Toby, are you all set? Yes, you can start anytime, Mayor. All righty. Council, can I ask you to make sure you have yourselves on mute? And then we'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. Good evening, Council, citizen and staff. I call this November 3rd, 2025 special meeting of the City Council to order at 6.30 p.m. Clerk Jeff, you please call the roll. Mayor Ingerman. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Eubanks. Present. Council Member Mulvey? Here. Council Member Cole? Here. Council Member Salazar? Here. Council Member Blue? Council Member Blue, I can see you, but I think you're muted. She told us to mute. I'm here. Thank you. And Council Member Hudson? Here. Madam Mayor, you have a quorum. Thank you. Would everyone please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. We'll move on to our next item, which is approval of the agenda. If there are no objections, the agenda will be approved. Hearing none, the agenda is approved as presented. Next, we have public comment, which is designed for you to share your thoughts and concerns with City Council, but it's not an interactive discussion. If you're attending tonight's meeting and would like to give general public comment, please sign up by typing your name and address into the chat feature. If you called in to tonight's meeting, the clerk will recognize you by the last four digits of your phone number. We'll pause for a few moments to allow individuals to sign up. And if we have any individuals signed up, I'll give some additional instructions after that. Clerk Duffy, do we have anyone signed up this evening? We do not have anyone signed up and no one has called in. All right. Thank you very much. We are moving on to our general business. Our item on general business this evening is Resolution 24-49, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Castle Pines, Colorado, accepting an annexation petition making certain findings of fact. finding substantial compliance for such petition and setting a meeting hearing for properly known as the crow's nest annexation our staff presentation will be given by community development director donna ferguson and i'll go ahead and turn over to you donna mayor first i have a correction yes council member eubanks you said that is 24 49 it's 25 49. I apologize. Thank you for correcting me. Yes. Resolution 2549. Clerk Duffy, do I need to read back that into the record with that correction? No, you're okay because there hasn't been a motion yet. All right. Great. Thank you. All right. All right. Director Ferguson, I'll go ahead and turn it over to you. Okay. Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. Next slide, please. The purpose of this resolution... is to find a petition for annexation in substantial compliance with the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 and to also set its eligibility here. A finding of substantial compliance does not indicate the city's approval or disapproval of the proposed annexation. It simply confirms that the petition is in the correct form and contains all the necessary information to determine if it's eligible to be annexed. Next slide. Okay, thank you. The proposed annexation is approximately 795 acres in size. It is located east of the Canyon's planned development within the unincorporated area of Douglas County along the west and east sides of Crowfoot Valley Road. And it does include portions of Crowfoot Valley Road, as you can see indicated in the blue here. Next slide. Approval of this resolution will set the eligibility hearing date for December 9th. Now, if on December 9th the property is found to be eligible for annexation, then the city will decide whether it actually wants to annex the property into the city limits, and if so, what the terms of that annexation should be. And lastly, if the city does decide to annex the property, it will then need to be zoned, okay? And that zoning would need to occur within 90 days of the annexation. Next slide. So SAP does find the petition is in substantial compliance with the Annexation Act of 1965 and recommends setting its eligibility hearing date for December 9th of 2025. Okay. And that concludes our presentation. Happy to answer any clarifying questions if you'd like. All right. Counsel does, if you have clarifying questions, if you'd please use the hand raise tool in the chat. I see your hand up. Go ahead. Thank you. These are clarifying questions. I'm just trying to understand the process. Are there two petitions or one? You're having a hard time hearing? Are there two petitions or one? Oh, there's one petition. So there's a reference in the documents. about two petitions and two annexations is one for the road and one for the plot so it's one petition it's made out of an assemblage of properties as well as a section of crowfoot valley road but it's one petition so how come it says two annexations i'm just trying to understand this where does that say that In Exhibit 1, it says Annexation Map 1 and Annexation Map 2. There are actually four annexations. If I can answer that, Donna. There's one annexation petition with nine property owners signing that annexation petition. This is what's called a serial annexation, meaning that... The one-sixth contiguity, which is required for any annexation by a municipality, is achieved by annexing pieces of property to achieve the one-sixth contiguity. So there are actually four annexation maps. The first two consist entirely of Crowfoot Valley Road. And that Crowfoot Rally Road is right-of-way owned by Douglas County. And pursuant to the Municipal Annexation Act, the county is not required to be a petitioner for annexation in that circumstance. It's called a flagpole annexation. Those are achieved across the state. What that means is the city would be annexing the full width of the right-of-way of Crowfoot Valley Road. But it's one annexation petition with four maps attached as exhibits. Okay. So it's serial. There's two maps. There's four. And they each build on each other. Just going to finish there. Two maps for Crowfoot Valley Road and two maps for the rest of the nine property owners. or is the county one of the property owners? Okay, that's not a hugely important question, but it would be nice to know. I'll move on if I may, or are we doing this serially? Around