Debate on the Camping Ban

This dialogue was taken from the City of Aurora’s Youtube channel from the February 7th Aurora City Council Study Session, February 28th Regular Meeting and the March 14th Regular Meeting. All of the substantive dialogue is included except for some of the Public Invited to Be Heard speakers.

Aurora City Council Study Session February 7th, 2022 on the Camping Ban

You may access the video of the February 27th, 2022 study session debate on The Aurora Channel (Youtube) starting at the 3:48:27 mark.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan: 7C is the camping ban. 

Mayor Coffman: 7C is the camping ban. 7D is a companion resolution to the camping ban. I would like to go ahead and present them both together and then we can decide separately.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Ok,  mayor, would you like to go ahead on 7C?

Mayor Coffman:     Thank you.  What 7C does is a ban on urban camping.  it requires a 72-hour minimum notice with an extension for inclement weather and bad weather.   There are no penalties involved if someone is camping in an unauthorized manner in violation of the law in this particular proposal.   The penalties were stripped from the initial version that was introduced, I believe, in August.  However, if someone refused to move after the required notice and had a designated place to go to, alternative place to go to, then they, in fact, could be arrested for disobeying a lawful order.  Our police officers are currently doing this now particularly along the I-225 corridor. With CDOT we provide security.  I am not aware of any incident where anybody has refused to move when ordered to do so.  It requires the city to provide an alternative location for them to go to and a shelter option.  This can be found in the companion resolution.   All it requires is that such a space is available for each encampment that is abated.  The resolution directs that the city manager should develop the designated spaces and broadly provide shelters for everything from tents, to camping, to a motel voucher for 72 hours or more.  The resolution also provides, at a minimum, food water and sanitation to alternative locations.   this approach is compassionate to those experiencing homelessness and fair to our residents, neighborhoods, and businesses in our city.  I believe that to be cruel to those experiencing homelessness would be to do nothing.  This moves them into a location with sanitation, water and food, with the availability of other services.  With that, madam, mayor pro tem, I’m open to questions for discussion.

Councilmember Marcano:    Mayor, we just discussed this to some extent in our last HRNS meeting and we were told that tents did not actually constitute adequate shelter.  Could someone from the city attorney’s office clarify that please, or from Housing and Community Services? 

Tim Joyce (City’s Attorney’s Office):    HUD does not approve the tents as a shelter option using federal funds, but tents can be a shelter option if we use city funds like marijuana or general funds. 

Councilmember Marcano:  Alright, so I just want to clarify that the mayor said that including his own tents would then not be accurate, correct? 

Mayor Coffman:  I think that we are not in HUD.  I think if you are a recipient of federal funds for the reimbursement for that, it wouldn’t be recognized, but it certainly meets the legal test. 

Councilmember Marcano:    I actually want to push back strongly on your phrasing of cruelty because what we are doing is actually worse than nothing.  It has not accomplished anything but wasting city resources to push people around in perpetuity, which is what we already do, which I think you admitted to some extent.  I was actually reading earlier today because I’ve heard from constituents that, you know, what are we really going to do, because they know that I don’t support just a camping ban.  I’ve told them look at what Helsinki has done. Finland.  Those folks have basically eliminated chronic homelessness by investing in housing first with wrap-around services at the appropriate scale.  They haven’t backed off of that investment either because the economic system in Europe, here, produces homelessness as an externality.  If we could address that, that would be awesome, but I think that is well beyond the scope for government to do on its own.  I was also reading about Houston, so I don’t have to always just point at Europe.  They actually are making serious progress in this area, not because of a camping ban, but because, again, they have consolidated their homelessness services and  are now aggressively pursuing a housing-first strategy and are actually building new housing, restoring existing housing and helping folks actually secure stable employment and stable housing.  So, it’s an all-of-the-above strategy.  It’s housing first, not just housing the way that they like to frame it.  So, what we are doing with this ban, however we try to, whatever legal thresholds we are concerned about meeting doesn’t matter, because ultimately at the end of the day we are accomplishing nothing.  This is the exact kind of “do nothing” policies that got me to run for council to begin with.  We can all pat ourselves on the back and be like, “look, we did something about homelessness.  Aren’t we awesome?”  But you are still going to find tents on I225 after this passes.  You are still going to find tents in Tollgate Creek if this passes.  You are still going to see people living in tents because we haven’t provided them with shelter, and that’s the actual solution to this problem.  What we are doing right now is embarking on the same failed path that liberal and conservative cities all over this country have embarked on.  You are setting us up to basically be the next Los Angeles.  To be the next Denver.  To have a  massive unhoused population to basically set taxpayer dollars on fire, playing an ever increasingly difficult game of whack a mole, because we are not addressing the root of the problem.  So, I guess that I appreciate, to some degree, the work you have put in to this to try to help us not get sued, but I am still pretty sure we are going to end up getting sued, because we had a very long back and forth at HRNS where questions were really not able to be answered in a concise and consistent fashion.  So don’t say I didn’t tell you so when that happens.  Seriously, we have an opportunity here to be trailblazers in this area and actually follow the examples of cities that have done something that actually works.  So, let’s not just pretend that we are going to pass a law, and all of the unhoused people in our city are going to just vanish in thin air.  That’s not how this works.  Y’all know that.  We need to actually provide the solutions to get them off the streets.  Not just say, “you don’t have to go home – oh, sorry, you don’t have a home, but you can’t stay here.  That’s cruelty, and that’s exactly what we are doing. 

Councilmember Murillo:    I just wanted to  circle back on the shelter availability, so HUD’s definition of reimbursable costs is – the proposal in Mayor Coffman’s ordinance is to use tents and pallet homes that are not eligible for reimbursement, so actually you are creating a cost and additional cost for the city by enacting this ordinance.  I mean, we would have to use not city funds and not reimbursed for the types of shelter to meet the sheltering requirements.  It’s a bit hypocritical that in the same meeting we decided that we didn’t want to incur additional costs.  We wanted to be fiscally responsible when it came to honoring our black community and Juneteenth holiday.  We weren’t willing to incur a fiscal cost then.  We also weren’t willing to incur a fiscal cost when it came to our elderly community and the Morning Star Program.  I am frustrated that that is a talking point, because it’s inconsistent to create an ordinance that is apparently creating a cost for the city when the tone of this conversation has been just the opposite. I think it is a bit hypocritical.  It was purported that there wasn’t going to be costs or fines for folks who are victims of this ordinance as it’s written.  Are there any secondary or tertiary citations or processes that would enact jail time, fines, fees that are not explicitly written into this ordinance?  I will leave that to staff. 

Tim Dresdon (City Attorney’s Office):    The ordinance does have a provision in chapter 94 – section 94 – 22 that does make it unlawful to camp on private property, and if you fail to move after you have been ordered and if there is a shelter option available for you, yes, you can be cited.  And if you are cited, you can get a fine. 

Councilmember Murillo:  What would be the fine, City Attorney Joyce?

Tim Joyce (City Attorney’s Office):    It would be the same as any criminal offense.  The maximum fine could be up to $2,650 dollars.  It could also be $0. 

Mayor Coffman:  That’s the status quo right now, is it not?  Our police officers provide oversight when there is an abatement and if someone fails to move then they could be cited under existing law. 

Tim Joyce (City Attorney’s Office):    Yes, sir, they could be for failing to obey all lawful order if they are on private property and the owner asks them to move they can be cited for trespassing. So, yes, there are provisions currently on the books that offer criminal penalties. 

Mayor Coffman:  If I could ask staff what HUD resources we receive for our homeless population.

Jessica Prosser:    On an annual basis, we receive emergency solutions grants, which is typically for folks experiencing homelessness both for shelter as well as homelessness prevention outreach, and things like that.  We supplement those funds with marijuana funds on an ongoing basis for operational needs – partner agencies.  The ESG(emergency shelter grant) funds, specifically homelessness.  It’s about $287,000 dollars a year.  We received about $5 million dollars in Covid relief funds.  Some of the things we have been doing to keep folks safe in the past couple of years has come out of that allotment.  We also received community development block grant money that could be used for some of these different projects as well.  There is a home ARPA category of HUD funds as well of $4.2 million that is  more for a brick and mortar.  Just to clarify going back, the tents have been allowed during Covid because we have been separating people out – so high-quality fishing tents with heat have been allowed during Covid for reimbursable costs at HUD. That will not continue after September to have those funds used any further.  The pallet shelters, any kind of brick-and-mortar shelters, leasing an additional space, those would all be covered as shelter options and staff could certainly come back with proposals around options that could be. 

Mayor Coffman:  And the objective clearly is to have shelters available and other things to develop, but if we don’t have it available as a last resort to utilize our own tents, the unfortunate reality is, if you look at the outreach reports, very few individuals take our outreach people up in terms of services.  My hope is more people will access services if gone to an alternate location where they will be supervised.  And again, we will provide sanitation, food and water for them there.  Again, I think that the worst thing we can do is do nothing and enable their behavior to continue. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Jessica, also, marijuana monies are used for emergency homelessness services as well. 

Jessica Prosser:  That is correct.  Marijuana dollars are used for sheltering services, homeless outreach, homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing. 

Councilmember Murillo:  I understand that there are different pots of money.  I am glad that we understand that there are different sources of funding.  The point I made, though, about forcing this ordinance and a solution that is not refundable remains.  Jessica, can you just clarify, we wouldn’t be reimbursed for any costs related to non-HUD grooved methods of sheltering? 

Jessica Prosser:  That’s correct.  Someone’s personal tent would not meet the criteria for a structure that’s suitable for habitation.  It needs to have heat.  It needs to be sided enough so that hail and other wind and other things wouldn’t be able to dismantle it.  There are some criteria related to what constitutes a shelter facility. 

Councilmember Murillo:  Just zoom out a little bit in terms of enforceability of an ordinance like this. We have to meet a certain shelter threshold, correct?  Do we currently have enough shelter beds to house everyone for this ordinance to be enforceable?  I will start there. 

Tim Joyce (City Attorney’s Office):    We do not need to have a bed for every single homeless person in Aurora in order for us to abate a single camp.  What we need is for every person in a camp must have a shelter option available for that person before we can even consider abatement. 

Councilmember Murillo:    That was part of my frustration at the HRNS meeting – the legal answer can be a little confusing.  I was hoping Jessica Prosser could answer that as well. 

Jessica Prosser :    The baseline of shelter beds – we have 150 on any given night. And kind of brick and mortar we have added some additional capacity without pallet shelters.  Currently, when we are abating a camp, we are looking to see if there is capacity in the shelter.  We can usually accommodate a few people (that’s kind of in the 10 or less category), then we can find spaces to move forward with the abatement.  If we are doing additional abatements more often or of larger camps, we would probably be in a situation where we would need additional shelter option capacity in some way to be able to move forward with those encampments.  At any given time it fluctuates but for the most part, our overnight shelter is full and our pallets have been full.  When one comes available, they become filled. 

Councilmember Murillo:    There was 150 beds on any given night, roughly, and the concern is that with the ordinance, with increased frequency and potential volume of abatements mandated by this ordinance- that we wouldn’t necessarily have the capacity to accommodate those changes.  That we wouldn’t have the capacity there.  Is that correct?  And could you answer how many folks are experiencing homelessness in the City of Aurora? 

Jessica Prosser:    We would have to track data over time – over the next several months to see what that capacity looks like and what the needs be.  At this point, just looking like the number of requests that we have currently in Access Aurora and the number of beds, we would probably need some additional capacity pretty quickly to be able to accommodate.  We would also need to take a look at our current practices of how we are going through the process on the ordinance and if there would need to be changes. 

Lana Dalton (Aurora Homelessness Programs Manager):  As far as account of experiencing homelessness, last year we were able to do a shelter count and not an unsheltered count because of Covid.  We have 595 individuals experiencing homelessness that were accessing shelter on any given night last year.  We had additional beds available because of Covid, so we had an overflowing facility.  We had additional tent capacity; the regular Aurora Day Resource Center open on cold weather nights as well as Comitis shelter, which provided the additional capacity to 594.  This year, on January 25^th, we did a full count.  We have a count for individuals that were experiencing homelessness that were unsheltered as well as sheltered.  Those count results will not come back until early summer because those are controlled by the Metro Denver Homelessness Initiative.  If we were to look at our total bed capacity on any given night, including our cold weather beds, we have between 280 and 360.  If you want a total bed capacity without our cold weather sheltering options, we have 210 to 285.  The reason is  because our Aurora Day Resource Center, which opens on cold weather nights, adds an additional capacity of 75 mats for individuals to sleep on during those cold weather nights. 

Mayor Coffman:  The second vote, the companion resolution, directs staff to increase capability in terms of shelter options. 

Councilmember Marcano:    Since the companion resolution keeps getting referenced, I need to ask staff – is there anything in that resolution that you are not already doing?  Understanding that during the last several years you have been aggressively trying to acquire land or identify partners with land who are willing to allow us to expand our shelter capacity.  Is this not true? 

Lana Dalton (Aurora Homeless Programs Manager):  Councilmember Marcano, that is accurate, however, we have not had the resources to bolster additional capacity for a long period of time, therefore, that would be something needed to accompany this resolution. 

Councilmember Zvonek:    Didn’t we just allocate a $1 million dollars to emergency shelter at the ARPA workshop this past weekend? 

Lana Dalton:  That is also accurate.  That’s for cold weather shelter specifically, so we would need that to continue throughout the year if we are looking at abatements year around. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Also, in addition to consent items that we had tonight, a lot of that was funding for homeless services, yes?.

Councilmember Marcano:    Yes.

Councilmember Zvonek:    We had allocated funds from nonprofits and after having the conversation with the city manager, when this passes, for city manager and staff to reach out to nonprofits to potentially offer more to make sure that we can be in compliance once this passes.  It is important to note that this ban isn’t going to solve homelessness, but it is going to solve a symptom of it.  What we are seeing is that these encampments that are on the sides of our highways and in our neighborhoods and next to our businesses  – they are causing serious public safety issues.  This doesn’t make homelessness illegal.  When it passes, you can still be homeless in Aurora, but what you won’t be able to do is camp in public and have these open-air drug facilities that are creating serious public health and safety issues for the community. 

Councilmember Lawson:  I do have a question about what Councilmember Zvonek stated. We are putting the 72-hour ban abatement – this is going to be what the law is going to be.  How do we work that with CDOT but also State?  We have those two different things:  We have a 72 hour, but if we are working with CDOT, can you explain to me how that is going to work with this ordinance?  They have a different process.  Are we going to do some type of coordination with them?  I know that we do something with them now for meeting the 72-hour provision. Maybe, mayor, you can explain that?  Maybe Mr. Joyce could?

Mayor Coffman:    Sure, well, they ask for our assistance, but they have jurisdiction over state land in the right of ways along 225.  That’s their jurisdiction, but they are working with us in providing security oversight when they do abatements.  In there right of way they wouldn’t be subject to the 72 hours. 

Councilmember Lawson:  This will pass.  You need to educate residents, though.  They still will see that, and that’s not going to be applicable to the 72 hours.  I get calls, and I am sure a lot of other councilmembers do talk about those particular areas too.  I’m just saying the education is going to have to be on the front of residents to say, hey, there is a gap here.  We are going to have to work with this, because they are going to see that and not understand what’s going on with this – with the 72 hours.  That is something that will be interesting to see. 

