
code.
So
I
think
you
know
also
we've
been
having
the
code
enforcement
discussion
over
recent
weeks,
so
you
know
I
think
we
have
a
lot
of
ways
on
how
to
enforce
this.
J
H
H
If
there
is
the
belief
that
they
have
use
tax
issues
that
they
are
needing
to
deal
with
is
anecdotal
in
those
businesses
currently
right
now
it
would
increase
it
because
we
would
have
a
record.
We
would
know
how
many
businesses
and
they
would
be
licensed,
but
they're
not
skirting
any
law
right
now,
they're
not
required
to
be
licensed
and
then
there's
the
assumption
that
they
have,
and
it
is
an
assumption
that
they
have
a
some
use
tax
thing.
H
They
could
be
paying
more
to
get
their
paper
for
their
printer
and
for
the
accounting
they
could
be
that
they
put
in
their
printer.
They
could
be
paying
a
higher
tax
for
their
pizza,
that
they
give
their
employees
or
they
could
be
paying
less
than
ours
whatever.
That
is,
but
that's
that's
an
assessment.
That's
why
I
asked
for
that.
Additional
information.
I,
don't
want
anybody
to
get
the
impression
that
we
have
22
business
2,200
businesses
in
this
community
that
are
lawbreakers.
That's
not
necessarily
all.
H
I'm
not
trying
to
put
that
out
there,
but
we
could
potentially
have
some
additional
I
mean.
Obviously
we're
looking
to
have
additional
revenue
from
this,
so
I
think
that
there
are
some
more
serious
concerns,
especially
the
more
entrepreneurial
and
localized.
We
get
that
we
may
cause
ourselves.
Some
problems
and
I
would
like
to
see
ace
and
the
chamber
come
into
this.
This
is
more
heavily
going
to
affect
the
smaller
businesses.
C
C
C
Having
said
that,
I
would
much
prefer
to
get
the
voice
of
our
business
representatives.
The
chamber,
ace
and
I
do
think
that
the
enforcement
right
now
is
heavy-handed.
I
I
think
this
is
a
problem
and
I
hate
kicking
these
back.
I
think
this
is
one
that
just
needs
a
little
bit
more
work
input
from
business
community
and
then
possibly
loosening
up
that.
C
D
With
what
men
requested
just
said
and
remember,
Martinez
comment
about
maybe
a
little
bit
more
time.
You're
talking
in
addition
to
the
three
to
six
window,
yeah
I
wondered
if
that's
a
little
slim
for
some
businesses.
I
know
we
gave
some
reasons
why
it's
adequate,
but
that
I
could
think
of
a
couple
of
circumstances
under
which
some
business
might
need
a
little
more
time.
So.
F
M
M
E
G
Just
the
councilmember
baron
times
points
he's
correct.
That
2200
was
for
the
unlicensed
and
I
should
the
percentage
that
you
showed
that
weren't
the
use
tax
was
the
20%
estimate
of
that.
So
just
a
question
on
that.
So
are
we
and
I
guess
to
follow
up
on
that
points?
Are
we
only
talking
about
the
license
versus
unlicensed
portion
at
this
point
or
what
aspect
of
this
are
we
looking
for
a
you
to
milk
or
not
well,.
N
K
The
the
part
that
I
am
concerned
about
is
I
do
think.
We
need
to
connect
with
ace
and
the
chamber
to
work
on
this
and
I
am
more
concerned
right
now
about
perhaps
the
heavy-handed
enforcement
on
some
people
and
not
on
others
and
so
I-
think
that
you
know
not
only
connecting
with
the
ace
and
chamber
but
looking
at
a
way
to
deal
with
these
issues
that
are
business
friendly.
K
Of
course,
people
don't
like
to
pay
taxes
I
mean,
but
we
all
have
to
pay
taxes,
but
I
think
there
needs
to
be
a
way
where
we
can
be
respectful
and
not
adds
more
trouble.
So
I
think
I
would
like
to
hold
off
on
moving
forward
with
it
other
than
getting
feedback
from
ace
and
the
chamber
and
actually
I.