Robin. So I'm going to move on to Councilmember Salazar. I'm not sure if this is for Donna or for Linda, but I'm just curious on the timing. In your experiences, is five weeks sufficient time to do the research, to make sure staff has the appropriate time to do a thorough evaluation of the land, the water? I mean, everything that goes in, you all know more than I, all goes into this. Just a little bit concerned that it might be not enough time to do everything that needs to be done to make sure that we have all the information and we can make an informed decision. So I'm happy to, whoever wants to answer. I'm happy to address that question. So in my experience with annexations, the policy has been that you annex and zone concurrently so that you have more information about the zoning and what needs to go into the terms of the annexation. And this process typically takes nine months. Nine months. to do that from annexation petition to zoning. And it's timed in a manner in which is a good pace. However, in this case, right, the zoning is going to trail the annexation of the property. So there's... less requirement for public hearings regarding the zoning. So the five weeks between now and the eligibility is, I guess, that timeframe. What needs to be done in that timeframe? And is that timeframe sufficient to do whatever needs to be done to get to that next phase? Well, all I can say, and Michael, you might want to jump in here too, is if we're not ready, we will open the hearing on December 9th and accept as much evidence and information that we have, and then we'll continue it to a time and date certain if that is necessary. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Eubanks? Thank you, Mayor. So just so I can understand a little bit better as well, Donna, you just said it takes nine months, but if you look at five weeks from today and then 90 days after that, that's not nine months. So can you please just explain your answer of nine months when we're talking like 100 days? Yes. So then this schedule, this timeline is – very expedited and will require a lot of resources to get it to a comfortable point where we can make a recommendation in that time period, three months from annexation. Okay. I'm just curious if it's a nine-month process, why we're making it exponentially faster, but you don't have to answer that. Because this was the timeline that was requested by the applicant. That's my understanding. And we agreed, but it is very fast. Council Member Blue. So, Ms. Ferguson, They've requested this expedition of the process, but we can, if we vote today to say yes to this petition, we are not locked into that timeframe, right? We can, if needed, extend it to give ourselves more time to make sure we do our due diligence and do everything we need to do. Is that correct? So the eligibility hearing that's scheduled for December 9th, yes, that would need to happen. But the decision on whether we want to annex or not, that could be continued. Great. Thank you. Council Member Cole? You're on mute. Still on mute. There you go. No question. No question. No question. Okay. You just had your hand up, so that's what. That's me. Okay. Council Member Mulvey. Yeah, so just so I get this right, if we vote that the petition contains the requisite pieces of paper, for lack of a better word, we must do the eligibility hearing under 104 and 105 on December 9th? Yes. According to the Municipal Annexation Act, if the petition is found to be in substantial compliance with this subsection one, which is a portion of the Municipal Annexation Act, the procedure outlined in 108 through 110 shall then be followed. So this is really a ministerial. The courts have found this to be a ministerial administrative step. It does not mean you support the annexation. I get it. My question was on the timing because I share the concern. Let somebody else ask a question. Council Member Hudson. Thank you. Appreciate it. My question is about the eligibility. When we get to the next step, 12-9, if it's quickly that you can answer that, what does that look like? What is the eligibility? What are we approving? So at the time of the eligibility hearing, we will have gone through the full analysis of the contiguity, confirming, okay, how much of this property is eligible contiguous in the sequence. So it's really more of making sure we have all of that information to look at it. So it'll be a more, again, analysis of those maps and allegations that they have made in the petition. And that's the only thing that would make it eligible or ineligible? Yes. And that steps before zoning, obviously, but before we even talk about that. Thank you. And just to be clear, if I could interrupt. Yes, please. Thank you. So the eligibility hearing on December 9th will consider whether the property is eligible under the Municipal Annexation Act and the Colorado State Constitution. That is another sort of technical review. But also on December 9th, City Council will be presented with an ordinance, and that ordinance is whether to annex the property or not. That is within your legislative discretion. That is where you have complete. See to decide whether it makes sense to annex this property under the terms and conditions of any negotiated annexation agreement. And if you indulge me just one second, because you just raised another question for me, is that before or after we take public comment? you would consider the annexation ordinance after you take public comment. Thank you. So, Linda, on 12-9, if the presentation was given and... the body decides we don't have enough information yet or we don't feel like we have adequate due diligence, we could then continue that meeting to another future date to then make a decision. Am I understanding that correctly? Correct. The Annexation Act says that you have to have at least an hour of testimony at the eligibility hearing, which is an interesting provision within the Municipal Annexation Act. But I think it's to avoid just delaying it for purposes of delaying a decision. But of course, I think this council would have at least an hour of public hearing testimony and evidence at that meeting anyway. So if you needed additional time, you could move and continue it then. Yeah. Mayor Pro Tem Eubanks. Thank you, Maris. I'm still thinking back to the timing