Housing Director, Jessica Prosser:  We had an intergovernmental agreement just a couple of weeks ago with CDOT that would give us authority to provide abatement in CDOT right of way.  We are partnering with them, and they are providing us with additional budget, however, there requirement is for 7 days.  The city can proactively work towards abating things in right of way; however, they require a 7-day notice whereas ours would be a 72 hour on city property or other public land.  I just wanted to clarify that we do have that intergovernmental agreement in place. 

Councilmember Lawson:  What about an intergovernmental agreement with the state part of it?  That’s where the state park is as well. 

Mayor Coffman:  That’s been tough.  The area outside the fence under one way comes out right by the Cherry Creek State Park.  It’s not in Aurora.  CDOT has worked with Arapahoe County Sheriff’s office in terms of doing abatements right in that area. 

Councilmember Marcano:    That’s actually owned by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.  It’s a different state agency. They are the ones you have to partner with to do that.  They have a completely different schedule and guidelines around this issue as I am sure we are all learning here.  I did want to highlight something that Councilmember Lawson said that I completely agree with and it is something I am very frustrated with, because this is something that I’ve been talking about for over a year at this point, and it’s the dishonesty with the public around this issue that I think the Mayor , frankly, some of our new members of council and some of our older members of council have been taking advantage of.  It is misleading and I would say lying too because we all know we are all on the dais now about this issue. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Point of order.  From a conduct perspective we are not going to attack personal councilmembers.  You can talk about the policy, but we should not be attacking other councilmembers or the mayor. 

Councilmember Marcano:  I don’t think that saying you are lying is an attack, but you are the mayor pro tem, so I will defer. 

Mayor Coffman:    I think Councilmember Marcano gets mixed up when there is difference of opinion, but first, there is lack of integrity on the other side.  Always.  And I think that goes back to his statement that he did earlier that I am going to be introducing a resolution concerning this conduct in the city council in terms of making it an ethics breach. 

Councilmember Coombs:  Mayor pro tem, point of order.                     

Mayor Coffman:  Where the abatements occurred were outside the fence and so that is along highway 83 which is a state roadway (Parker Road), and so it was CDOT that did the abatement. 

Councilmember Coombs:    The mayor just literally carried on. Do the thing that you just point of order to Councilmember Marcano about, and you allowed him to do it. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I am trying to control everybody. 

Councilmember Coombs:  So, I just wanted to be very clear that you have to be consistent across those things but also, I want to address the question of cruelty.  I think that there is inconsistency in these kinds of comments that have been made about the subject matter, namely saying that we don’t want to be cruel by doing nothing, but then at the same time, a comment had been made that the hope is that policy is to make the city of Aurora into an inhospitable place for people to experience sheltered homelessness.  I don’t think that we can say that we both want to avoid cruelty and we want to create an inhospitable environment for people.  Creating an inhospitable is a cruelty to them.  Saying you would rather they just go to another city.  What really ends up happening is they move to another city for a little bit, and then they come back to our city, or they go from one part of our city to another part of our city.  And so, let’s really think about the impact and intent of what we are doing and if we say we want to create an inhospitable environment, we also turn around and say that what we want is to avoid cruelty. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  I am going to recognize myself right now.  I think what we are trying to do – I mean people are already camping in tents in terrible conditions.  Horrible conditions that are not hygienic.  I think the camping ban is a way to hopefully move people in these encampments to a safer environment.  I want to say we are not recognizing residents that we have received hundreds of emails from over the past couple of years and business owners that have had to deal with this.  I think in fairness we want to be respectful of those experiencing homelessness, but we need to be respectful of our residents that are our neighbors and also our businesses. 

Councilmember Coombs:    Many of the people currently now experiencing homelessness that are unsheltered or otherwise in the city of Aurora are residents of our city who have become homeless as a result of evictions and other issues that they face.  So, I don’t think we can say drawing a distinction between our residents and people experiencing homelessness.  That would be a false dichotomy of the people having this experience are also our residents. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Fair enough.

Councilmember Murillo:    Last we heard from the police chief was that there was hesitation and a desire to not participate in forcibly removing folks. That would have created a more frequent occurrence created as a result of this ordinance because of the lack of capacity.  They want to be able to be addressing more serious crimes.  Has opinion changed? 

Darren Parker ( Deputy Chief of Police):  Chief Wilson is out of town on a training.  I will attempt to address that question. No, the force’s opinion has not changed on that.  We haven’t had any further, detailed discussions about this. 

Mayor Coffman:    Deputy chief, is it true that your officers have been providing security for these abatements?  So, this is nothing new that you have been doing.  Is that not correct? 

Darren Parker (Deputy Chief of Police):    We have been providing security for these abatements, yes.

Mayor Coffman:    I believe the chief is philosophically opposed to the camping ban, but the fact is the police office has been doing this all along.  Thank you, appreciate that.

Councilmember Murillo:    I guess it begs the question – what is the point of this?  We already have procedures and processes that address circumstances and situations similar to this.  This feels like a non-ordinance only for show.  We are not going to be solving the root cause of any of these issues.  We know for a fact and I’ve heard many councilmembers speak on behalf of all the police officers in these conversations we have had around City Council, but when our police – the head of our police department saying we do not have the capacity and we are reminded in several meetings from several Councilmembers that that is the case, yet when it is opportunistic and convenient, we want to support that opinion or lack of capacity, so we are going to be creating more – an increased volume and then increased need for our police officers to engage in this type of activity to follow this ordinance.  So, we are totally ignoring the fact that we do not have the capacity. We are ignoring thousands of constituent emails of folks who email us about XYZ related to the police department.  They are going to focus their energies with this law we are creating to and it’s going to impact the volume of response by the police department. Again, what is the point of this?  It’s a non-ordinance, and do we not care about the cost we are incurring?  Because that was not the only cost that I heard.  Again, back to the fiscal responsibility and a fiscal conservative, we are increasing, potentially, very likely, of our police department staff. We are increasing the occurrence of non-reversable costs to the city, and we are potentially occurring costs to increase staffing from the housing departments as well.  I don’t see how any of this is in line with the rhetoric around cost neutrality.  Around being fiscally conservative.  Around cutting red tape.  None of that.  There is a lot of inconsistency here, and I think, though it is stated in the ordinance that this will not create any costs, is inherently misleading.  We just heard the three ways in which this would be creating additional costs. 

Mayor Coffman:    It never says that this will be cost neutral.  In fact, it will drive additional cost because it states that it directs the staff to increase capability.  And with increased capability there is going to be cost in terms of providing shelter options, but the fact is that there is great economic damage that these – it’s not just that they are a threat to public health – they are a threat to public safety.  The individuals, quite frankly, their behavior is a threat to themselves, but that there is economic damage created by these.  If you talk to businesses and the property crimes associated with these, the blight associated with these as people drive through our city is problematic, and I think we need to deal with it and that is the objective with this ordinance with the companion resolution. 

Councilmember Lawson:    So, mayor, I have a question for you have kind of abated the question for me.  I understand that along 83 (Parker Road) we do get people contacting us.  I live over in this ward.  I don’t live far from there.  What is going to be your messaging to?  Are we going to try to get an IGA (intergovernmental agreement) with the state?  What are you going to do to tell constituents about that part in your messaging about this ordinance that is not going to be able to do that in 72 hours? 

Mayor Coffman:    I think it will take some education of the public, but when the public sees an improvement – the public is fed up.  The residents of this city are absolutely fed up with what’s going on, and they want this council to take action and this proposal takes action. 

Councilmember Murillo:    I think this is creating false expectations that people are suddenly going to expect us to address all of the issues all at once and that is just not  – legally we do not control all of this, different moving parts and just because the mayor organizes people to email us saying that we want to keep the camping ban, doesn’t mean the majority of residents want a camping ban.  I’m not saying that that is not an opinion that’s held, but I’ve gotten emails.  I think we should address the health and safety issues.  We should help address the underlying causes.  That’s the entire point of the housing strategy that we just implemented.  This is premature at best.  We haven’t even had the time to see how that has impacted homelessness in Aurora.  If we are chasing more than taglines or buzz words on homelessness.  What I did when this first came up was, I asked to speak to staff about what issues they were experiencing.  If you recall, we experienced 3x increase in the volume of just complaints through the city of Aurora on the issue.  It’s not that there are necessarily times the occurrence, it’s just that that’s how many people are contacting the staff.  As a result, we included a new, full-time employee specifically to reduce the red tape internally in procedures around homelessness and addressing – creating a more efficient process specifically dedicated to addressing those constituents connecting and complaining.  They have been hired for not even a month at this point.  We haven’t even seen the impact of how it alleviates that bottleneck because that was a legitimate bottleneck that our staff pointed to and us being able to respond in efficient manner.  And that’s part of the issue – you know, being really honest, we can’t just lump things together.  We have to investigate the data to see what the data is showing us – that we need additional staff capacity.  We haven’t yet had the time to see the impact.  I have many opinions on this as you guys have heard, but this is premature at best. 

Councilmember Marcano:     I just want to close out my piece here by saying I want us to take action, and you are right, the residents demand that we take action and that’s why I have, for over a year, really since being on council, been advocating for a housing first approach to homelessness.  I’m hoping that we can stand a pilot for a social housing program.  I want us to follow the lead of cities across this globe that have actually solved this problem or at the very least, dramatically reduced it while addressing a lot of other socioeconomic issues in their communities.  I think we should follow the evidence.  What this is – I do not consider this action.  This is political theater with a  fiscal note at the very very best.  Given the mountains of evidence we have, these kinds of policies do nothing more than allow politicians to take a victory lap and they did something while setting money on fire.  I feel very confident saying that this is dishonest at the very best when we are interacting with the public.  We know better.  Everyone up on this virtual dais knows better, and our city deserves better than this kind of crap. 

Councilmember Murillo:    Am I correct in understanding that this would be coming up for a vote at our next regular city council meeting on the 14^th?  Is it not true that city council will be in person, but residents will not be allowed to be in person? 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Yes, that is true.  We are looking to bring the people again at a future meeting. 

Councilmember Murillo:    I have concerns with that situation.  I don’t know if it was intentional or not.  I know the mayor and yourself kind of set that up, so I won’t assume negative intention is there.  I won’t assume negative intentions, but optically speaking, the fact that we are bringing up a very politically charged conversation during a meeting that we are not allowing public to be in person – I understand they can be virtual, but I just think it’s different allowing folks to show up in person as opposed to being virtual.  I don’t know, I just think that optically it looks really odd, and I would support postponing until we can get more availability for the public to weigh in in person as opposed to them being separated and only the virtual forum in the future.

Councilmember Zvonek:    You know what Councilmember Murillo, I agree, let’s open it up to the public.  If we can have 70 some odd thousand people at Denver Broncos stadium on a Sunday, let’s open the city building on the 14^th and welcome the public to testify for and against it.  Happy to have that conversation with the public. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  I will just interject here that there is a concern with Covid.  I know the mask mandate has been lifted, but I believe there was concern from staff on capacity in the council chambers for people being right next to each other with no mask. 

Councilmember Murillo:    I just want to honor that you had those questions.  That’s an informed kind of decision.  I wouldn’t want to rush that per se if that is a legitimate concern.  I’m not going to pretend like I know all of the intricacies about our capacity here.  I understand these larger things that are out of control around mask mandates.  I want to be sensitive to that.  By no means am I saying absolutely open it up to the public, but if we are not allowing the public to speak at that meeting, can we postpone this conversation until a later date?

Objections to Moving the Camping Ban Forward Out of Study Session

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  We are looking at 7.c. and 7.d.  7.c. is the camping ban ordinance and 7.d. is the resolution providing shelter options in conjunction with the camping ban.  Any final comments before this goes to the next council meeting?  And further discussion can happen at that meeting as well.  Any objections to moving this forward? 

Marcano, Murillo, Coombs, Medina OBJECT. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Any others?  That is not enough, so it will move forward to the next Regular Meeting. 

Aurora City Council Regular Meeting February 28th, 2022 Debate on the Camping Ban

You may access the video of the debate of the camping ban from the February 28th, 2022 regular meeting on The Aurora Channel (Youtube) at the 3:20:39 mark. Below you may access the a copy of the official minutes of the meeting.

Katie Rodriguez (City Clerk):    Introduction of Ordinance 20-22-12 Ordinance or the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado adding a section to be numbered before 122 the City Code pertaining to and prohibiting unauthorized camping on public / private property and adding article 4 Section 114 -106 through 114-112 to Chapter 114 pertaining to abating unauthorized camps on public property. 

Public Invited to Be Heard

Debra Johnson:    Good evening, my name is Debra Johnson.  Thank you for the opportunity to speak in opposition to this ordinance 20-12 – unauthorized camping bans.  I realize this is trying to deal with the balance between homelessness, affordable housing and quality of life for surrounding neighborhoods.  However, we need to be respectful of these people and the situation they are in.  It is appalling that the first aspect the city promotes in the ordinance is aesthetics.  Yes, sanitation and public safety are mentioned, but aesthetics is first.  I do not like seeing people living in the Highline Canal near my house, so no, there isn’t sufficient and affordable housing in the metro area or services to accommodate their needs.  Also, Section 114, which is the section of the Aurora City Code this ordinance is being placed, is labeled “solid waste.”  Is this how Aurora leaders are classifying these encampments and the people that live in them?  Solid waste?  There are other sections of the code that may be better representation like, Section 62, “Environment”, or Section 74, “Health and Sanitation.”  The consideration of this ordinance is premature.  Just tonight a resolution is being introduced directing the city manager to look for and create shelter options for unauthorized camping.  I would recommend the information gathered from the City Manager be part of the Council decision-making process on the necessity and the ability to enforce the ordinance.  In addition, this ordinance does not specify what agency or department in the city will be responsible for writing the regulations for implementation.  You mentioned earlier, “ordinance is law,” not an implementation plan.  Please, do your homework before you pass this law.  Make sure there are resources available and administrative structure available to enforce the ordinance.  As I stated, the passing of this ordinance is premature.  Please vote no or postpone the vote until there is sufficient information to make a sound decision.  And then in reference to your resolution, I just want to add,  I know that these two were put together.  I think that this resolution needs to have a timeframe that the City Manager is to look for, to create maintain and create the options, and who is the beneficiary of this information?  City Council?  Housing Authority?  It’s not clear who will benefit from this information.  I would like to see at  minimum these two items added to that resolution.  Thank you.

Jim Kickbush:  Good evening.  This is my first time, by the way,  I want to thank you, Mayor Coffman, and City Council, especially the new conservative ones.  Thank you.  I support the camping ban, or whatever you want to call it.  I live next to Toll Creek, and it has gotten out of hand.  You can’t even walk your animals anymore.  Please vote yes for this.  Thank you very much. 