Think
ace
has
Joint
Council
meeting
coming
up
with
us
pretty
soon
right.
E
The
fact
that
strictly
enforced,
the
fine
after
in
2020
that
that's
pretty
generous,
so
I
was
glad
to
see
that
I
would
like
to
see
us
just
take
the
next
step
and
get
it
out
to
ace
and
the
chamber,
and
perhaps
some
of
our
larger
I
mean
Swedish
is
one
of
those
that
had
a
use
tax
issue
because
of
this
right
or
just
actually
they're
not
licensed
as
a
business.
But
so
that
is
an
example.
That's
an
awfully
big
one.
E
But
and
then
the
final
thing
would
be
I'd
like
to
get
a
little
bit
more
info
on
these
anecdotal
examples
of
who
is
not
paying
or
who
should
be
paying
in
or
is
paying
or
got
asked
to
pay.
And
it
seems
onerous
and
I
think
you
just
put
out
a
council
request
on
this.
Didn't
you
it
so
did
it
come
last
week's
or
just
today
last
week,
so
there
is
one,
do
you
want
to.
N
Bring
the
numbers
with
me,
but
it
is
in
your
packet
of
responses,
I
think
this
week
was
it
or
last
week
where
we
did
address
council
over
Barrentine
requests
for
having
information
on
which
businesses
had
closed
after
being
the
on
audits.
Now,
that
being
said,
we
do
about
40
audits
a
year.
It's
not
huge.
O
And
we
had
no
businesses
closed
due
to
an
audit.
We
did
have
one
that
was
planning
on
moving
out
of
Inglewood
prior
to
even
the
start
of
the
audit,
so
that
one
did
closed.
Otherwise,
no
businesses
moved
out
and
I
would
like
to
just
put
a
note
in
regards
to
use
tax
liability.
I
was
an
auditor
for
almost
12
years,
conducting
anywhere
from
20
to
30
audits
a
year
and
in
that
timeframe,
I
came
across
one
refund
of
overpaid
taxes
and
no
incidences
of
when
no
tax
was
due.
O
Typically,
it
was
at
least
a
couple
thousand
dollars
up
ten
million
dollars
that
was
due
to
the
jurisdiction
I
was
employed
for,
and
so
that
is
money
that
is
due
to
the
jurisdiction.
I
do
know
that
we've
had
some
relatively
large
collections
for
Inglewood
from
the
current
auditor,
and
so
it
is
money,
that's
due
to
Inglewood
that
can
go
to
help
our
citizens,
and
so
she
has
some
food
for
thought.
E
Thank
You
sounds
like
we're
pretty
much
an
agreement
to
move
it
to
the
stage
of
figuring
out
what
businesses
and
ace
folks
think
about
this
is
that
sound,
accurate
at
first
it
seemed
like
there
were
a
bunch
of
us
that
wanted
to
move
it
forward,
but
is
there
any
okay
with
that?
It's
the
next
step.
Okay,
great!
Does
that
give
you
enough
information
and
then
you'll
end
up
having
to
bring
it
back
to
us?
Obviously,
yes,
so.
F
E
M
J
J
E
E
E
F
E
N
F
O
G
F
E
E
C
C
You
entertained
me
last
week
regarding
short-term
rentals
and
what
does
the
city's
official
position
on
those?
There
was
a
council
response
as
past
week
and
I
appreciate
it,
and
it
appeared
that
they
said
those
were
outside
the
boundaries
of
what's
allowed
per
current
code.
I
was
pointing
the
direction
of
a
staff
report
that
was
placed
into
the
herald
where
they
are
explicitly
described
as
an
illegal
rental.
We
had
that
woman
who
approached
us
last
week,
miss
Tammy
Williamson,
where
it
seems
like
it's
impacting
her
quality
of
life.
As
is
she
counted
the
story.
L
Our
code
has
conflicting
provisions,
so
what
you
received
was
code
provisions
associated
with
chapter
16.