of this, and it seems like exponentially expedited. That's a conversation, I think. My question today is, what is the risk if we don't approve the petition tonight? Anyone? Are you asking for your council input? Would that be more discussion and debate? She's not making a decision, but that's kind of, I'm happy to do that in debate where it's appropriate. Lest I get. Council member Mulvey. Can we wait for comments and discussions until that point in time? And can you put your mic on mute, please? That was her point. That was, yes. I was actually saying I would do that. That was my offer. So. You know, these are just. These are just procedural steps I do need to interject here because we have, the city clerk has formally accepted an annexation petition. We have advised council of that previously. And the Municipal Annexation Act says at that point in time, the city clerk must, without undue delay or whatever the terminology is, present it to city council. You now have the authority to consider whether it is in substantial compliance with the Municipal Annexation Act, which is, as the courts have determined, to be a ministerial administrative decision. It is not a policy decision. And we have to set the eligibility hearing within a certain timeframe, which is why we arrived at the December 9th hearing date. It has to be within 30 to 60 days of accepting the annexation petition and finding it to be in substantial compliance. So if you choose simply to not do anything tonight, actually, I've never had that happen, so I need to research that. But I think the better course here would be to find that it is in substantial compliance based on staff's recommendation and move forward with the December 9th eligibility hearing. which has to be published five times in the Douglas County News Press. On December 9th, you will hear lots of testimony, I'm sure, and evidence from the petitioners as well as to why they think you should annex. You'll probably hear why it shouldn't be. There may be reasons to continue at that time. Thank you, Linda, but I'm going to ask my question again. We're asking to vote yes or no on something tonight on the resolution side. And it sounds like what I'm hearing, it doesn't matter what the result of that is. I'm asking a direct question and no one's answering it. If we don't vote yes tonight, what happens? I don't think it's an unfair question. It's likely we will, but why can't anyone answer the question of what happens if we don't vote yes tonight? Why can't anyone answer that question? Attorney Mitchell, can you elaborate on that? If we vote no tonight, what happens? I don't want to just assume that we should vote yes. What if we don't? Okay. If you vote it down, if you find it to be not in substantial compliance, or are you asking if you just don't make a decision? I'm asking if we vote no. by at least four votes tonight, what happens? I'm getting a little, I don't, I think it's a pretty straightforward question. Not really, because it's never happened before in my experience, and the statute doesn't really address that. The statute doesn't address if we vote no. Well, then you don't move forward. That's what I'm asking. Well, there are nuances there, because really this is an A technical decision. It is not a policy decision. So if you're voting no, you're finding that for whatever reasons, the petition doesn't meet the Municipal Annexation Act requirements. And that's what we have found that it does and why we're recommending that you support this particular step in the process. Council Member Cole? No. Sounds like I've been overtaken by events, but I drove over along the road over there this afternoon, and if they started tomorrow breaking ground, they're not going to have anything over there until the end of next year. So why is there so much pressure on our staff and council to get this done in 90 days? That is an enormous piece of property, and it's all rock and tree and valleys and mulches. And it's going to take a while to get that thing ready to do anything. I'm just curious as to why we seem to be jumping through hoops here. And I agree with Chris. If I understand it correctly, our good team has looked at it and said they've checked all the blocks required by the state statute. And we're just looking to move forward. I don't understand the pressure to move at such a rapid pace. Thank you. councilmember cole i would say that you know the question before you as linda has said a few times is a technical application we have found that they meet the state statute the issue of the timing we certainly have that same concern and i think you've you've heard that through a couple of the comments but we do have the the ability if we can't get the financial analysis done or if we can't get something else done that we can continue that part of the process but the policy the I know Linda said it's not policy, but using our vernacular, the policy question before you tonight is a finding of substantial compliance of the annexation petition. And that's what Donna and her staff have done. And it does meet that. And so I think that's the back and forth with Council Member Eubanks and City Attorney Michaud is it does meet it, which is why the state doesn't contemplate a denial. because it's a one-way road. It's essentially like a final plat where it's all technical in nature. It either meets it or it doesn't. And we're saying that it does. But certainly the next steps, if we're not ready and we don't feel like we can provide full and complete information to the city council so that you can make an educated and informed decision, then we will continue that meeting on December 9th. So in layman's level, what we're really looking at right now is whether we agree with the work the staff has done. Correct. For tonight? For tonight. Are we happy with what our staff did? If we're not, why not? If we are happy, we'll just set something up for the 9th of December. Thank you. Council Member Mulvey. Yeah, just so I'm perfectly clear on this, the resolution only sets the eligibility hearing. And it's still for somebody that's asking us to add the ordinance to annex on the same day. So if I understand that correctly, the ordinance to yes or no annex. does not have to be set today. It's not part of what we're asked to do per se. Am I getting that