Ryan Hanby:    Hello, Mayor and Council.  I want to begin by just saying I’ve spoken in public many times and I’ve never seen the police in the chambers or in the room out front as much as I see tonight.  I see it as a blatant act of intimidation of people who have come here tonight to speak.  I can’t see it as anything other than that.  I want to speak in opposition to the camping abatement ordinance.  I want to echo what the first speaker said.  I think it’s coming without the proper research being done.  There isn’t  a set point in time count for the number of homeless people that are in Aurora.  I don’t understand how you could just say that to band homeless people, which is really what this does – bans homelessness outside of shelters without knowing how many people are homeless in this city.  I also think that without a set amount of money that’s going to shelters, I don’t understand how you can just sweep homeless people away.  I’m not a resident of Aurora.  I am a resident of Denver.  I live in the east Colfax neighborhood, and I know that many of the people that became homeless in Denver have moved into Aurora, and I think that this is what sweeps do.  The sweep program in Denver has failed miserably.  Just continued to move people continuously from place to place and every time people are moved, they lose all of their possessions into these trash trucks that come along with the sweeps.  I also just want to say that I really don’t think that the Aurora Police Department is up to the job of enforcing this camping abatement.  It’s under Consent Decree right now.  I believe we all know what happened with the murder to Elijah McClain.  This body has proven that it’s unable to effectively interact with members of the community and this includes people that don’t have homes within that community.  Many homeless people have jobs as well and something that happens is, you know, when homeless people go to their job during the day then a sweep comes and they come back at the end of their working day, and they have lost absolutely everything in a sweep.  There are so many things that I don’t see in this plan.  Really what we see here is that it’s not just an oversight, but it’s an attempt by the new conservative majority of this board to do something for aesthetics alone. 

David Kabarry:    Thank you for allowing time to speak on this.  I’m here primarily because I’m confused why this camping ban has gotten so far.  Apologize, I’m not the most eloquent, but this type of thing has been tried in multiple cities across the U.S.  It failed in Austin.  It continues to fail in Denver.  It has a lot of liabilities to it.  Why it’s being called a camping ban and not ban on homelessness, right?  Primarily, you know, the issue is how much it’s going to cost.  This is going to kick back on the taxpayer’s big time.  The cost of this program in Denver – there is a specific audit going on now because of how much it’s impacting the city’s bottom line.  The contract to remove that material is a toxic one.  I’ve been on hazmat clean-up teams.  No one wants to touch this contract.  The big-ticket customers that form the base of your, say like an environmental firm that would go out to bid for this, do not want to be doing business with a company going to do this kind of business.  Not to mention, when you have people on site, all of the sudden there is a propane tank or a canister of gasoline, now all of the technicians, they have to be trained, and that’s what the City of Denver is facing right now.  Is this massively ballooning contract.  It is costing them a lot of money.  In addition to this, this is the prime reason why this has come up and why this has gotten so far, is these increases the number of interactions between the public and the police.  That’s why the FOP wants this oh so bad.  Because you increase those number of interactions you increase your funding ask when it comes budget time.  When that happens, there is not existing revenue streams.  You are going to have to pull some new one in. We have already set up a bunch of bad arrangements with metro districts that are bleeding us dry.  This is going to be the nail in the coffin.  At least postpone it to do some more research.  I would love to talk individually with some of you.

Danny Moore:    Good afternoon.  Mr.  Mayor, distinguished councilmembers, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.  My name is Danny Moore, I’m a 24-year retired military veteran.  I’ve worked in Aurora for 27 years.  I raised my children here.  I have a small business in Aurora.  So, you see, I did not just discover Aurora.  I want to encourage you to be strong tonight.  This is not a perfect first step.  This is a first step.  I’m here tonight to advocate for the passing of the unauthorized camping abatement ordinance.  A favorite American poet named James Jones Holmes once said, “there is no exercise better for the heart than reaching down and lifting someone up.”  This what I am here for you to encourage to do.  It is not enough for our citizens to be placed on the sidewalk, or under a bridge.  Or in our sewers.  As a state we are better than that.  We are our brother’s keepers, and sometimes that means we have to help our citizens when they don’t seem to know they need help.  For you see, as a county, we are better than that.  There are many reasons why I could oppose the camping ban.  Safety.  It’s just not safe for our citizens to live on the street unprotected.  Environmental.  It’s only a matter of time before we start to see the toll it takes of having human waste run along our streets.  I would ask you, why do we have an ordinance to pick up animal waste, but it’s ok for our fellow citizens to have their waste run down our streets.  But neither of these are the reason I am for this.  It is simply inhumane.  I want better for our citizens.  We must act as a village, life up our fellow citizens.  The homeless problem has become like many of the solvable problems of our time.  It is much too profitable than to allow it to be solved.  Millions are being spent to keep our fellow citizens on the streets.  Our empathy for public camping has created a hammock that prevents people who need the most help from getting it.  No man, woman or child should be forced to accept the lowest of what our society offers.  To do so is beneath us, and we are better than that.  Tonight, we have the opportunity to lead with cities like Colorado Springs and take tangible steps to end homelessness in our town and creating a public and private center.  Now is the time.  We must do what is right.  We must provide the help where is needed because this is Aurora, and we are better than that.  Thank you, and I encourage you to vote yes. 

Nate Kassa:    Good evening.  My name is Nate, and I am an organizer with the Party of Socialism and Liberation.  I’ve lived in Aurora for over 10 years, and this proposed camping abatement is a disgrace.  What makes it even more disgraceful is the mayor’s claim that this plan is compassionate.  Was this compassion the mayor found after his 1-week stunt pretending to be homeless where he concluded homelessness is a lifetime choice.  This ordinance is an extra infringement on homeless people.  You already spent my money to sweep 80 people just last year.  I personally know a social worker in the Denver area whose job is to find employment and housing for people experiencing homelessness.  And one of the biggest barriers to employment and housing, she says, that when her clients lose vital documents like their ID, Social Security Cards, Certificates of Immigration paperwork and phones in sweeps, it delays their ability to connect, apply for jobs and work on housing by months and most cases, years. I wonder if the mayor were to be on the other side of these sweeps, have his life completely uprooted, would he still call them compassionate?  Is it compassionate to increase the presents of APD (Aurora Police Department) on these people?  Did I dream it, or just a couple of years ago did we not have thousands of people in Aurora flood the streets and respond to crimes of APD?  There are endless scandals.  This is the department that is under a consent decree right now for unbelievable racism and brutalization that they enact on our people.  And how is the solution to give them more money?  That just does not make sense.  How many poor people of color have APD beaten, brutalized, killed and abused, not to mention that the city already owes them millions of dollars, and these crooked police department got millions and millions in settlements after abusing our community and they still want to get sick leave and retention bonuses for their police officers.  Instead, the money should be used to fund housing immediately for these homeless people instead of killing and brutalizing us.  And rather than dehumanizing and degrading poor people, we need to treat them as human.  We need to stop the sweeps.  They deserve clean, safe, decent and permanent housing.  So, we say housing and not sweeps.  Vote against this ordinance.  Thank you. 

Cailtlyn Ammik:    I don’t see any real solutions for the unhoused community in the five-point action plan and camping ban.  I only see an incredible amount of problems.  The camping ban would increase facetime between APD and the community as well as funnel more money into that department instead of using any of that money for any real tangible solutions for the people and people suffering from homelessness.  Any proposal that would encourage additional time policing, a.k.a terrorizing communities is obviously a dangerous decision for your constituents.  A mere 6 months ago an independent investigation on APD and Aurora Fire Rescue found that they have a pattern and practice of violating state and federal laws.  In this proposal it would increase patrols in neighborhoods, but the independent investigation found that the Aurora police has a pattern and practice of racially policing.  So, we know that the means increase patrols in black and brown communities.  Once they are patrolling the communities, all of them become at risk.  APD has a pattern and practice of using excessive force.  Expanding the practice of this enforced displacement of homeless people is just bringing more risk of confrontation, fines, jail time and trauma to an already very marginalized group and there is no meaningful support.  It was found that the APD already had a misplace view of de-escalation, and they don’t focus on dealing with unnecessary escalation in the first place, so why would we ever allow a department with such a stained track record be allowed to have huge role of any homeless measures, and why would we accept such a weak plan for someone who enthusiastically went undercover homeless because that really was a classist, repulsive and disgusting stunt.  Vote no, and please give us a plan that actually addresses the underlying problem facing the community instead of criminalizing being homeless and poor. 

Dakota Dexter:    My name is Dakota.  I am with the Party of Socialism and Liberation here in Aurora.  As a resident in Aurora, I think it is appalling that certain council members and even the mayor has the audacity to suggest that homelessness crises in this city can be solved with more police and violent sweeps.  Just last year, the mayor was pretending to be homeless.  The city conducted 80 sweeps.  I have witnessed sweeps up close, and they are violent.  How much more violence the mayor thinks this community deserves?  As every member of this council and even the mayor knows, there is only one solution to homelessness – housing.  Not the police.  Not sweeps.  Housing.  Anything less is simply cruelty.  Stop playing politics with people’s lives.  If you care at all about the vulnerable people in this community, vote no on this camping ban. 

L:  Hello, my name is L.  I am also with the Party for Socialism and Liberation in Aurora.  You really don’t make this like a welcoming experience.  I’ve been sitting here, as everyone has for an hour.  Something that has really struck me is it seems like members of this council have confused perspective on the difference between deporting their community and condemning community members to being subject to violence.  The violence of being labeled a gang member.  The violence of fractured communities is due to clumsy and profit-driven state intervention.  The violence of losing all of their possessions and their home.  Everything we have heard put forth tonight – the camping ban, a grip, which is part of this 5-point program.  They all seek to terrorize marginalized people in Aurora rather than supporting them.  The money to house the houseless and support the youth exists.  You just refuse to support the people when they tell you what they need. How to allocate that money.  It’s also very striking to me that Mayor Coffman you introduced a version of this camping ban in August and is didn’t pass.  You needed to wait 6 months before re-introducing it. Rather than using those 6 months to really address underlying causes of the challenges facing these communities, you simply brought the same plan back.  Sweeps are still cruel.  They are still a waste of time and energy.  They still create all problems that you have heard people mention tonight.  Six months didn’t change that.  I hope that this council will listen to the people who are here tonight, and I hope that you will vote no on this camping ban. 

Joel Northam:    It’s Joel with the Party of Socialism and Liberation, speaking in opposition to the proposed camping ban.  That you are trying to push through.  I also just want to note that as an aside that nobody that has been through poverty could ever give legitimacy to your finding that homelessness is a lifestyle choice.  As if your few days pretending to be homeless gives you some special insight to the plight of the poor and disenfranchised, especially since you live a life of privilege and luxury.  It was a vacation for you, and if you wanted something to prove you could just go back to Iraq where you were attached to covering up war crimes to a civil affairs officer.  I digress.  This camping ban is cruel, inhumane and it’s noteworthy when Mike Coffman was asked about how shelter might be created to support the resolution, he didn’t have an answer for it and said, “well, we will just wait until the resolution passes.”  Something like that.  Now, call me cynical, but I think you have absolutely no intention or do anything with regards to the social protections for those people.  Call me cynical, but I think that the conservative wing of the council wants to use this in order to hide the larger, systemic housing issues in Aurora.  You know, to make way to attract private investment and other monied interests.  Things like that.  That’s what I think.  You actually have the means to create more social housing to solve this issue.  You could think about the every-increasing inaccessibility to housing in Aurora.  You have the means to expand social protections, vocational training, etc.  more generally, but you said you would rather commit resources shuffling people around endlessly.  People who have nothing and then what, like fining them?  Do you realize that people don’t have anything, right?  When you fine them, they can’t pay you, right?  Do you understand that?  Basic logic, right?  The problem is that some of y’all just hate your non-monied constituents and you see them as a pestilence instead of human beings who have the same need for shelter and economic security as you.  This resolution will only contribute to further dehumanization of an already vulnerable population and will increase the risk of more confrontations and abuses by the notoriously gangster police department. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I just want to make a statement that if you could please refrain from personal attacks on any Councilmembers or the Mayor and keep your comments to why you support and don’t support the camping ban.  Thank you.   

Councilmember Marcano:    Point of order, mayor pro tem.  Just going to state for the record that the 1^st amendment applies to everybody, including the gentleman who attacked the me earlier when you said nothing.  So, I think we can toss it up and deal with it.  Thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Please.  Councilmember Marcano, yes, the 1^st amendment does apply.  I was asking politely just for people to refrain from that.  I think it’s disrespectful and yes, it is a 1^st amendment right, but I think we can be civil.  I appreciate everyone here.  I think we can be civil. 

William Overton:    Good evening council, I thank you for having me here tonight and I would like to apologize for my dress, because I should be dressed better, but I actually have to get to the gym after this.  Anyway, I would like to say as one of the only people in this room that is under 30 that is not a leftist, I would like to really say that yes, I am.  I would like to say that I am a right-wing conservative and proud of it.  I am happy to see that this council is supporting a compassionate resolution to move people, as said earlier, off the streets.  It is inhumane.  It was negative 3 degrees the other day, and to have people on the streets – it is uncompassionated.  It is wrong.  It is not safe, and people are dying on the streets.  In regard to that, we cannot allow Aurora to become another San Francisco, Seattle, Portland.  It is incomprehensible.  And when it comes to funding, I know the radical leftists in the room don’t do their research.  But according to KDVR, we spend in this city and the Denver metro area – we spend double on homelessness than we spend on K-12 education.  That is an appalling, and it is sickening.  And I cannot believe that.  We spend double on homelessness than we do on our children of the future.  I am 100 percent in support of this resolution, and I would like to thank the APD for all that they do in order to keep our communities safe.  I also would like to thank you for having me here tonight.  That is all. 

Kafette Kasessie:   Hello, my name is Kaffette, I’m an organizer with the PSL.  I grew up in Aurora.  I went to High School done the street, and I am here to say that I oppose this camping ban.  This camping ban, as well as the sweeps that will accompany them will not do anything to address the problem.  And that is housing these people.  The camping ban and the sweeps are only going to cause more harm, cause more violence, and simply dehumanize the people that it’s effecting.  Rather than having a camping ban, I think it’s more important that the council and the city focus on using its resources to actually provide housing for these people.  To actually give them shelter to solve the problem instead of sweeping it and making it illegal to become homeless.  That’s all I have. 

Jen Beverly:    My name is Jen.  I am an organizer with PSL.  Mayor Mike said that being homeless what a choice after being undercover and mocking the unhoused community.  I have lived in Aurora for most of my adult life and have seen a rise in rents, increase in taxes and killings of unarmed black and brown babies.  I still have seen the lack of support in ends meet for people who can’t pay their bills.  Can’t put food in their baby’s mouths.  Who can’t pay their energy bill?  Who can’t pay their water bills?  The unhoused community is not a new thing in Aurora.  I went to school at Eagle Crest High School.  We had unhoused people out there in the east Aurora area you take so much pride in.  But now, all of the sudden, Aurora has become a major hub for corporations like Amazon and Hellofresh.  And we need to make it pretty and shiny, because we need to appeal to all those people that want to bring money in, and ultimately vote no to unions and say, “no, we don’t want to give you money.  No, we don’t want to give you equal rights.  No, we don’t want to give you raises for killing our babies and doing all of the things that are right for us.”  The camping ban is not a solution.  This is police terror for anyone is touches.  Aurora police is a gang – we know this.  I’ve  been in Aurora my entire life.  I’ve been told by Aurora police that I get stopped because I look suspicious at 16 years old on Iliff and Chambers minding my business.  So, I know what it’s like to be terrorized by APD.  This will only affect the marginalized communities i.e., black and brown kids.  Black and brown moms and dads.  Black and brown people who pay the taxes in this community.  Who put you on these benches?  This will only effect people on the streets.  This will only affect a cycle.  This will be a cycle of incarceration that  most people cannot get out of.  We know this will be a perpetual cycle for those black people that y’all are arresting in the streets.  And lastly, I want to touch on a comment that was made by Francois Bergan about public comments and about the fact that you want to cut down the time of public comment.  You made a comment about Elijah McClain and the amount of people who came in here talking about him.  That was an interest of the public.  Elijah McClain was the interest of the public, and if the people in Aurora want to come in week after week to talk about someone who could’ve been my brother, and want to come in and complain and say that APD killed someone that looked like me?  It is up to you to sit up here and listen to those people because they are the ones who put you up here, so your comment was ignorant.  Your comment was not necessary, and your comment was very offensive.  You owe the city of Aurora, someone like me – an apology.  And all you can do is sit up there and listen to comments week after week, because we won’t stop fighting.  And we will keep fighting because of comments like that. 