We
have
code
provisions
in
other
sections
that
may
allow
it
and
it's
one
more
example
of
the
fact
that
the
code
was
written
over
so
many
years
without
without
going
back
and
making
sure
that
all
the
provisions
were
going
to
work
together
that
we
have
some
conflicts
and
I.
C
L
Saying
I
don't
see
that
they're
specifically
prohibited
and
there
are
sections
under
the
tax
provisions
that
seem
to
imply
that
that
they
they
are
anticipated
as
lodging.
What
we
call
short-term
rentals
today,
20
years
ago,
was
lodging
opportunities,
so
I
am
now
giving
you
legal
advice
in
an
open
session
that
will
be
used
against
you.
If
you
try
to
take
any
action
one
way
or
the
other
and
I'm
just
really
uncomfortable
doing
that,
because
it
it
blocks
the
city
into
a
corner.
L
C
I
couldn't
agree
more
and
I
think
it
bothers
a
lot
of
people
where
private
industry
has
gotten
way
on
front
of
government
regulation.
I
think
every
other
similar
businesses
are
a
perfect
example
of
that.
Having
said
that,
I
know:
we've
got
open
house
on
the
20th.
It
sounds
like
it's
a
pain
in
the
neck
for
the
description,
miss
Williamson
on
a
daily
basis,
we'll
have
her
open
house
and
I'm
sure.
You
know
the
wheels
will
continue
to
turn,
but
it's
tough
for
her
on
a
daily
basis
and
it
sounds
I.
C
A
However,
the
issues
that
miss
Williamson
described
go
well
beyond
short-term
rentals,
so
those
are
being
examined
and
looked
into
specifically
any
time.
The
quiet
enjoyment
of
one's
real
estates,
interrupted
by
the
things
that
she's
dealing
with
those
are
some
things
that
we'll
look
at
and
our
trying
to
determine
whether
or
not
we
can
enforce.
But
as
far
as
you
just
asked
whether
we're
enforcing
the
closure
not
permitting
any
any
short-term
rentals.
We're
not
engaging
in
that
until
we
get
clarity
of
what
the
attorney
has
just
talked
about.
E
A
E
A
H
Can
yeah
no
question
like
the
mayor
did
I
I
would
agree
that
we,
if
we
do,
have
the
lodging
tax
and
a
system
in
place
already
to
address
short-term
rentals
as
lodging
and
they're.
Not
in
compliance
with
that,
then
it
would
be
something
that
we
could
enforce.
So
I
would
like
to
have
a
little
bit
more
information
on
how
we
could
move
forward
knot
with
a
moratorium,
but
enforcing
the
lodging
requirements
that,
if
they're
acting
as
a
hotel
and
the
short
and
the
short-term
rental
comes
under
that
lodging,
then
we
need
to
enforce.
C
G
H
F
H
H
The
mayor's
question
about
that,
when
you
brought
it
up
that
you
thought
that
the
Mayor
Pro
Tem
had
communicated
with
me,
she
did
communicate
with
me
exactly
what
she
believed
was
going
on
at
the
time
and
that's
why
I
think
it's
very
important
that
the
communication
come
from
one
person
to
Olive,
Counsel
I
mean
I,
don't
think
I've
ever
gotten,
actually
any
personal
communication.
For
me,
the
entire
time
we've
been
mayor
and
I
would
really
like
to
see
all
of
us
communicated
with
equally.
H
She
apparently
left
that
meeting
with
a
way
different
understanding
of
what
ended
up
happening
and
then,
apparently,
the
communication
from
some
subsequent
thing
that
got
to
the
rest
of
Council
was
way
different
than
what
I
got
so
I
would
appreciate
it
if
it
would
go
to
all
the
council
from
one
source
and
not
with
the
assumption
or
pushing
that
responsibility
off
for
certain
people
onto
somebody
else.
I
totally.
E
I
really
do
appreciate.
The
Saturday
was
phenomenal
in
the
city,
the
be
a
tool
there
were
over
20
225
volunteers.