right? That's correct. Thank you. And I do have a follow-up, Madam Mayor, if I may, whenever you wish. Go ahead, Councilmember Mulvey. Councilmember Cole, you still have your hand up, but I'm assuming that you didn't have a question. Okay, go ahead and Councilmember Mulvey. Thank you. You've mentioned that you believe that the eligibility hearing has to be within 45 to 60 days. And we selected that date. And that is ministerial. That is a scheduling matter. But there's a lot of dates between 45 and 60 days. So given that this is such a, it has to be an hour, and even if we move the ordinance, is it possible to set a special meeting and to do it on another day or to add a special meeting to do our other business on December 9th? The question is, is that possible? Possible to change the eligibility hearing date or possible to change the annexation ordinance hearing date? Well, you've already told me that we don't have to do the annexation ordinance on December 9th or even within the 60 days. Somebody's asked us to compress the two. We don't have to do that. My question is whether you've chosen December 9th for us. And we understand you had your reasons to do that. But I'm looking at a budget hearing that day, and I'm looking at at least an hour for this hearing that day, which doesn't account for presentations and deliberation. So what I'd like to ask you, again, the specific question is, since if we pass this first step today, Can we either move the December 9th eligibility hearing to another date or choose that other day here today? Or can we move the other things? Because the window, and tell me maybe it's the window question. The window is 45 to 60 days. Right. So I don't know where I mean, I can take out my calendar. I do that in my job. But when is 45 and when is 60 and why does it have to be the same day as our budget hearing? So I can jump in here. One of the issues that we've had with both November and December is there is no available space in the library. The only times I believe were December 22nd and December 29th, which is over the holiday period. And felt like that is a bad time to do the budget or do the eligibility hearing. And that the fact that we only have December 9th available to us in a room that is probably sufficiently large to handle anybody who wants to come out and has good audio visual for our uses. We did not want to have that meeting virtual. We wanted to have it in person. And that's why we stayed on December 9th for both of those things. It's unfortunate it's going to be a longer night, but it's just a matter of our limited and available space. So I'm going to reserve the rest of my comments on that. I'm very concerned about that part of it. And I'll reserve the rest of my comments on that part. Do you have any additional questions? I do have one more. Go ahead, Council Member Romaldi. Does the substantial compliance part mean that you have to look at whether or not they submitted the community of interest part yet or just that they will? That they have made an allegation that there's a community interest. Okay, that's all they have to do now. And courts have found that the one-sixth contiguity, if they meet one-sixth contiguity, that that is a basis for community of interest urbanization. I've seen that, yes. Thank you. So we have between 30 and 60 days to set the eligibility hearing from the effective date of this resolution. I'm going to move for... I'm going to move please for passage of resolution number 2549 as depicted, but with the change of date to schedule a special meeting for this instead so that we can have full and appropriate consideration of eligibility. Madam Mayor, I made a motion. And may I ask, I'm a little concerned that we don't have a specific date put in there with the motion. We need a date. And I'd like to discuss it. That's my problem as well. So I'm going to stop all of you before we get out of hand and everyone starts talking over each other. If you would like to speak, we need to have a motion on the table or we have a point of order. Council Member Blue, I'm going to give you the floor. I second the motion. Okay, we have a motion and a second. We'll go ahead and begin discussion. Is that a proper motion without a date? Clerk Duffy, is there anything that we need to change at this point on the motion? I think on the advice of City Attorney Michaud, there needs to be a date specified in the motion. I would either withdraw the motion and make a new motion to approve resolution number 2549 as depicted with the change that the date be December 11th. I just want to interject that we do not have space in the library on December 11th. The only two days. Is it point of order? Isn't that inappropriate at this juncture? Because the discussion isn't, which I'll propose in my- Council member. Point of order, which I will, may I say my point of order? Council Member Mulvey, please let me rule on the point of order before you continue. So your point is, Council Member Mulvey, please. Please. We're going to take a five minute break for tone and temperament and we'll come back and you can then reformulate your motion. So we will be back at 710. I hope it serves you well. We'll get started again as soon as I see Chris back online. There we go. All right. All right. Thank you, everyone. All right. We're back from break. We had a motion on the table and no second currently. Council Member Mulvey, can you please repeat your motion? Yes. Is anybody else hearing that? Pardon me? I understand there was a motion and a second, but the motion was determined ineligible or out of order. So I can make a new motion, which I greatly appreciate the break. It gave me an opportunity to look for days. So my motion is to approve resolution number 2549 as written when inserting for the date and time instead, December 18th at 10 a.m. 10 a.m. Madam Mayor, I made a motion. I'll be waiting for a second. Second. I have a motion and a second. Council Member Mulvey will begin discussion with you. Thank you. I've stated my concern already about the timing and the other things that we have on our tentative agenda. that date. And I do appreciate the break. It was a great opportunity for me to double check that agenda. We have already four public hearings scheduled that day, and one of them is the budget. And I know that