         Aurora City Council Debate

Katie Rodriguez (City Clerk) :  Item 14.a. is the introduction of  ordinance 2022-12, and ordinance of City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, adding a new section to be 94-122 to the City Code pertaining to prohibiting unauthorized camping on public and private property and are adding article 4 – Sections 114 and 106, 114 – 112, Chapter 114 pertaining to abating unauthorized camps on public property. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Mayor, do you want to go ahead and introduce your ordinance? 

Mayor Coffman:    Thank you, Madam Chairman, I will move item number 14.a.

Councilmember Zvonek:  Second. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  There has been a motion by Mayor Coffman and a second by Councilmember Zvonek.  Discussion?

Councilmember Marcano:    I have a series of amendments I would like to offer to the ordinance. 

Councilmember Murillo:   I was not as quick as you to the draw.  I actually was hoping to make an opening statement, not an amendment.  Before we get into discussion, I just wanted to open with acknowledging the intents, dissention of prior council meetings.  If you have tuned in to prior council meetings, it’s not a surprise when I say there has been contention and it can get very intense.  I do think, though, that this is, you know, too important of a conversation to thwart any potential discussion.  I acknowledge that we are not – there is clear policy difference here with myself and others.  I also want to acknowledge that the mayor has the votes to pass this, but there are several of us – Councilmember Marcano and myself included that do have some amendments to propose.  There are some serious structural concerns with how this ordinance is written, and I think the public deserves to hear that out, and that debate and that conversation – and not get stuck with a procedural “call for the vote”, which would thwart any discussion forward with that call.  I have seen that procedure used to discourage and shutdown any public discussion between councilmembers on the items.  I just wanted to ask the mayor and my fellow councilmembers to see if you guys would agree to not call for the question until we have discussed some of these amendments.  Specifically, there are some structural and legal concerns around the timing of this proposed ordinance, some of the inefficiencies this might create and more color on what people mean on criminalizing, right?  So, I would just ask the mayor and my colleagues not call for the vote until we have had a robust discussion and have talked through these amendments in an effort to not thwart the public’s right to this conversation – having the information.  The full information before we make this vote.  I am just going to leave that as an outstanding request. 

Councilmember Marcano’s Proposed Amendments to the Camping Ban

Councilmember Marcano:    I have, as I mentioned, a series of amendments that I would like to offer for council’s consideration here. Beginning with section 94-112.  My first amendment would be to strike the section of item number 3 that says, “make an arrest” and replace that with “temporarily detain”.  And then, leave in “or otherwise enforce this section” and strike “against a person camping on public property unless;”.  And that will be contextualized in the future portion.  And y’all should’ve received a version of this in your backup.  Please let me know if you are not following along.  The second amendment that I would like to offer.

Mayor Coffman:    I think it would be better if, Councilmember Marcano, if we debate each one separately and vote on each one separately. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I would rather we don’t vote on each one separately.  Why would we do that? He is proposing a number of amendments.   

Councilmember Marcano:    mayor pro tem, or I guess, are you still chairing the meeting?  I guess you are.  I am fine with discussing each item.  I want to make sure the public is clear on what we are talking about here, and that my colleagues are able to ask any questions if they have any. 

Mayor Pro-Tem Bergan:    I think it would be best if you went through your amendments.  Then there is a discussion on the entirety of it. 

Councilmember Marcano:    I will try to give a little bit of context then.  For the strike, the revision of Item 3 in section 94 -122 the reason for changing it to temporary detention is that that is preferably to an arrest, which can go on someone’s record.  You all know that getting a record, however minute, can affect your ability to secure employment, housing, etc. in the future.  I don’t want us to craft a policy that’s going to undermine us even more – than we are already doing to ourselves here.  Section 3, Item A – “a city employee or law enforcement official that has issued the person in a camp a verbal or written warning to move from the camp and take their property with them, and that person has refused or failed to move: an”  is an addition. 

Mayor Coffman:  Point of order.  I believe the sponsor needs a second.  I don’t believe there was a second. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Did you make a motion Councilmember Marcano? 

Councilmember Marcano:  So, I apologize, I had several amendments I was going to just run through them.  I thought that that was the order. 

Mayor Coffman:    You can move the entire amendment.  This is an amendment, so he can move the entire amendment, but you need a second in order for…

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Councilmember Marcano, do you want to go ahead and make a motion?

Councilmember Marcano:    I will move to amend Section 94 -122 -3 as I stated. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Are we doing each section?

Councilmember Marcano:    That’s what I thought all of y’all just said for me to do. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I originally said do all your amendments in the entirety.  That would be the motion. 

Councilmember Marcano:    Would you prefer to get a second now?  Or would you rather me run through these and then ask for a second? 

Mayor Coffman:    It is a strike.  Councilmember Marcano, you consider this as a strike below amendment?  In other words, in its entirety replaces my proposed ordinance in its entirety.  And then it would just require a one vote, and then you can move it.  You still need a second.  But you can move it as a strike below amendment. 

Councilmember Marcano:    For clarification City Attorney, because I know I am not the only person that has amendments to offer, if we do that, then and that’s passes, then the modified person that you all have in your backup, with a few tweaks, would be the ordinance as it would stand.  Then another one of my colleagues is able to then continue to offer.  That’s correct? 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  I think this is going to be really difficult to follow, because you have so many amendments.  I guess there is more coming from other councilmembers.  For us to vote one by one – I personally don’t think that’s efficient, because you are going to pass things without knowing what’s coming next from another member on an amendment. 

Councilmember Marcano:  Alright, so, I can suggest that let’s go through what y’all had for backup since you all should’ve had the chance to read through that.  I did leave my comments in the margins, so you are all getting an idea of why I am making some of these suggestions.  94 -112, you can see the changes here that we strike and “make an arrest” and change that to “temporarily detain” and then “otherwise enforce” remains a person camping on public property is stricken unless.  And the reason for that is temporary detention is preferable to an arrest that can go on someone’s record, as I mentioned, that can make it more difficult for folks to find housing and employment etc.  A city employee or law enforcement official has offered the person in a camp a verbal or written order to move from the camp and take their property with them and that person has or failed or refused or failed to move.  That’s a clarifying addition there.  And the city has an indoor shelter option that is realistic, practicable and safe.  I want to stress the indoor and realistic, practicable and safe.  Indoor would include our pallet shelters.  Those are considered indoor structures and realistic practicable and safe means that the camp, the space has to actually exist.  It has to be ready for habitation, and it has to meet federal criterium for HUD for what is a safe house, and, you know, a reasonable shelter option effectively.  The reason I wanted to add that was because when we discussed this in HORNS a bit, I felt like there was an opportunity for folks to use weasel words for people experiencing homelessness to get them to opt out.  I want us to make it very clear what the options are that we are providing people with.  The second part in Section B is that the shelter has agreed to take the person and that the person has refused to move from the camp, which means we actually connected that individual with a provider that has space and that in spite of that, being offered a realistic, practicable and safe shelter option – that person refused.  In that case, you are clear to enact a sweep.  Again, I want us to make sure we are not potentially fooling folks.  With Item C, I struck “exception to the section” and just clarified that if a person is offered in writing a realistic and practicable and safe option, and the shelter option is available to that person, and that person refuses to go to the shelter option that has room to accept them, and the person refuses or fails to move the camp location when ordered, they person may be issued a citation and is subject to “temporary detention” instead of “arrest”, in order to facilitate the person’s move to the available shelter.  Again, if people get a record, we are going to end up effectively criminalizing homelessness that can cause a whole lot of other issues that will still leave folks without shelter and ultimately back on our streets.  Section 4 here is any person cited for and convicted of violating the section shall not be subject to general penalties as provided in Section 113, so that’s as-is per May Coffman’s ordinance.  I wanted to add “a violation of this section shall not constitute disorderly conduct pursuant to Section 94 -110 A5  of our City Code.  That is what is colloquially contempt of COP and that is something that the Attorney General’s investigation yielded that we overuse and can then, its charged that it can lead to people being impacted with the general penalties, which is an indirect way to get people quickly criminalized through a sweep process.  I did check in with our public defender’s office, and we have a tremendous amount of unhoused folks who do come through already as-is with our existing policies for trespassing and for contempt of COP.  So, I don’t want us, again, to compound and institutionalize that problem.  Does anyone have a question or comment? 

Mayor Coffman:    Let’s just go through the whole thing. 

Councilmember Marcano:    Section 5, I strike the “or any form of cover or protection from the elements other than clothing.”  Again, this is, I think, an area where we get right into cruel and unusual punishment.  There is also a separate section where this is repeated that I removed “blanket” as well, just because there are many other uses for blankets other than camping.  I think the definitions for camping and for setting up a camp already kind of cover that without the need to add blanket, because the way I read, you could potentially cite someone for camping for reading a book on a bench with a blanket at night, or potentially taking their baby in the stroller covered by a blanket at night.  We need to be very careful with the language and not be over broad.  I also struck the “camp” or “camping can include using a vehicle for overnight occupancy” where overnight occupancy or overnight camping violates code or another city rule or regulation that are not, otherwise, authorized by the city.  And I just need to share with you, because this is from a constituent.  Illegally parking a vehicle was the very first thing that led this person to homelessness when the vehicle was all that she and her mother had.  That car was impounded.  Her mother lost her job as a result.  She lost the car because of losing her job.  All of her 3-year old’s possessions were lost.  I’m talking photos, clothes, toys, etc.  This resulted in her becoming separated from her daughter, engaging in sex work just to make ends meet, and eventually enduring a long and incredibly abusive relationship just to stay sheltered.  So, if we are doing this kind of stuff, I need you to understand that’s the road we are paving.  I don’t want us to go down this road.  We already have safe camping areas.  Not everyone is aware of them.  Putting this in here, I think, is leading us down a very ugly route.  Moving on.  Evidence of unauthorized camps or unauthorized camping includes, as you can see here, I again, struck “of or any form of cover protecting from the elements other than clothing.”  These over broad definitions, I think are going to get us into trouble.  Moving on.  This was just a grammatical fix here when I added “or” before bedroll.  And again, blankets or any other protection from the elements, clothing was struck.  Moving on to abatement of unauthorized camps, again, you see “realistic, practicable and safe” and then repeated that these said options will accept all of the individuals in an unauthorized camp.  Meaning we must be able to house everybody who we are sweeping in one go.  Pre-requisites for abatements of camps, again, available shelter options, so we must have enough realistic, practicable and safe indoor options for all folks who are going to be swept.  Those said shelter options must be willing to accept all of the individuals and families of  an unauthorized camp.  The notices requirements – I added here in red as you see, “any occupants of present in the camp on the day of the abatement shall be offered placement-in-a-shelter option, which has agreed to accept the person.  That’s the addition.  “Which has agreed to accept the person and advise them that services are available for them.”  And then, in Section 114-110, I changed the minimum notice period back to “7 days” from 72 hours, an earlier draft of this ordinance reflected that ruling from the federal courts that impacted Denver.  I would rather us follow that guideline, fully expecting that we will likely be challenged, or something will happen and cause us to follow that same guideline as well.  So, I rather us be proactive rather than reactive to that issue as well.  With that, I believe that covers – yeah, I don’t think I missed anything here.  I believe that covers all of my comments. 

Mayor Coffman:    mayor pro tem, if I could go through these amendments as well.  I would like to defer to drafting on some of these amendments.  I don’t want them to opine in terms of their opinion.  That would be inappropriate, but in terms of the legal interpretation of what we are trying to do here.  And so, I think if we go to Section 94 – 122 –3, It says, “No city employee authorized to issue a citation shall issue a citation, make an arrest.”  And that is struck and replaced with “temporarily detained.”  If I could defer to Council in terms of the difference between – so we are in a situation where we, in this version, which is not the same version introduced six months ago, but what it says essentially that we decriminalized.  There are no penalties, or fines for violating the law in terms of unauthorized encampments.  The issue is if someone refused to move after given the appropriate notice – after informed that there was an alternate shelter option for them, then, in fact, if they refuse to move, and they were given a lawful order to move, then what gives the authority for APD to move that individual in terms of this language?

Tim Joyce (City Attorney):    Well, the case law allows just what you said.  If a person in a camp is offered a shelter option and they refuse that, that person can be issued a criminal citation.  Does that answer your questions?

Mayor Coffman:    No, but in terms of – can they be moved using language “temporarily detained” versus “arrest”? 

Tim Joyce (City Attorney):  Well, the term “temporarily detained” is a vague term not defined in the law, whereas the term “arrest” has been litigated extensively in criminal law, and it’s very well-defined parameters.  It means something very specific, but “temporarily detained” is vague and opens the ordinance up to litigation. 

Mayor Coffman:  Ok, then we have, “against a person camping on public property – well, its public and private property, so what’s the value of that language?  Say, “person camping on public property”?  Or is that just redundant? 

Joyce (City Attorney):  I have no legal concern about striking that.  It’s a policy decision whether to keep it in or not.  It just clarifies this ordinance only to “camping on public property.” 

Mayor Coffman:  It applies to public and private property.  Well, my version reverts to both.  I’m sorry, please clarify that statement. 

City Attorney Joyce:  What’s that, Mayor?

Mayor Coffman:  It’s public and private property.

Joyce:  Oh, the difference between public and private property?  Well, this ordinance is only prohibiting – making it a criminal act to camp on public property.  It does not make camping on private property a criminal act. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Because that already is, right?

Joyce:  I mean they are both illegal.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  I mean there is no trespassing on private property.

Joyce:  This ordinance, this unauthorized camp ordinance only prohibits – makes it illegal to camp on public property. 

Mayor Coffman:  Ok –so then, 9A, you say, “that person has refused or failed to move.” 

Joyce:  I have no legal concern about that.  It clarifies what the purpose is of this ordinance.  If that person refuses, if they have been offered a shelter option and refuse to leave, then they will be issued a citation.

Mayor Coffman:  But that basically already stated, though, without. 

Joyce:  It’s been stated before, yes.

Mayor Coffman:  So that’s redundant language.  The city has an indoor shelter option that is “realistic, practicable and safe.”  They are not defined in the amendment as to what that means, and those are not terms of art.  Am I correct? 

Joyce:  The terms “realistic, practicable, and safe”, they are not defined.  They are vague.  What might be safe – what might be realistic, practical and safe to one person may not be to another person, so those terms – “realistic, practicable and safe” could open the ordinance up to litigation. 

Mayor Coffman:  Ok.  “And that shelter has agreed to take the person and the person has refused to move from the camp,” I  mean it’s already understood that the city has to provide a shelter option for that individual. 

Joyce:    That’s correct.  Before we can even post a camp to abatement, we have to have a shelter option available and so, this is redundant in that sense.  It’s redundant that “the person refuses to move after offering a shelter option.”