There
huge
turnout
with
like
16
17
teams,
going
throughout
the
city
working
from
8:00
in
the
morning,
some
of
us
until
3:00,
with
projects
that
were
really
cool
and
part
of
our
in
our
seniors
people
who
were
who
had
difficulties
getting
some
things
done
in
their
homes.
It
was
just
a
really
wonderful,
positive,
hard-working
date.
These
these
three
here
did
moving
of
rocket
is
probably
the
hardest
muscled
day.
E
So
I
appreciate
those
everyone
that
came
out.
I'll
probably
mention
this
next
week
in
there
too.
So
I
went
from
that
to
a
ribbon
cutting
that
the
Medici
property,
which
you
know
it's
been
open
for
a
while,
but
they
did
a
special
ribbon
cutting
with
a
number
of
people
and
they
named
one
of
the
building
the
Penn
building,
and
that
was
a
huge
surprise
to
former
mayor
Randy
pan,
which
people
didn't
know
about.
I
didn't
know
until
recently
that
was
a
fun
event
and
then
the
block
party
I
also
went
at
the
beginning.
E
It
was
just
amazed
at
how
many
people
were
there
at
3:30
4
o'clock,
who
was
just
you
know,
people
bustling
all
over
and
lots
of
families
coming
in
with
strollers
and
just
a
great
family
time
and
then
later
in
the
evening,
in
the
closing
concert,
I
thought
was
really
fun
and
the
weather
was
outstanding.
So
I
don't
know
how
you
asked
for
anything
better
then,
on
Sunday
morning,
I
think
we
all
got
an
invitation
for
the
armors
for
the
first
responders
service
that
sanctuary
Church
put
on
and
I
did
go
to
that.
E
It's
very
kind,
sweet
event,
I
think
it
was
their
first
time
doing
it.
So
not
many
showed
up
that
were
first
responders
but
they're
going
to
try
and
work
on
it
next
year,
so
that
more
can
be
there,
but
a
very
strong
intent
to
care
for
the
people
who
really
are
on
the
frontlines
for
us
with
their
lives
all
the
time.
So
it
was
a
great
event
as
well.
E
H
Managers
said
I,
just
have
one
more
question:
city
manager,
Keck
was
able
to
show
me
that
response
and
I
appreciate
it
was
kind
of
hidden
in
all
of
the
other.
It
appears
that
we
have
approximately
10%
of
the
businesses
that
we
audit
close
or
leave
the
city,
and
so
I
would
like
to
break
down
in
those
businesses.
I
do
think
that's
a
rather
high
percentage
and
I'd
like
to
know
like
whether
their
industrial
more
entrepreneurs
are
coming
from
and
the
money
that
they
were
paying,
but
then
leaving.
A
A
H
H
A
I
just
want
to
kind
of
echo
what
you
said
mayor
about
the
be
a
tool
event,
what
an
incredible
opportunity
and
and
just
want
to
thank
those
from
council
mayor
and
request
a
member
Sierra
who
came
out
and
worked
it
it's
one
of
those
days
where
you
wish
you
could
have
those
days.
Every
day
you
had
so
many
people
from
diverse
backgrounds
coming
together,
working
for
the
common
good
of
the
community,
doing
something
for
neighbors,
there's
no
arguing,
there's
no
fighting
nobody's
yelling
and
that
was
actually
fun.
Shoveling,
gravel
I
think
we
did.
C
H
A
I
hope
that
this
community
will
continue
to
support
that
program
going
forward.
I
was
telling
member
questa
during
the
recess
that
hopefully
the
goal
would
be
to
create
a
well-oiled
machine
that
at
anytime
during
the
year,
if
somebody
needs
help,
you
can
just
dispatch
Tony
arnoldii,
the
masked
mistress
of
that
one
tears
can
get
people
out
engaged
in
taking
care
of
helping
other
people
in
the
community.
I
think
that's
that's
the
goal.
What
we're
trying
to
create
here,
and
so
please,
please
continue
that
program
going
forward.
That's
it.
There's.