residents care about that. So since we have to put a date in this, you gave me the opportunity to check the library's calendar and to check our own tentative calendar. And so I made the motion proposing December 8th at 10 a.m., because that is the longest period of time that it looks like the library is available from 9 to 3.30. It's also available on December 19th from 12.30 to 5, December 16th and 17th from 3.30 to 5, December 10th at 12 to 2, also the morning of December 9th. and December 12th from nine to 12. And I also noted that we may be able to just use the space that's already reserved for the URA. I think it's URA on the 12th, on the second, or planning commission on the fourth. And so I make the motion selecting that date, but obviously thinking that we all may prefer another date. And my purpose in doing so is that if we have to put the time in anyway, Let's pick a time when we can really fully deliberate on what the statute requires. Thank you. Council Member Hudson. Thank you. You know, in the last 10 minutes, I've received four emails from residents who really want to speak about this. And I also know there's interest in the budget as well. I think we definitely saw it during the McDonald's debate. the liberation where residents really want to be heard. We went late into the evening, into the morning during that. I still think we turned people away that really wanted to speak on that issue. If we really want to be transparent, we want to be listening to the residents about a topic. If nothing else, just letting them know our reasoning. I think separating the days are good. I actually just seconded that motion so we could get a date and a time on the floor so the city manager and Toby could maybe look at the calendar and maybe find a better date. I know nothing is ideal, but I sure would like to be able to give as much air to community input as possible. The questions I'm getting from the community are really legit. They're righteous. I would love to be able to get more thoughts inside of a live meeting. Just the conversation we've had here tonight seems, I think, productive. So to have that in an open meeting, I think, would be great. Council Member Salazar? I don't think that... Another week is going to make a big difference. I mean, and I also think it's actually going to be worse because we're heading into the holidays where people will be starting their travels, school's getting out. I think it's going to make it less available for people to come, especially during the day. I'm not available at 10 a.m. Most people have full-time jobs. So that's why we always have meetings in the evening so people can come after work, after their kids are home, like taking care of dinner. the opportunity for residents to be able to be present is being mindful of their full lives and not inconvenience them by having a meeting at 10 where they might think we set it at 10 because then no one could come. So I think it's important that we keep it in the evening. And I don't think another week is really going to make a big difference. And again, this conversation tonight, does this petition meet the requirements of, let me look at it again. The, uh, CRS 31-12-104 and 31-12-105. Again, we've been told multiple times on the 9th, we can decide we want to continue the conversation into January. Who knows? But I think we just need to make a decision tonight that staff did its due diligence, made sure that all the requirements were met. When we meet again on the 9th, again, we can decide we're going to have the conversation a different time. But at this point, there's no other time in December. where I feel it would be better for residents to be able to come in and make their points. Mayor, approach Tim Eubanks. Thank you. I was just going to say what Council Member Schell has already said is that I'm on a different note of moving it to a daytime. So I'd like to keep going. Although I mentioned, I do think this is pretty quick. I don't think it's fair to residents to assume that they can make it during the day. So I'm in on this motion because of the date I would propose or like the same date tonight. I know it's a long night, but I think we'll have more attendance or more people will be able to attend at night than during the day. Second, I do want to say I'm still a little concerned that it's like we were, there was no outcome ready if we don't vote no, I'm sorry, if we don't vote yes today. It was, well, we knew, and I felt like it was, oh, we knew you were going to vote yes. Well, we weren't prepared if we're not voting yes tonight. And that concerns me a bit, that it was just that presumption. So that's all I wanted to say, but I'm a no on the day change. Council Member Hudson. Again, I just said it, but I'll say it again. I seconded the motion so we at least be able to debate it and we could amend the motion to change it to a different time in the evening even. to make it more acceptable for our residents. At this point, we're just trying to find a different time and a different date. And that was an invitation to the city manager and to our city clerk to come up with a better time that was maybe more available to all of us. Again, it doesn't have to be 10 in the morning. It could be another time. This was just to start the conversation. I also think it's really interesting since the first person to bring up the speed of this entire process was councilwoman salazar um and so for us to be able to find a different date that might even be farther into the future seems to make sense considering that was a concern of hers um so i still gonna stand by it for someone who went through the mcdonald's conversation and saw people leave angry at 1 30 in the morning uh giving our residents more time i think makes more sense so that's all i remember blue You hear me? No. Okay. I was having trouble with my headset earlier, so I missed a piece. So two things. Well, most importantly, I want to address the question of what happens if we say no. I get the impression, my understanding of what I've heard tonight is that we really shouldn't say no because it is technically in compliance. I have a hard time with the idea of us voting no on this tonight. I think we all need to vote yes. We just have to come up with a date that works. That's what I think I've heard from