Mayor Coffman:    In C, sub-paragraph 3c “except to this section,” I’m not sure what that means.  Can you explain that?

Joyce:    I don’t know what the purpose is in striking that. 

Mayor Coffman:  Then it says, “if a person is ordered in writing” again, “a realistic practicable and safe” – and I think we already discussed that there is no definition in this, as to what that means. 

Joyce:    That there is a concern with the terms what does “in writing” mean does the posting of a sign constitute a writing, or when we offer a shelter option – It just, how we deliver a “writing” to a person that might be still in a camp that we are abating – it makes it unfortunately extremely difficult.  And again, the terms “realistic, practicable and safe” – they are vague, and I don’t know what that means. 

Mayor Coffman:  Ok, then, again, repeating, “has agreed to accept that person” then a citation and is subject to a “temporary detention.”  And I think we have already discussed that versus “arrest” in order to facilitate the person’s move to the available shelter.  Then subparagraph 4, “any person cited for and convicted…” Can you explain the maximum penalty provision here?

Joyce:    Since we have already said above that the violating of this ordinance general penalty provisions of the city code do not apply for violating this ordinance.  The first part that describes a specific punishment – it’s a “practical” option.  It specifically identifies what the punishment could be – “a fine not to exceed 25 dollars and a community service.”  That’s all practical and a policy decision. 

Mayor Coffman:    So that part would actually clarify.

Joyce:  It clarifies, and I have no legal concern about that part.  The last sentence  – “A violation of this section shall not constitute disorderly conduct”, well that goes unsaid that this – it’s not necessary to have – this ordinance is just this ordinance.  It’s 94-122.  I don’t see a purpose for that last sentence. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  First, I want to say something, because this is really competing ordinance, what you have with all of these amendments.  I do think that we should vote on the entirety of your – it’s basically a new ordinance. 

Mayor Coffman:  Right, well, mayor pro tem, can I finish going through it and then.  On 114-106, under definitions, under “evidence of unauthorized camps or unauthorized camps”, it strikes “any form, cover, or protection from the elements rather than clothing.”  Can you discuss that?

Joyce:    That term that is struck, that came straight out of case law and if you strike that, there is a possibility that this could cause this ordinance to be unconstitutional.  It was put in because the case law requires that exception. 

Mayor Coffman:    And then we go to – and when we are defining “shelter”, it strikes “blankets or any form of cover or protection in the elements other than clothing.” 

Joyce:    So, if you strike the term “blankets or other forms of protection”, you are creating a loophole.  So, if I am camping overnight and the only thing I have over me is a blanket, then I would not be violating this ordinance, so it’s a loophole. 

Mayor Coffman:  Ok – very well.  then 114-107, “realistic, practicable and safe”, again, no definition in the ordinance itself and none of these are terms of art, am I correct? 

Joyce:    That’s correct.  They are not defined.

Mayor Coffman:  And then, “and the realistic, practicable and safe  indoor available shelter options” will accept all of the individuals and families in the unauthorized camp”, that’s already – does that clarify anything?  I think that language is already there. 

Joyce:  Case law does not require the city to have a shelter option available for every person that’s homeless in the city or make it a crime to be in an unauthorized camp.  This makes it very difficult to enforce if that’s the requirement. 

Mayor Coffman:    Ok – 114-108, again, we used the terms “realistic, practicable and safe”, we discussed that. And then we have the same language.  Then we go to 114-109 subparagraph 1, “which has agreed to accept the person.”  I think that is redundant.  Then we go to 114-110 subparagraph 1, replacing a 72-hour notice with a 7-day notice.  I’m wondering if you could speak to the situation.  So, if I understand the situation in Denver, when they got that court order, they were literally doing abatements the same day they gave notice.  Is that correct? 

Joyce:  That’s correct.  The 7-day advance notice that Denver uses came from a settlement at their first lawsuit.  Denver agreed to provide 7 days advanced notice, then Denver got sued a second time for not following that settlement agreement, and the judge ruling on the Denver motion about the case stated that Denver had to abide by what they agreed to in the settlement of 7 days, but the judge also allowed Denver to abate camps when there was a public health threat or a public safety threat and allowed that abatement – advance notice of 48 hours to be sufficient.  Denver has both a 7-day notice and a 48-hour notice, so our 72-hour notice is a compromise between the two and most of the items of that we have been using in the past 6 months to abate a camp have been issue of public safety and public health. 

Mayor Coffman:    What are some of the other surrounding communities do in terms of –

Joyce:  Reasons why we abate a camp?

Mayor Coffman:    Yes. 

Joyce:    If there is evidence of fires.  If there is evidence of – if they have propane tanks, butane tanks, evidence of hazardous materials.  If there is rotten, discarded food which can draw rodents to the area.  if there is fecal material.  If there is hyper dermic needles present.  If there is indoor furniture outside, which is, again, can cause rodent infestations.  If the camp location interferes with storm water maintenance, or it’s a flood zone in an area prone to flooding – that’s a safety threat.  When the camp layout doesn’t allow access for emergency services.  If there was a 9-11.  Someone is having a problem if the rescue people cannot get in – that’s a problem, a safety issue.  Violations of the International Fire Code, Building Code are, again, safety issues.  if the residents are connecting to electrical fixtures like street pole lights or other things that are unauthorized.  Electric connection is a safety issue.  There have been camps that have undermined the public infrastructure along 225.  Around 6^th avenue camps have dug into the hillside there, which, again, causes a safety issue with traffic above. 

Mayor Coffman:    I believe there was an incident that occurred over the weekend on 2^nd and Sable where a culvert.

Joyce:  There was a recent camp under Colfax just east of Airport Blvd. The culvert were 32 feet long.  There had been multiple fires in the culvert.  Definitely a very unsafe condition.  The fire department tried to enter into that culvert.  They lost radio contact, so they had to withdraw the fire personnel for safety issues.  That particular camp because of where it was located and depth, it was a safety hazard for the people there and the first responders that had to deal with the fires.

Councilmember Coombs:  mayor pro tem, point of order. 

Mayor Coffman:  I stand in opposition to the Marcano strike-below amendment. 

Councilmember Coombs:    My point of order was just, is Councilmember Marcano going to get a chance to respond to any of the remarks about the intent of his amendments, but now that seems to have come.   

Councilmember Marcano:  I do want to respond a bit here.  We just spent a whole lot of time on the notice.  Those last points – I am not really sure why went into a whole conversation about when you can order folks to move immediately.  I thought that was changed.  I feel like there may have been a little bit of a theatrical intent there.  That was not changed.  The only thing that changed there was the 7-day notice to a 72-hour notice.  Going back to the “realistic, practicable and safe indoor” phrasing, it’s my understanding that part of what we are doing and part of why we are having conversations like this when crafting legislation is to create a legislative history.  And I think I made the intent of what meant by “realistic, practicable and safe”, meaning “realistic”, meaning this actually exists.  “Practicable”, meaning that it is ready to be used.  And “safe”, following the HUD definition of what is considered safe and dignified shelter space.  I thought that that was kind of why we have conversations and why  I am able to explain to my colleagues and the public what it is we are trying to accomplish here.  Some of what the mayor said is redundant I think is for clarification purposes.  I don’t think it is redundant.  In fact, a lot of the law I have read is exceptionally redundant, because you don’t want folks to be able to gotcha at one point.  In terms of the blankets, it was my understanding that you would still be consider publicly camping because you would be sleeping outdoors at night.  We specifically say what camping is not, and sleeping outdoors at night in a space, even if you were using a blanket, you would potentially be considered camping.  So, I am not, I don’t follow, or maybe I just disagree that the interpretation that City Attorney Joyce expressed there, but that is not the intent of removing blanket.  Again, my intent of removing “blanket” is so that we don’t inadvertently, you know, pit someone who is reading a book on a bench with a blanket at night or walking their child in a stroller at night with a blanket.   You know, something like that, that would potentially become – considered camping because you’re specifically calling out a blanket, which can be – yes, and accessory to camping, but does not make camping in it of itself.  Also, with regards to the violation of “this shall not constitute disorderly conduct”,  I would like a comment of City Attorney Joyce on this, because it’s my understanding that this is a method that we currently have on unhoused folks end up in the criminal legal system in our city today by basically being charged with disorderly conduct and that this is something that also happens in Denver and other cities who have similar policies on the books.  So, I felt it was necessary to call out that specific thing because no one is necessarily being cited for what would be eligible for general penalties just for the act of camping outdoors, but if someone decides to say, “oh, well, now you are disobeying me”, or charge them for disorderly conduct, then you can effectively end up criminalizing homelessness through that.  So, I would like your comment on that please. 

Joyce:    Your reference to the disorderly conduct charge, I don’t think they believe it’s necessary whether other jurisdictions are charging that or not.  That’s not the intent of this ordinance.  This is just to charge 94-122.  So, beyond that I don’t why, what the purpose is for that.  With respect to the camping and the bed, the blankets issue, the way camping is defined in the mayor’s ordinance, it says “overnight occupancy” is what’s prohibited, and camping does not – and it specifically says, camping does not include napping during the day or picnicking.  So, you can lay out a blanket and picnic and still not violate this ordinance.  It’s when you use a blanket or other material to sleep overnight.  To stay overnight.

Councilmember Marcano: I don’t see actually where we are at odds with what I said in terms of my intent for, you know, removing blanket then, because my goal is to ensure that someone who is reading a book under, you know, under a lamp on a bench at night is not considered to be camping.  If they are sleeping overnight – overnight occupancy is, again, something that is very specifically called out here, so why would we need to include “blanket” then?  Because you can do that with or without a blanket. 

Joyce:  By eliminating the term “blanket” you might be creating a loophole if they’re using the blanket and they’re spending – they’re camping overnight.  You’ve just allowed them to do that.  I think to get to your last question, when you use the terms “realistic, practicable and safe” to mean to exist – why not just use the term “exist” instead of those three vague terms?

Councilmember Marcano:    If that’s something you feel would be better language, I am fine with considering that a friendly amendment then.

No, I think it’s unnecessary language altogether, and I don’t think it says that in the ordinance already – the mayor’s version.  If the city has to have a shelter option available, or we can post it, abate it.  So, I don’t think it’s necessary to have that language at all. 

Councilmember Sundberg:  I move to vote on Councilmember Marcano’s amendments as a whole.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Are you calling for the vote?

Councilmember Sundberg:  I am calling for the question. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan: So, is there a second?

Councilmember Zvonek:  Second.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Discussion?

Mayor Coffman:  There is no discussion.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  oh, ok – it’s non-debatable.  Go ahead, Katie.  Can you pull that up for a vote?

City Clerk Rodriguez:  Yes, it’s now open for a vote.  The motion passes with 9 votes.  Councilmember Coombs and Councilmember Murillo vote no. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Do we have a motion now on Councilmember Marcano’s amendment?  We have a motion from Councilmember Marcano and a second from Councilmember Coombs. 

City Clerk Rodriguez:  Escribe is now open. And this, again, to clarify, is the vote for Councilmember Marcano’s amendments as a whole.  The motion does not pass with four votes in the affirmative, six no votes. 

Councilmember Murillo:    I just wanted to comment on that last process.  That was the most like frustrating, unhelpful review of amendments.  I think we should’ve taken them separately, because now I feel like everyone just got lost, and we are going to vote up or down.  There was no nuance there, so – and in additionally, that motion to call for the vote is exactly what I was talking about in my opening remarks about how shutting down discussion – thwarting discussion on a very important topic.  So, I’m very disappointed that that was a procedural maneuver that was enacted to shut down that conversation.  I think that we could’ve paused and talked about those amendments separately instead of hearing the  City Attorney that drafted the legislation should comment line by line in a very unhelpful, confusing manner, especially if you’re on the phone.  Councilmember Marcano didn’t have the opportunity to have a non-bias, I guess, because he wrote the legislation.  Non-bias City Attorney opined on the conversation.  So, I was just thoroughly frustrated by that process, and I don’t think we really gave it a fair opportunity for discussion, and it was called to shut down discussion.  mayor Pro-Tem. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Are there any other amendments?  Before we move on to vote on 14.a.? 

Councilmember Murillo’s Amendments to the Camping Ban

Councilmember Murillo:    I do have a couple of amendments if we could share those on the screen.  I just want to, high level, I would like to discuss these one by one, because I don’t want to engage in that unhelpful back and forth.  But I would like to, just kind of talk about them one by one.  So, you can see that the first amendment is to amend Section 4 of this ordinance – the proposed ordinance.  It’s the abatement of unauthorized camps.  So, my first amendment is that first piece.  So, “no unauthorized camp shall be abated by the city until such time as a city or other interested entity has enough shelter options available for all of the homeless population in the city.”  The reason I’ve included that language is – I don’t know if you caught in that back and forth.  The City of Aurora actually doesn’t have to have enough shelter beds for this to be enforceable, so all of the rhetoric saying that this is the humane thing to do is a lie essentially.  We actually only have to legally offer a shelter bed.  We actually don’t have to have the number of shelter beds, so I think it’s disingenuous and confusing. The way I understand it is – let’s say somebody is going to abate or sweep a camp and if they refuse, that’s whole separate process, right?  That if they refuse to go to a shelter, that’s a separate process of how we deal with that, but in the scenario that they do accept to be relocated to a shelter, if we don’t have enough shelter beds to accommodate that camp on that particular night, then its unenforceable.  So, I have many concerns.  That just sounds very convoluted and confusing to, like, the general public.  It’s unclear.  That is the interpretation that I’ve gathered from the – our City Attorneys. And so, if we’re really truly trying to make this about being humane and actually supporting our friends and neighbors as we’ve heard in our public comment.  I think there needs to be more clarity and definitive language that this should be only enforceable if and when we do actually have enough shelter beds – not saying one thing and then legally we only have to offer a shelter bed.  So, that is the rationale behind that first amendment. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    So, you would like a second?

Councilmember Murillo:  I would. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Is there a second to that particular amendment? 

Councilmember Medina:  Second.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I think had Councilmember Medina as a second.  Ok – discussion?  I would like to make a point because it says, “unless there is enough shelter options available for all of the homeless population in the city,” but when we do the – if we are going to do a ban on a particular encampment, we are not doing, and maybe this is for staff, we are not doing a ban on all encampments in one night.  It’s usually, one is identified and then we offer shelter alternatives, correct? 

Joyce:  With the proposal for Councilmember Murillo case law says we do not need to have – provide shelter for the homeless, but with this proposed amendment – first of all , we don’t have an accurate count of the number of homeless in the city, and effectively it will prevent the abatement of any camp. 

Councilmember Murillo:    Point of clarification.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I still actually have the floor.  So, this will basically take away the entire purpose of the camping ban.  We would not be able to enforce it at all. 

Joyce:  We wouldn’t be able to abate a camp at all.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Ok, so, I am against this particular section of the amendment. 

Councilmember Murillo:  Can I clarify?  So, see, that’s where I have an issue because it’s saying that we are not going to be able to enforce – would you mind repeating your statement one more time? 

Joyce:    If you require the city to have a shelter option available for all of the homeless population in the city, first of all, we don’t know – have an accurate number of the number of homeless, and we do not have shelter options for every single homeless person in the city.  We could not enforce.  We could not abate a camp. 

Councilmember Murillo:  Ok – so there we go.  Alright, I’m clear, I already know.  We already know that there are not enough shelter beds, so I want to interrupt the narrative that this is in any way humane.  That accompanying resolution after this means literally nothing, because we are directing the City Manager to create enough shelter beds, except in order for this to be enforceable we don’t actually have to have enough shelter beds.  The next bit about – we don’t actually have an accurate count of homelessness.  What is the point in point-in-time count?  What is the purpose of that?  Who defines what is the correct or the legal amount of people experiencing homelessness?  I thought the point-in-time count that the city conducts annually is mandated by HUD.  Other cities use to have a count of people experiencing homelessness was an accurate way to do so.  So, can you elaborate why that’s not a reasonable threshold? 

Joyce:    Councilmember Murillo, we could change the way you have written this to make it possible so we could abate camps, but the point-in-time count is for HUD financing purposes.  That count can vary weekly based on the number of people that come in and out of the city.  And for us – this would require for us as it is written, for us to monitor – to know how many homeless people are out there before we abate a camp and provide shelter options for everyone in a camp.  But there’s also situations where – I will use the mayor as an example.  If he had, when he was living in and – if he had lived in an unauthorized camp during Christmas in Aurora, we did not and do not need to provide him a shelter option before giving him a ticket because he has his own shelter available to him.  The city does not need to provide him a second shelter option.  So, we could give the mayor a ticket not having the shelter. 

Councilmember Murillo:  I’m not asking about somebody pretending to be homeless.  I’m sorry, that was not a helpful example only because we know the mayor is not homeless.  He was pretending, so like, I know that.  That’s not what I’m interested in.  I’m still confused.  Why our point-in-time count?  Who defines what the legal threshold of number of homeless people in the city of Aurora?  I thought the point-in-time count was that benchmark.  Maybe Jessica Prosser can add so nuance. 

Jessica Prosser:  Councilmember Murillo, I can just elaborate on the point-in-time count.  It is a good estimate.  It is not going to be the perfect number.  It’s usually an undercount typically – is the way that HUD would explain that.  I think if we were looking for a good number, I would use about the 150-person number.  That’s what we saw during a 7-day activation – over the past 7 days while it was very cold.  We had anywhere from 160 to 180 individuals that came into shelter out of encampments.  So, we don’t have a specific count any given time.  There are people coming and going, you know, experiencing homelessness in Aurora.  Point-in-time count is a good snapshot in time of an estimate of the number of folks experiencing homelessness, but we wouldn’t be able to come up with a number on any given day.  It fluctuates. 

Councilmember Murillo:    The point remains.  We can argue which number would be the best, you know, is it an annual number?  Do we have to have 594 beds in, you know, a year?  Or 150 beds a week available?  I’m open to a way to re-write this so that this is clearer.  However, the point remains that currently we only have to offer a shelter bed.  We don’t actually have to have the number of – a sufficient amount of shelter beds for this to be enforceable.  I don’t think that’s humane, right?  We are talking about how this ordinance has been presented – the impacts of this ordinance.  I think that that is wrong that we don’t have the adequate number of shelter beds.  If this needs to be amended to reflect a more accurate picture of that, I’m open to that as well, but the intent was the same for me.   

Councilmember Coombs:  So, I think what we can clarify is that what’s being said is not that we need to really adequately address the unsheltered homelessness in our city, and that is a claim that has been made both times that this ordinance has been brought up.  And so, what we are really trying to do is help people and address the issue that they are having in a meaningful way, so I think that this discussion highlights that that’s not really what’s happening with this ordinance.  What’s happening is we have to have enough beds to abate a camp.  That might mean that all we are directing the city attorney to do is to create 10 beds that are routinely available to abate any camp the size of 10 people, and that we are just cycling people through 10 beds and then sweeping them along.  That is not effective.  That’s not going to result in the people from the Cherry Creek State Park camp ending up very quickly over on the Cherry Creek Spillway Trail, or the people in the Mission Viejo Shopping Center ending up down the street or along a trail or in a park.  I do think that it’s really important to be clear that this doesn’t actually provide a solution in that sense.  The other thing that could occur and that we’ve heard from some of the testimony in public comment tonight has occurred in Denver is that this incentivizes these mega camps, because essentially if people are together in a camp of 70 and we don’t have 70 beds available or even 30, then we become unable to abate that camp for this ordinance.  So, I think we need to be aware of those considerations and those implications and that seems to be, I think, having Councilmember Murillo’s amendment here would actually address those problems. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I know Councilmember Murillo wants to make to get clarification, but the way it is written currently we would not be able to enforce the camping ban.  So, Councilmember Murillo…

Councilmember Murillo:    Thank you, given Jessica Prosser’s, who is with our housing team’s comment, do you have language that you would suggest adding to this amendment?  Again, I’m trying to actualize the statements and conversations made that this is supposed to be humane the accompanying resolution is supposed to make sure that we have enough shelter beds when we are sweeping folks, so I’m just trying to get the language that actually reflects that that rhetoric.

Jessica Prosser:    Councilmember Murillo, if we were reflecting the current practices of what we do today we would add that we would need shelter space available for the camps being abated at that time.  Right now, if we are looking ahead a week or two, or looking to see how many shelter beds we have available prior to starting the process.  It would be available shelter beds for the current camps being abated. 

Councilmember Murillo:    For the current camps being abated, so we still don’t have to have all – shelters for all folks before we abate. 

City Attorney:  If I could give you some language you are looking for, what you want is – those in the encampment, or those identified in the point-in-time count for the year.  Now, that’s going to make the ordinance unenforceable, but it’s getting to the point that you are trying to make – that you are trying to cover all of the homeless.  So, you would do for the encampment, or the number identified in the point-in-time count. 

Councilmember Murillo:    Thank you for the language that I requested, our city attorney.  My point is – so that we have the actual number of beds for folks who are experiencing homelessness before we enact this.  I think I am actually just going to leave the language as is.  I don’t agree that we just need to have a sufficient number of beds for the camps that we’re abating, because we could strategically abate, you know, groups that – like we have enough shelter beds for that amount of people.  It’s still not providing long-term solutions, so I will just keep my amendment as is and ask that we vote so that we can move on to the next one. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Can we go ahead and vote, or is there further discussion? Oh, I guess it’s pulled up on you escribe. 

Councilmember Coombs:    Mayor pro-tem, point of order.  I think that that’s just the first amendment.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Yes, it’s just the first. 

Clerk Rodriguez:    The motion does not pass with 4 yes votes and 6 no votes.  Medina,  Murillo, Marcano, Coombs – Yes

Councilmember Murillo:   My second amendment is to add in section 4 of the current ordinance as written. “That all personal items removed by the city during the abatement process shall be stored in a secure, protected location and shall be returned to the lawful owner upon request and verification of the owner.”  This was my intent of codifying, right?  We are dealing with people’s lives and their property.  If we are going to force them away from where they’re at.  I think at a minimum we should be clear on what the process is.  I think it’s important for us to codify how we are going to handle people’s belongings so that, you know, we don’t get the complaints that Denver has with trashing people’s personal belongings.  That might be everything they own in the world that is tossed away in the event that they are swept from the location that they are at. At a minimum I wanted to clarify that this is the process we will follow. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    May I ask a question on this?  And Jessica, if you could answer.  Do we currently have a place at the Day Resource Center where they can store their belongings in those lockers?

Jessica Prosser:  There is very limited storage at the Day Resource Center such that someone could store a backpack or something very small and personal.  By practice, when we are abating a camp, if something looks like a personal documentation item, it is set to the side. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Ok, so if it’s documents they can be stored.  Documents? 

Jessica Prosser:    If someone arrives at the Day Resource Center, they can be stored documents if someone arrives that day.  If someone arrives at the Day Resource Center and they have personal items on them they can be stored temporarily while they are on site at the Day Resource Center.  When they leave, they would take them with them. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Ok, so if we were to abate an encampment – let’s say it was an encampment with 15 people.  Would we not be able to have our outreach vans help those individuals get to the lockers and store those items?

Jessica Prosser:  Yes, outreach goes out the day before the encampment.  They’re offered a ride, and they can take items with them. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    So, I think maybe the issue might be how much of the personal items can be stored, right?  If you said all personal items – are you saying we would not have storage for that? 

Jessica Prosser:  That’s correct.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  City manager, do we not have any vacant buildings or anything where we could store items? 

City Manager Jim Twombly:  Not at this time we don’t.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  None of our buildings that we currently have?  The libraries?  Any of that?

City Manager Twombly:    Well, we have some buildings.  One building that’s under renovation.  We have a building that’s not in very good shape that is small. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    What about AMC?  We are not even using this building half the time.  I’ve offered to sell it before, but you didn’t like that. 

City Manager Twombly:  We could inventory if council wanted us to do that and see what space we had.  We might have some concerns.  I mean we don’t know really what we would be getting into in terms of the types of things that we would be storing.  And just in terms, I would have some concerns maybe about cleanliness, and what we would be bringing into a building. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Yeah, and then responsibility, I guess. 

City Manager Twombly:  We  haven’t done this before, so. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    The reason I ask those questions Councilmember Murillo, is because in theory I would like us to be able to do this.  I am just looking – you know how could we accomplish this to some degree – practically?

Councilmember Gardner:  Thank you.  Yeah, I am actually really sympathetic to the intent of this.  I don’t think the government should take property and destroy it.  I just have some questions, and I don’t know if these are for Councilmember Murillo or if they are for staff, city manager, city attorney, whatever, but I kind of want to go through a couple of these.  Maybe the first one is – how are we defining personal items?  I don’t know, Councilmember Murillo, if you want to answer that.  If that’s defined somewhere?  What does personal items mean? 

Jessica Prosser:  Councilmember Gardner, in practice today what we do if there’s something that looks like an identification, medication, a passport, important documents – those are things that we deem to be destructed and destroyed.  They are set to the side during the abatement process, and either street outreach would take those, or they are just left to see if someone comes back for them.  They are set to the side.

Councilmember Gardner:  Ok.  I don’t know if you wanted to –

Councilmember Murillo:  Thank you.  To me, like, people are going to be carrying more than just personal identification, right?  They’re trying to keep themselves warm.  They might have, you know, so, all of that to be said – I would define personal items as what you just stated, Jessica, and other articles that, like, you know, clothing, tents, their property.  Baring, like, sanitation issues, or you know, like, if there is a shopping cart.  You know, maybe that won’t necessarily qualify, but that’s theirs, right?  I would love some language if somebody has, you know, a better way to clarify that, but for all intents and purposes, those things that people use to keep themselves, you know, safe and warm – blankets, tents, obviously perishable items – not going to work.  That type of thing.  Clothing, changes of clothing.  Things that won’t expire over, you know, however long they’ll be in jail or otherwise. 

Councilmember Gardner:  My next question at the end, verification of ownership.  How would we do that in all instances? And I don’t know, Councilmember Murillo, do you want to talk about what your intent was, or staff if you have suggestion.  I am concerned about how we would accomplish that. 

Councilmember Murillo:    I would defer to the city attorney on that. 

Councilmember Gardner:  I mean because essentially if there is no identification…

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Can I make a suggestion?  And I don’t know if this would work, so maybe Jessica or the attorneys can speak to this.  What if you amended this to be that if the city would make all efforts to secure belongings?  We’ll make every effort to secure belongings.  I think we are going to get in trouble with guaranteeing this, because of some of the questions proposed.  I don’t know if that helps.  Can anybody answer that? 

Attorney Joyce:    That may be too vague.  That might be very difficult to define. 

Councilmember Gardner:    And then my last is – and this is a question for Councilmember Murillo, but would you be open to a length of time? And I say that because even a private business, for example, if any financial institution that is holding assets after a certain length of time that gets turned back over to the government.  The great Colorado payback.  So, it’s – so my question is, would you be open to some kind of length of time, so we don’t have an indefinite storage potentially of materials? 

Councilmember Murillo:    Yes, I would be open to that, in terms of your earlier question around verification of ownership.  I’m assuming we could find a process of putting a tag on somebody’s property and saying that this is this person’s property.  I feel like that shouldn’t be the hold up, but I feel like there is a way to identify somebody’s property. 

Councilmember Gardner:    And then lastly, I don’t know – for Jessica or for the city manager, but – I mean, just general thoughts on kind of creating and implementing a process like this?  I mean, I know we don’t currently have a process in place, nor do we have a facility, but if we were to implement something like this, what are your thoughts of what it would look like – costs.  Things like that.  I mean I know that’s kind of nebulas because we don’t know how much we are going to take in and all of that, but I would be curious what your thoughts were.  Jim or Jessica, who wants to take a stab at that? 

Jessica Prosser:  I will offer a couple of things that other cities do that may or may not be successful.  Some have a container that is put to the side that looks like a rolling trash can, and they will put items in there.  They’ll leave them for an additional 72 hours if someone comes and collects them.  And then the abatement company comes back and picks up the trash can.  Other cities have put things into evidence, which can become problematic if you are trying to have people identify it’s a storage situation.  If something is identified, they become evidence and people would have to come to collect their evidence.  Those are two things I’ve heard from other cities that they do.  I’m not sure how successful they are.  We have not looked into those options. 

Joyce:  And I am going to add to that.  There is a jurisdiction that might even be Denver.  They ask the person that’s going to a shelter, “do you want to store something?”  Let that person identify what they want to store.  If it’s storable, if it’s not going to create a health hazard by being in a can or a – basically trash can with a lid, if you store it safely, then it could be set aside and that person then would have, say, a receipt to identify which container is theirs and then they can claim it after a certain period of time. 

Councilmember Zvonek:    I agreed with what Councilmember Gardner said.  I am sympathetic to this idea of the government collecting possessions, but I also have a concern that our process that we can actually use to determine ownership –  to know that this isn’t actually stolen stuff.  I mean I wouldn’t want somebody who had their property stolen and it was at an encampment and then that encampment was then abated, and that property was then shelved and not to the rightful owner.  I think that this is a lot harder to put into practice then in theory.  I think the theory of it is good, but the practice makes it pretty tough and may be unworkable. 

Councilmember Coombs:    It seems to me that we can establish some type of process.  We can sort out from it anything that’s infested or contraband and direct that to establish a process.  Whether that process is perfect – I don’t think is the real meaningful question here.  It’s that we are actually directing staff to establish a process that could work for the folks who would otherwise lose their items altogether.  As we heard from folks testifying, that that has really severe negative consequences for their ability to get housed and to no longer be in the situation of unsheltered homelessness.

Councilmember Murillo:    it sounds like there is, in theory, support for the concept, so I can work on the language since we will have to vote on this a second time and see if we can come to an agreement there.  City Attorney Joyce outlined a process that Denver uses.  I am interested in looking at that a little bit further to see if we can mirror process – but hopefully some amended language will help the conversation and support at the next Council meeting.  I will retract my amendment now, and we will bring that up for next time. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Ok – I think that’s a good idea.  I think you do have most of us that would like to support this idea.  So, we’ll look forward to bringing it back with some more language.  And she has one more amendment.

Councilmember Coombs:  Sorry, point of order.  I have a question for the city attorney.  I know in the past there has been the question whether something constitutes a substantive change, and if that requires and additional reading of an ordinance.  If Councilmember Murillo were to bring a more detailed change of this nature for the next meeting, would that then require a third reading, or could we pass it now and then get the details by the next meeting? 

City Attorney:    This would be a substantive amendment, so you would need another reading, and you are going to need a financial impact on this as well.  And since the financial impact could be so long, that’s why it’s the substantive amendment. 