staff, and so I think it's really important that we go down that path. I, too, don't want to do a 10 a.m. meeting. I think that that is difficult for a lot of our residents. approach to new banks? Thank you, Mary. I just want to be very clear. I'm not suggesting I'm not in favor or I'm voting no. I'm being redundant intentionally. I want to be clear that I almost feel like I don't have a choice or there's really no reason to have a vote. It's not whether or not I agree or disagree. It's the fact that we're not prepared if we say no. So it has nothing to do with whether or not we should or shouldn't. It's like the expectation is we're all voting yes today. We all should vote yesterday, end of story. And there was a possibility that may not happen and we're not prepared. That's my point. City Manager Penny or Clerk Duffy, do you have any additional dates that we could have this meeting beyond December 9th? I believe you said December 22nd or December 29th as options. Those are the only two evenings that the event hall is available in December. If I may jump in here, I think, yeah, when I said that there were not other times available, we were keeping the night meetings for the reasons several council members have mentioned. One suggestion I might make because of the notice and publication requirements in here is that we keep it this meeting on december 9th and then we move the budget and so for let me back up for tonight's motion leave it on december 9th and then we will work because i think it's going to be a challenge by committee um to find another time for the other items on the agenda and i can work with the mayor she sets the ultimate agenda and the time to figure out what else can we do on december 9th but it would be much easier to move the budget hearing and some of the other public hearings as those have not been published already. And the other component, I guess I would say, staying away from December 22nd and 29th, which I think can cause some consternation from some residents on any items that we put there is if council would be willing to do those other items as a virtual meeting. They're not quasi-judicial, so it wouldn't violate the virtual meeting. policy and that would give us a little more flexibility on the times and then we can find a time that works for the entirety of council. Thank you, City Manager Penny. So my suggestion is that we keep it at December 9th, both the budget hearing and this one. It is very difficult for us to have conversations and dialogues and discussions online, and I would not suggest that we do the budget meeting that way. I would suggest that we... keep everything all on the 9th. And then if we don't have adequate information, we can then continue the meeting. We have the hearing as planned per normal, but we can then continue it to a later date because we don't have enough information from staff and staff and has not had enough time to deliver what we have an expectation of for us to make a fully informed decision that night. And so then we don't have to make any changes to the calendar and everything can be in person. May I be recognized? Council Member Mulvey. Thank you. You know, I'm a little disturbed by the juxtaposition of saying we need to have enough time to make a decision and such an enormous agenda. I'm not sure if everybody's looked at the tentative agenda for December 9th, but I was concerned about it before hearing that we need a full hour for this. And, you know, I think... the manager for being flexible because frankly it was my idea to move the others but the motion had to be on this um as we were instructed so i would reiterate that december 4th for planning commission and december 2 um are for i'm sorry um hang on yes, December 2 for the URA budgets are also available. And I assume that we reserve for the full evening. And those two things may not need that full amount of time. So we do have those two things. And since the eligibility hearing would probably not be that complicated because you've already found substantial compliance, that it would be okay to hold them a little bit before the night. It'd still be within that timeframe, I think. So that would be my call. I just question how, when we had the experience of McDonald's hearing, when it was, somebody wasn't able to even recognize me for a subsequent motion because so much had happened. We couldn't take a break. We couldn't allow rebuttal. There was so much difficulty in managing that meeting. How can we possibly manage all of this? So I really, with all due respect, I don't think it's fair to us as a council, we individually, to be able to give it the credence that the mayor says that we should and agrees that we should. So I'm fine. if the decision of this body were to be to amend my motion to go back to the 9th, if there is truly a commitment to make the adjustments that our tentative calendar really show we can. And then may I please ask also a question of staff that has come up, and that is, is it truly possible that the eligibility hearing only can be adjourned or referred or in some way continued. I didn't think that was possible. I thought that the thing that could be continued is the ordinance. And I do strongly believe they need to be separated. So can that be, we can, somebody can make a motion to say, oh, I would like to adjourn this eligibility hearing because then it would go past the 45 days. I'm just not seeing how that's possible, so I want to clarify. Thank you. You are allowed to continue the eligibility public hearing to another date without additional notice if the volume of material to be received cannot be presented within the available time for any given session, except that the hearing must at least have one hour of testimony to be heard. So yes, you can continue the eligibility hearing on December 9th after taking one hour of public evidence, whether that's from Donna and staff or members of the public. If it's too much to consider in one session, you may continue it to a time and date certain. Council Member Salazar. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to address two things quickly. One thing that Council Member Hudson mentioned, you know, my concern about timing. My concern about timing was after this. So the fact that we can continue after the summer night and push it if we need to forward, if we don't have the time, staff doesn't have the time to do their due diligence. The fact that we would move the eligibility hearing one week out, that to me is not a big concern. It's from today, meaning like changing it from today. That's not the big concern. The big concern is going forward after the eligibility meeting. Do we have time, you know, do staff have time to do everything they need to do? And also to answer Pro Tem Eubank's question, the question is, does it meet eligibility, yes or no? If we decided it doesn't meet eligibility, we say no. I imagine then it goes back and it has to be fixed so it does meet eligibility, but staff would not bring something to us if it hadn't meant eligibility. They would have already sent it back to the petitioner to make sure it did meet eligibility before bringing it to us. Hopefully that helps. I see you have your hand up. Did you have something you wanted to help us with? I was just going to reemphasize the easiest thing would be to keep this item on for December 9th in the resolution for tonight. We can't move this item up a week because we won't meet the publication requirements. As City Attorney Machau said, we have to notice it five times. It has to be the week of the 8th or after. So it would be much easier for tonight to approve this and let us work with the tentative agenda. And then we'll send that back out to the council. Okay. Council Member Mulvey, would you accept a friendly amendment to your motion for December 9th to change the date? I believe a friendly amendment is not in order, so no. And I would like to ask him a question. And then I would be happy to withdraw my motion and make another. If my question is, if we can adjust or continue this eligibility hearing from December 9th to another day, and we're really contemplating that as something we might need, why wouldn't we just move it? Just saying. And I want the commitments. if I were to change my motion or to amend my motion on a vote, I want a commitment that one of these other hearings is going to be moved. And I'm asking for that commitment from both staff and council, because to do our budget on the same day as the eligibility hearing is kind of asking a lot. And a firearms ordinance and a massage facility licensing. That seems like a lot to do at the same time. And I'm leaving off the letter of authorization for track B. I'm leaving off the mill levy. I'm leaving off, you know, the consent and all the other things that we do at our meetings. But we also have a study session that day. Honestly, I thought this was a packed agenda to begin with and had previously emailed to the manager to consider this. So I would amend my motion. I would make a motion to amend my motion or second someone doing so. If that commitment were present, I would agree with it. I'm working on rescheduling the tentative while you guys are discussing this. So yes, it's happening. Which ones would be moved? Do we know? No, I don't know at this point. This is the tentative calendar I don't think can be set with all respect by committee at a live meeting here. We've got to look at it. There's a lot of things we can pull off there. We don't have to do the study sessions. We don't have to do some of the second readings. We can move the first readings. So there's a lot of moving pieces in here, but we can definitely pare down the meeting substantially. Thank you for that assurance. Council Member Blue. Thank you, Mayor. I... After listening to a lot of the comments here tonight, and I appreciate them all, I think the best thing to do is to do the hearing for this issue on the 9th and trust the staff to do their best to figure out how to pare that meeting down as much as possible and work from there. I know... I don't know if we can give an assurance that we will get what we want from that, but I do trust that staff will do everything they can to make that a manageable meeting. And so my preference here is to have this motion, whether it's amended, whether it's withdrawn, whatever the process is, and Ms. Duffy can help us with that, would be to have a motion on the table, that basically have the motion that was presented to us by staff on the table so clerk duffy would the cleanest way to do this is if we wanted to vote for the original motion that was recommended by staff if we just vote on this one and then the expectation is they we would vote it down and say no to it and then we'd make a new motion which was the original motion that staff proposed That would be the easiest way. If you did an amendment, you'd have to have a motion for the amendment with a second plus a vote, then go back and amend it if it's amended. Okay, so then Clerk Duffy, I'm going to call the vote. I have a question. Council Member Cole, yes. Point of order. We've seen... Council Member Mulvey had a point of order. Please state your point. Thank you. As mentioned... It can be done if I make the motion by unanimous consent. Council Member Mulvey, your motion is not well taken. I'm going to allow Council Member Cole to have the floor. Probably naive, but why don't we just move the council meeting from the 9th to the 2nd. We already have that room reserved. And I'm pretty sure that the world's not going to come to an end with the ERA meeting to slip one way or another. That way we can have the agenda we have now for the standing council meeting. And then we can have our meeting on the 9th or this hearing. And it won't take up so much time. So we've got within our own capability here. Why don't we just move our council meeting? I second that motion. That's not a motion. Just an idea. Thank you, Council Member Cole. Mayor, Council... City Manager Penny, can we do what is being, what Council Member Cole suggested? I would not want you to make a motion on it because we do have that URA that has to be in person. Yeah. And I don't know how long that is going to take for those, that's adoption of the 25 budget and adoption of the 26 budget. If we can, if Council can approve This hearing for December 9th, as I said earlier, I am already working on moving things around and we will make the December 9th a manageable meeting. Okay. So I'm going to go ahead and call the vote for this motion that's already on the table. Clerk Duffy, will you please call the vote? Certainly. And just to clarify, this is the motion that sets the hearing for December 18th at 10 a.m. Mayor Pro Tem Eubanks? No. Council Member Cole? No. Council Member Hudson? No. Mayor Ingerman? No. Council Member Salazar? No. Council Member Blue? No. Council Member Mulvey? Yes. The motion fails. Council Member Blue, would you like to make a motion? Yes, I would. I'm trying to get to it. I apologize. You're faster than I am. I have to open the staff report to get to it. I apologize. I move to approve resolution 2549, a resolution of the city council, the city of Castle Pines, Colorado, accepting an annexation petition, making certain findings of fact, finding substantial compliance for such petition and setting a public hearing for property known as the Crow's Nest annexation for December 9th, 2025 at 630. Is that the right time? You're reading it. It didn't have the date and time in it. Yes. 6.30. Thank you. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Go ahead. My apologies. I should have waited for you. I knew it was my turn. I think this, I'm trusting Council Member, not Council Member, sorry, Manager Penny. And I see, I could tell from just looking at the video that he's hard at work already on this. I think he will do what he can to make this a manageable meeting. And I think that's the best resolution for what we're trying to accomplish here today. Mayor Pro Tem Eubanks. Yes, I agree with Council Member Bloom. I think that it's best to keep it as is. And I acknowledge the fact that I said, I think this is moving too quickly, yet given the opportunity to move it out, I'm declined. I recognize that, but I still think this is the best date and time to have this. I would concur with both of you as well. Council Member Mulvey? Yes, I would like some assurance that the ordinance to annex would still be separable and separated from the eligibility hearing. I haven't heard anything about that. That would carry the rush concern that Mr. Eubanks mentioned and others did as well. Council Member Mulvey, they are two separate agenda items. So yes, you could continue the annexation and find in favor of the eligibility. I think I'm asking if the ordinance for annexation could be moved to a date in January rather than try to do both jam together. Is anybody in favor of allowing that space between the two? If I may, I think that's what city attorney Michal said, that at the ninth meeting, we can decide the date for, to move the date out. That was my understanding. Not here and now. We have first readings. Yes, Manager Mitchow, can you give us some more clarity there, please? So the annexation ordinance requires two readings. So in order to have second reading on December 9th, I believe that first reading was tentatively scheduled for, was it November 11th, Michael? November 11th, yeah, and that's in the end. agenda planning document. So I believe at that time, if council does not want to move forward with first reading, they could move it out at that time. We're following a timeline that agrees with the petitioners as well. So this is a timeline that has been consented to by them. So I think it would be a common courtesy to ask them as well. So I guess at this point, does council want us to move out first reading of the ordinance from November 11th? So we have on November 11th, we could move out the second. We could hear Yes. You have the second public meeting at a later date, and we could actually make that determination on November 11th, and we wouldn't have to do it tonight. We wouldn't have to mess with the calendars anymore, and we could have staff help look at this longer to give us better options and dates of times, and also have the applicant be able to weigh in on timing as well. And then we could make any changes on the November public hearing for first public hearing, first hearing. First reading. First reading. Thank you. Okay. So then we don't need to make any decisions about this tonight. And I guess I would say too, in terms of it, it's not on the agenda tonight for a discussion item or for any decision of council. We haven't posted an agenda item to discuss the annexation ordinance itself. Right. So I guess I would recommend against deciding that this evening. Okay. Council is more than welcome in your discretion to change first or second reading of public hearings on that annexation ordinance. All right. Council member Blue. Thank you. And I was kind of follows closely on Ms. Michelle's statement there is we're not setting the ordinance hearing tonight. We're not doing anything regarding the ordinance hearing tonight. All we're doing is setting the eligibility piece, right? So at the end of the day, we're not doing anything regarding the ordinance and we can go ahead and adopt this. and we can work on figuring out exactly what we want to do as we go forward with regard to the ordinance, correct? Correct. Thank you. Council Member Mulvey. That was my understanding too, and I'm glad we have that consensus because I was reacting to a statement by staff that they wanted to put eligibility with the ordinance and that surprised me because the first reading of the ordinance to annex is not even on our tentative agenda and the only time it could have been was November 12th so we can politely ask staff which is what I was doing and hoping to receive some degree of commitment that they would approach that issue because we do schedule. And since council doesn't have much say in the schedule, I wanted it to be out there in the open so that the mayor and the council and the staff and everything that's been said as intentions can be out there in the open. So it would be nice. but we don't have to. And I think that was one of my first questions. Okay. So I think that we've had quite a bit of debate and discussion here. If everyone is ready, let's go ahead and call the vote for this. Clerk Duffy, please call the vote. Council Member Cole. You're on mute, Council Member Cole. Yes. Council Member Salazar. Yes. Council Member Blue? Aye. Council Member Hudson? Aye. Mayor Inkerman? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Eubanks? Aye. Council Member Mulvey? Yes. That motion passes. Thank you very much. All right. We will go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 7.46 p.m. Thank you, everyone. Good night, Council. Thank you. Thank you.