Mayor Coffman:  Mayor Pro Tem, I think this is an important issue and there may be other issues.  I am ok with having a third reading. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Are you ok with that Councilmember Murillo?  Ok, and you have a third amendment you would like to present?

Councilmember Murillo:    Yes, if we could bring the page back up, that would be great.  Ok, so another issue that I have with this ordinance is – kind of the – adding Section 11.  So, essentially this would be in effect in perpetuity.  I think my proposal is to have a sunset on this ordinance and to have an annual report evaluating the effectiveness of this ordinance at said time.  I think if we’re talking about real solutions solving city problems, I think that we really need something to this effect.  We need a time certain of when we will come back and re-evaluate this and to have our city staff to report on what has happened as a result of the abatement.  I outlined some areas that I thought might be – I would want to know more if I’m evaluating the effectiveness  of camping abatement ordinance.  At a minimum I would like – I guess we should make the motion.  I would like to move to add section 11 to  the proposed ordinance. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Is there a second?

Councilmember Marcano:  Second. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Ok, so we have the motion by Councilmember Murillo.  Second by Councilmember Medina. 

Mayor Coffman:    Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.  I accept all but the first sentence.  One, your sunset – I don’t accept.  The language in terms of transparency and accountability I do accept.  If that first sentence is there, I’ll certainly oppose the entire amendment. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Can we put it back up on the screen?  It disappeared.

Councilmember Murillo:    It reads, “this ordinance shall be in effect until one year from start date.  And that would trigger the review and then City Council can vote to reaffirm the camping ban ordinance if indeed it is solving these issues that we are interested in solving.  So, that’s my intent there. 

Mayor Coffman:    At any time, at any time the Council can vote to repeal, and they don’t have to wait a year to do so if there are six members that wish to do so, they can do that at any time. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Any other discussion? 

Councilmember Marcano:    We actually have used this a few times since I’ve been on council.  I think the most recent time we used it was with the vehicular nuisance ordinance that several of us had some hang-ups with.  That agreed that something needed to be done.  I think it’s a good faith effort to support this kind of amendment.  It doesn’t mean that the ordinance will die after a year, because if it’s actually working, and doing what folks have promised it would do, then it would make sense to renew it.  I don’t understand what the hesitancy to include this in the ordinance.  We have done it before.  I think it’s a good way to demonstrate that – even though folks are not in complete agreement or even not in much agreement at all, that it’s worthy of demonstrating the efficacy of the policy, especially given how much consternation and discussion we have had on this issue. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  City Attorney, I think on the vehicular nuisance ordinance it goes in effect, but it can be evaluated in a year.  Do you remember the language on that?  It wasn’t, it had to be, you know, re-voted on. 

City Attorney Brotzman:    This is written as a sunset, meaning it goes away.  You can write it as review in a year.  I think that’s the two different points that we are looking at. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Councilmember Murillo, would you be amenable to having it not be a sunset, but having it reviewed? 

Councilmember Murillo:    I think if – why would we continue an ordinance that isn’t effective?  Is kind of my question. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    It would be reviewed if it wasn’t effective, then it would go away, right? 

Mayor Coffman:    No.

Councilmember Murillo:    I prefer to include the start date, but if others are not ok with that language, then I guess we can strike that, but I would like to keep that. 

Mayor Pro-Tem Bergan:    Ok. 

Mayor Coffman:    And mayor pro tem, it would automatically go away – the way it is written.  A review it would not, but if you take out the first sentence then it is a review.  After  a year you will have the information, and it wouldn’t automatically go away unless there were 6 votes to have it go away. 

Councilmember Lawson:    The City Attorney, couldn’t a Councilmember, of course, bring up in a year or whatever timeframe they see fit to bring up another ordinance if they see that this is not working? 

City Attorney Brotzman:  Absolutely.

Councilmember Lawson:    With some of the gaps, maybe it’s not working. 

City Attorney Brotzman:    Correct. 

Councilmember Gardner:    Yes, that’s my concern is how this is written, essentially so the first sentence – “the ordinance should be in effect until one year from the start date.  If that’s the case, then after one year it goes away and makes the rest of it a moot point, there would be no reason to have an annual report and a review because it’s written as if the ordinance would just go away.  I think the only way to make the annual report worthwhile is to have it to where it’s a review after one year, which is essentially what’s described in the following two or three sentences. 

Councilmember Murillo:    Yes, I am hearing some opposition to that first sentence.  I think that’s a fair point, Councilmember Gardner.  I do think that we should have language around a date certain to evaluate the effectiveness and if it’s not effective then it should be structured as such that it would end, hence the sunset that the beginning sentence of this, but I hear your point around the order of operations. 

Councilmember Marcano:    I know that we used language for the – what I refer to as the car smoker’s ordinance that was passed before.  I think it was passed in 2018.  It was one of the first meetings in 2019 that is came back up for review.  The way it was written it required someone to move and second to keep it in effect.  When we got the review information that was discussed in the backup and then I think briefly before the vote took place.  It died for the lack of emotion, because it was completely ineffective.  Councilmember Murillo, is that kind of what you were trying to shoot for here?  Or you would just need to move and second to keep it in motion? 

Councilmember Murillo:    Yes, that could be a legitimate way to address the points that I listed. 

Mayor Coffman:  I would offer an amendment to strike the first sentence.  This was an amendment to the amendment.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Second. 

City Attorney Brotzman:    You are voting on striking the first sentence. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    We are voting.  Kadee, did you get that?  We are voting on striking the first sentence as a substitute motion or amendment. 

City Clerk Rodriguez:    Yes, we are adding that verbiage and we are about to open the vote.  The vote has been opened to strike the first sentence of Councilmember Murillo’s 3^rd Amendment.  Ok – the motion passes with 6 yes votes and 4 no votes.  4 no votes from Coombs, Marcano, Medina and Murillo. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Now we are voting on the original as amended.  We’re voting on Councilmember Murillo’s motion on this 3^rd one, but without that first sentence. 

City Clerk Rodriguez:    We have to remove that first sentence for you guys.  Ok – now is open to voting.  Councilmember Murillo.

Councilmember Murillo:  Escribe just isn’t working for me right now, but I support the amendment that I proposed. 

City Clerk Rodriguez:    The motion passes unanimously to approve Councilmember Murillo’s amendment.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Are we back on 14a now?  Are there any further amendments?

Councilmember Marcano:    I want to say something and give some comments about the overall ordinance if I may.  We have had a lot of discussion tonight on ways to put a little bit of lipstick on the pig, but the issue that sticks out to me still is that this entire ordinance and this entire exercise is built on a foundation of lies and utter BS, and misrepresenting what this does to our community from elected officials, from candidates for office, from local media – all over the place.  I want to apologize, because I respect the people of Aurora too much to lie to you to try and earn your vote.  I promise you that this isn’t going to make any kind of meaningful change in your day to day. So, here is what’s going to happen when this passes, because I am pretty sure the votes are there, and I will just tell you what has been happening.  On I225 and Mississippi there was a camp next to the Best Buy.  That camp got abated.  Those people moved over to Abilene.  They literally started setting up camp on the sidewalk.  That camp got abated.  Those people moved down to West Tollgate Creek behind folks’ neighborhoods off of Loreto.  That camp got abated.  Those folks moved down to Iliff, made their way up Iliff, set up on I225.  That camp got abated.  Those folks moved into Heather Ridge.  That camp got abated.  Those folks moved into the Jewel Wetlands.  That camp got abated.  Those folks ended up back in Mississippi and 225, because what we are doing is setting money on fire – accomplishing absolutely nothing.  Fulfilling a campaign, a problem that doesn’t address the root causes of why we have this problem.  My last-ditch effort here is to introduce a motion to table this indefinitely because it does not and will not do a damn thing to improve the quality of life for our residents.  It is as cruel and inhumane as you can get.  It does not change materially the living conditions for folks in our city housed and unhoused alike.  And what I would, instead, like to have us do is open our piggy bank.  We are a very well-run, financially stable city, and invest heavily and aggressively in permanent support of housing.  We know that that is the solution to homelessness.  Whether it’s done at a small scale like Denver did.  They were able to house nearly as we have estimated on housing Aurora in a short span of time.  Whether it’s done like Helsinki did where they have over the last decade eliminated chronic homelessness in their city, or whether it’s being done successfully in Houston as we speak where they have more than halved their chronically unhoused population and see a point in time in the near future where they will have zero effective homelessness, because they invested in housing first.  Camping bans don’t work.  The people who continue to tell you they do are lying to you.  Taking advantage of your trust and good faith for their own personal benefit and for the benefit of their donors.  It is pure politics.  It’s disgusting.  It’s despicable, and you all deserve better.  What I would like us to do is table this indefinitely, put this foolishness aside and deliver a real solution for the people of our city. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Is there a second to table this? 

Councilmember Coombs:  Second.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Ok – we have a second from Councilmember Coombs.  Discussion? 

Mayor Coffman:  I look forward to bringing the resolution forward soon.  To discuss the appropriate conduct from members of this council. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I will just say that, you know, when you talked about the camps moving once, they are abated, we didn’t have a camping ban ordinance, and this camping ban ordinance is to require that we have shelter for them.  I would hope that rather than moving people, you know, over and over, that we will be able to help some individuals that do need assistance.  I know that everyone keeps saying that we aren’t doing anything.  We spent $4.1 million dollars just recently on homeless services with Second Chance, with Bridge House, with the Salvation Army, with Restoration Church, Day Resource Center, Comitis.  I just want the public to know that it’s not like we don’t do anything for our homeless, because we do a lot and we have done a lot.  We have used Cares money.  We have used ARPA money.  We use marijuana money, and then CBDG monies and ESG money.  There is a lot of resources, and I think we are looking at having more resources to come.  Any further discussion on tabling, or should we move to the vote?

Councilmember Coombs:    I just want to point out that we certainly have some programs and some funding, but we also took $10 million dollars out of what we were originally proposed in ARPA funds to put toward shelter solutions and are now discussing even not necessarily using the $5 million that we did set aside.  So, we do some, but we have not, in fact, done all that we can do.  We also gave half of a solution on the pallet shelters, so I want to be clear that we are not doing everything we can do.

Councilmember Marcano:  You’re right, we do provide homeless services, but they’re what I like to call the patchwork of services that we provide.  None of these are actually a solution in it of themselves.  Part of the success of the housing first model of Houston, Helsinki and even Denver, is that those programs don’t rely on that.  That they basically consolidate that, get folks housed and then connect them with services after the fact, and that is why they are so effective, and able to actually address the problem as opposed to doing what we do where we are helping folks literally not die, which I do not want to devalue, but at the same time we are pushing them around our city through what I call our soft camping ban or status quo, which this ordinance just enshrines.  It is important that we tell the whole truth there.  Yes, we do some things, but we don’t go anywhere near to the level of permanent supportive housing, and that is demonstrated to work.  None of the other stuff that we are doing works, and those are just the facts.

Mayor Coffman:    Call for the question.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Is there a second?  And we are voting on the call for the vote. 

Councilmember Zvonek:  Second. 

Marcano Motion to Table the Camping Ban Indefinitely

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    We need to vote on the Marcano motion to table. 

City Clerk Rodriguez:    Ok – the vote is now open.  This is to table the ordinance indefinitely.  The motion does not pass with 4 yes votes and 6 no votes.  With Medina, Marcano, Coombs and Murillo with yes votes. 

Councilmember Murillo:  I appreciate you all entertaining the amendments.  That was, again, me trying to address issues that are, I think, structurally flawed.  This ordinance – it’s been abundantly clear that we only need to offer shelter, and not actually have the number of shelter beds, so I remain that – I don’t agree that we are – like the timing of this ordinance is suspect at best.  It has issues, because we don’t even have enough shelter beds. If we are really truly trying to house all of our neighbors and community members.  I said that already.  Another issue that I have with the timing of this ordinance is around the fact that we haven’t actually explored staffing time.  What I mean is, in the first iteration, you know, several months ago when the mayor brought this to a discussion, I asked our staff what the issues were in trying to process these abatement requests.  The issue is that, in 2021, we had three times the amount of – just in volume, the number of complaints for the city to abate different homeless encampments, so the issue was that, though we had such a big increase in complaints and calls for service in that regard, we didn’t have three times the staff.  We were experiencing a bottleneck.  That was incorporated city manager, incorporated into our last budget.  They were hired at the beginning of this year.  It is now the end of February.  This person has only had a couple of months to do their work.  We will not be able to figure out the effectiveness of that position.  I think, again, it’s premature for that reason, as well as not having, having enough beds to shelter folks.  I think that, in terms of it being costly and inefficient, we are going to be opening ourselves up to legal liability – lawsuits with the way it’s written.  Our police department, we have heard many times that we are understaffed, and there are more, you know, calls that our police department would like to prioritize over sweeping folks.  When we think about what our priorities are, we are going to be diverting very expensive police department staff away from addressing major violent crimes.  We talked about this in this meeting.  Away from that to move them, and we know that that is not actually going to solve anything.  We are just moving people.  I am opposed because we are not even using our staff resources effectively.  We haven’t seen that full-time staff efficiency.  We are going to be misusing police department resources.  I believe our housing department would need to hire another full-time staff to be able to manage implementation of this as well and let alone, we know the numbers in terms of Denver’s camping ban.  They have a camping ban.  It’s not exactly effective, and they spend millions of dollars annually to abate their camps, and I would much rather that those dollars be invested in proactive solutions as opposed to reactive solutions.  We should be focusing on funding the housing plan.  We have the first ever strategic housing plan for the city of Aurora that was implemented December 2020.  That also hasn’t been in effect long enough for us to actually have tangible solutions.  We have a great plan.  Best practices vetted by, you know, what other cities have done.  We should be funding that.  We should be proactively pursuing those solutions to be able to maintain and increase our affordable housing stock.  We are already doing some of these things.  We are just not resourcing those areas.  We could be using the American Rescue Plan Act instead.  The federal dollars.  The federal ARPA dollars to, again, fund some of these solutions.  There is, I believe, five million dollars that we have allocated towards housing solutions, and then another five-million-dollar reserve that we have yet determined what to do.  There is a proposal in discussions that our staff have had to create a homeless campus or housing campus on the Anschutz Medical Campus where our current Day Resource Center is in partnership with other community members.  Why aren’t we doing that?  That’s a solution.  Those are partners.  The campus could step up to support this community.  Those are all things I would have much rather spend those millions of dollars that we are potentially going to be liable for by enforcing this as opposed to being reactive.  I think we should be proactive and funding the things we are currently doing instead of passing meaningless resolutions that have no teeth.  We know that the language here doesn’t align with the narrative and rhetoric that we have heard around being compassionate.  This is not in any way, shape or form compassionate. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I know that we are going to vote on 14a, and I don’t want to cut off discussion, but I do want to remind everyone it is 11:36.  We do have a lot of staff here.  I would urge you to let us go ahead and vote on 14a.  We still have to get through 11a, and then the other items. 

Councilmember Lawson:    The problem I have with this is that within the 72-hour notice.  I think that what is going to have to happen, because this will probably pass, the mayor, or communications or something needs to let the people know that along 225 – that is organized by CDOT.  They have a different policy.  When you get into where I live, the Cherry Creek Park, that’s a whole different situation that we haven’t even discussed.  What I have an issue with is, we knew this was coming up last year.  I think that there should have been some conversations with the state, because that part is not going to be abated at all.  Those individuals will probably go into that area.  I wish there was some language in here because a 72-hour notice may be something that you’re going to do within the city, but we still must look at those other areas that are not jurisdictional with the City of Aurora.  When people call us, you have to understand that CDOT along 225 – that’s CDOT, we have an intergovernmental agreement with them that’s seven days.  Along where the state park is – we haven’t even had a conversation.  You are going to see people there.  You are going to see individuals that are housed there until we can work something out.  I just wanted to put that our there, because that is not really been discussed, and I think that that is going to have to be a reality as when you call councilmembers and say they are over there, the 72 hours may not be realistic in some parts.

Councilmember Gardner:    I really appreciate all of the commentors tonight that came in both in person and on the phone.  I think it was disappointing to me that some folks used is as an opportunity to dunk on the police department again.  That is old and tired.  We really need to focus on what the issues are as it relates to this policy.  It’s important that we focus on that as we have this debate.  We need to do this.  It’s one tool in the tool belt.  This will not solve all of our issues with homelessness in Aurora.  If it did, then it would have solved it in Denver as well.  Our current status quo is not working.  I’ve had responsibility before for a business location that had an encampment on it where the police had to respond 8 different times, because they couldn’t serve a trespass notice, because we didn’t have a policy like this in place.  That is not acceptable.  Further, our first responders are already going to these locations, and they are encountering things like needles, human feces, booby traps – a whole variety of things.  In another jurisdiction there was a firefighter that has a broken leg from falling into a hole trying to protect a homelessness encampment.  This is a public health issue.  This is a sanitation issue not only for the residents in the rest of our city, but also for the residents that are living in these homeless encampments.  I appreciate what Councilmember Lawson said.  I think it’s going to be important as we communicate this to the community that we level what this is going to look like.  What it’s going to solve.  What it’s not going to solve, but in general, I think this is an important tool for us to have, so I will be voting to support it. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Any other discussion? 

Councilmember Marcano:    It bears repeating that this is quite literally what we are already doing, and it hasn’t done anything, so why would be enshrine this in our code, and actually remove flexibility from staff when it has been unsuccessful as public policy for the last several years already.  It just beggars’ belief that we’re trying to do a logic pretzel here, I guess.  This is a waste of time and money.  I strongly urge a “no” vote, and I urge you all to support permanent supportive housing. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  I think it’s important to look at the majority of residents in our city – we have received emails, phone calls, seen social media posts from residents that live in my ward and throughout the city that are very concerned about the encampments, and the safety of those encampments.  I’ve heard from people that want us to do something.  Probably 80 percent of this entire Aurora population wants us to do something – an encampment ban.  I’m listening to my residents and that is my duty to make sure that they are represented as well.  You mentioned Houston earlier.  They do have a camping ban, and I know they have done really great things to help homelessness and to come up with solutions.  I think this is being responsible to those residents and businesses that are crying out to us to do something while we currently have services and we can look for more opportunities to help our homelessness whether they have addiction problems and we need to get them into rehabilitation, or you know, we have people that have mental illness that we can – we are funding Aurora Mental Health Campus.  If we can get them resources.  There is a lot of things that I think that we all agree, you know, whether what side of the aisle you are on.  We all do have compassion.  We do want to help people.  We might have different ways of getting at a solution, but I think this is something we have to do. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:  One comment that I would just like to make is that, currently the homeless issue I feel mostly falls on the backs of business owners in Aurora.  I’ve witnessed firsthand.  They come in.  You know, they need things – toilet paper, soap, paper towels.  These are things that they need, and they are being taken out of small businesses.  I am not saying that we need to deny them of these things.  I am saying we need to offer them alternatives rather than this being on the backs of small businesses owners, because that is exactly where this lies right now.

Councilmember Zvonek:    Earlier, Councilmember Marcano talked about the need for us to be honest with our constituents, and he’s absolutely right.  And when we talk about the root causes of homelessness, we have to be honest that when it comes to addiction and mental health issues that the city in it of itself is not equipped to deal with those issues on its own.  We have to rely on the state and county governments to help us with those areas.  The one thing that the city should be responsible for – the top priority of any municipal government should be public safety.  And there is just no question that these encampments being on the sides of our highways, just beyond fence lines in our neighborhoods next to our businesses – these are serious public health safety issues for our residents and those in the encampments.  This proposal is the one step that we can take as a local government to push some of those people that are encampments who have disassociated from society and support, into a shelter situation where they can get that.  I am in support of this, and I am thankful that we are finally doing something, because the status quo has failed us.  Our residents and those in the encampments deserve better. 

Councilmember Coombs:  I have a question for staff.  My question is, we know that we have a budget for encampments that we budgeted for.  Should this ordinance require more cost?  Like cost more than we have budgeted? What to do we do to cover the budget gap between what we have budgeted and what we would need to enforce this? 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    There is always an opportunity to come to the spring workshop with a supplemental budget. 

Councilmember Coombs:    I am aware of that, but I wanted to see if staff had any thoughts that they had put into this already since it is likely to be more costly than what we are doing. 

Jessica Prosser:    Sure.  Councilmember Coombs, so we currently have a budget for this in a 2022 budget.  We are tracking it closely working across the departments and working with our contractor that does abatement.  If we get to a point where we are getting close to overspend that, we will bring it back for a supplemental either in the spring, or we would have to address it as part of a budget request for 2023. 

Councilmember Coombs:    Ok – I did want to also point out that one of the other responsibilities of local government is land use and housing.  To say that public safety is the only area that we have levers of control, I think is inaccurate and incomplete, and so we could be doing things to house people – not just shelter them. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I do want to make a comment Councilmember Zvonek talked about, but public safety is the number one priority in the city of Aurora that consistently.  Just for the public, we are not a county, we are only a city, so our revenues do only come from sales and use tax primarily.  10% from property taxes.  When we talk about social services, we have to remember that we need partners from Adams County, Arapahoe County and Douglas County to assist us.  We should not really have the entire burden on our shoulders.  They should really need to also step up to the plate and help us.  Any other discussion?  Otherwise, we will go ahead and vote on 14.a. with the amendment that passed with Councilmember Murillo’s 3^rd amendment. 

1st Reading Vote to Pass the Camping Ban with Murillo Amendment (Storage of People’s Belongings)

Clerk Rodriguez: Mayor,   we do have a tie vote, so you can vote to break the tie.

Mayor Coffman:    To the passage of item 14.a.  the mayor votes yes. 

Clerk Rodriguez:    The motion passes with 6 yes votes and five no votes.  No votes from Councilmember Medina, Councilmember Marcano, Councilmember Coombs, Councilmember Lawson and Councilmember Murillo. 

Unknown Speaker:    Y’all are a damn shame.  You wasted 6 hours of our damn time tonight!

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Order!

Unknown Speaker:    We pay you to serve us, and this is what you do!

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Order!  You are being disrespectful! 

Unknown Speaker:    6 hours! 6 hours of our damn time!  We pay you!  Don’t forget that!  We are going to be back here!  You are going to see us marching in the streets!  You need to listen to us, because you work for us!  You take our money and then you screw us!  That’s not democracy! 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    We are taking a recess. 

Mayor Coffman:    I move item number 11.a. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Is there a second?

Councilmember Zvonek:    Second.

Mayor Coffman:    Item number 11.a. is a companion to ordinance 14.a., and it directs the city manager to search, provide and maintain appropriate shelter options for those individuals from the encampments that are abated. 

Councilmember Murillo:  Question city attorney, how does this differ than what we are already doing?  How would this current resolution change what our current processes are?  My understanding is that the City Manager and our staff are already implementing our housing strategy, which includes maintaining affordable housing.

City Attorney Joyce:    I don’t know how it relates exactly to the housing strategy.

Councilmember Murillo:  Wait, I wasn’t done though.  That’s not the point.  The point is that we are already doing work that is expanding our housing options, including our shelter options.  So how does this differ?

City Attorney Joyce:    The shelter options, we have a need to have a shelter option to abate a camp.  So, we need more options available, so that we can continue to abate camps and provide services to those people that need assistance to get out, if they are homeless – to get out of their cycle of homelessness.

Councilmember Murillo:    Aren’t we already doing that with our housing strategy?  Pursuing shelter options?  We have had a couple of recent requests.

City Attorney Joyce:    No, I don’t believe what we are searching for with housing strategy, I think that’s permanent housing where the shelter option is temporary service – temporary housing providing services.

Councilmember Murillo:    Are you sure about that?  I just want clarity.  This feels like a redundant resolution when I was under the impression that we were already pursuing options to our unhoused. 

Jessica Prosser:    Councilmember Murillo, sorry, I forgot about the resolution.  I apologize.  We have, through Covid, been looking for temporary shelter options and utilizing Covid dollars.  What I would suggest with this – staff would bring back a list of shelter options to the March 24^th study session where we can look at the cost per bed.  We can look at the timeline for implementation.  We can look at more temporary options.  More long-term permanent solutions related to what different sheltering options look like.  That is what the resolution for me would be directing.  I would be directing staff to come back to council with a matrix of options to be considered. 

Councilmember Murillo:    And just for clarification, I thought we were already having conversation, because we had $5 million dollars allocated in ARPA dollars for a homeless shelter capability.  I thought we were already going to have that conversation

Jessica Prosser:    Yes, that conversation is currently happening, and that could be one of the options on the list of different solutions, understanding that a new shelter facility or a rehab of a building for a shelter facility is going to be a longer timeline than the implementation of the ordinance. 

Councilmember Murillo:    I feel like my question is answered.  We are already pursuing these shelter options regardless of this resolution as was just outlined by our staff. 

Councilmember Bergan:    Often times Councilmembers do resolutions that just direct staff.  This is not a new situation.  We do this quite a bit, and it’s just to put, basically, you know, in writing that we are asking for shelter alternatives to come forward to us at a later date.  On the $5 million, I believe that was set aside – as I understand it, not necessarily for the one proposal that was brought forward at workshop, but it could be for other homeless ideas. 

Jessica Prosser:    It is very broadly stated, is, you know, the homeless emergency shelter is stated broadly. 

Councilmember Lawson:    So, Jessica, I just have a question for you.  This, obviously, I didn’t support the camping ban, but I am going to support this, because we do need shelter options.  So, realistically, can you tell me how many we have now, and when this becomes an effective law in 30 days, how many more shelters can we have as we are starting to move forward on this?  Because we will need some.  Can you just give me like an approximate?  I know you are coming back to the study session, but I think that that is an important question. 

Jessica Prosser:  We currently have about 200 to 250 without it being cold weather depending how people are doubled up.  That is kind of the current capacity.  I don’t know that we can produce a whole lot of new options within 30 days of when exactly the ordinance is implemented.  However, we can come back with some realistic timelines for what it would take to implement additional beds fairly quickly. 

Councilmember Lawson:  Can I ask the attorney something?  We say we are supposed to offer them a shelter place, correct?  And then they go, and then the place is not offered, then can that person come back and do a kind of complaint against the city?  Sue the city?  If we are saying we are offering them a shelter space, or space somewhere in one of our safe spaces, and they go there, and they are not offered one because they did accept that they would go.  Could they file a complaint against the city?  Sue the city?  Could there be something against the city? 

City Attorney Joyce:    I don’t see a cause of action for them to sue the city.  No.  They are voluntarily going.  We are not forcing them to go, so I see no cause of action for them at all. 

Councilmember Lawson:    But if there is no option and we said that there could be an option.

Attorney Joyce:    If there is no option available, we do not abate the camp.  We do not move those people. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Further discussion? 

Councilmember Coombs:  My question is – I guess I just want to make sure we are very clear about what we are doing here, because the concern I have is that what we end up doing here is creating a minimal amount of shelter for the purposes of being able to abate more camps, and not for the purposes of really addressing this issue.  I just want to clarify, Jessica, when you are bringing what you are bringing back to council are you also going to be bringing back funding requests adequate to meet the full need, or is it going to be just within the funding we already have – this is what we can do?   

Jessica Prosser:    We will bring back lots of options with the costs, and so, if council provides direction on which alternative options they would like staff to pursue, that would generate a funding request back to council, but even once council decides which option they would like to pursue, we probably would need to review the costs and get more information back to be able to make that funding request. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Further discussion, or shall we vote on the resolution?  It’s just a resolution. 

Councilmember Marcano:    Jessica, when we are looking at a plan, I would like to see a supportive housing plan with costs and opportunities for partnerships with the county and state come as a result of this resolution.  We don’t need to be just trying to achieve the bare minimum to justify moving people along our city indefinitely.  What I want to make clear for folks who are still listening, we are currently embarking down the path of becoming Seattle or Los Angeles or another one of those big cities with camping bans and a huge homeless problem.  Because none of them have actually committed the resources to solving the problem.  I don’t want us to repeat those exact same footsteps.  So again, permanent supportive housing seems to do the trick wherever it is implemented at the right scale.  I want us to have success as well.  Please include that in what you are bringing to us with the resolution.  That is really imperative, and I think it would be great to see. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Further discussion?  Let’s go ahead and vote, Katie, on 11.a. 

Clerk Rodriguez:    The motion passes with 9 yes votes and 1 no vote.  Councilmember Murillo voting no.

Aurora City Council March 14th, 2022 Regular Meeting on the Camping Ban

You may access the video of the debate about the camping ban from the March 14th, 2022 regular meeting on The Aurora Channel (Youtube) at the 2:35:55 mark.

Clerk Rodriguez:    Item 15.b. is ordinance 2022-12, an ordinance of the City Council of Aurora, Colorado adopting a new section to be numbered 94 122 in the city code pertaining to prohibiting unauthorized camping on public or private property and adding article 4 Section 114 106 – 114 112 thru chapter 114 abating unauthorized camps on public property. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Discussion? Mayor?

Mayor Coffman:    Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.  This item number 15.b. unauthorized camping abatement ordinance requires 72 hours’ notice with a provision for an extension in the event of inclement weather prior to an abatement can occur.  It requires the city to offer an alternative shelter option for those in a specific encampment that is being abated and requests a shelter option.  It does not criminalize homelessness, and I have some clarifying amendments on that that I will be offering in a minute.  It applies both to private and public grounds, but a point of clarification – the abatement provision does not apply to private, although camping is unauthorized on private property.  The abatement provision does not apply, because there are already tools in terms of the fact that it already makes unauthorized camping illegal.  It defines what unauthorized camping is- makes it illegal in public and private property.  There are already mechanisms in place whereby a private property owner can file a complaint in terms of trespassing, and it would be the responsibility of the private property owner to clean up their property under our firm code enforcement rules.  That is not necessary.  And so, I would renew my motion on number 15.b., and have two amendments, if I could.

Public invited to be heard section 

Mayor Coffman:    I move item number 15.b.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Is there a second? 

Councilmember Zvonek:    Second.

Mayor Coffman:    I would like to offer my amendment.  This amendment clarifies that no person shall receive a fine, be imprisoned, or appear in court for violating being in an unlawful, unauthorized camp.  Section 94-122 permits the city to order individuals in an unlawful, unauthorized camp to move from the unauthorized camp site, so the site can be cleaned.  I move to amend section 94-122 sub paragraph 4 – the proposed unauthorized camping ordinance to include the following language:  “No person shall be issued a summons and complaint for violating this section.”  With the approval of this amendment, section 94-122 sub paragraph 4 will read as follows:  “Any person convicted of violating this section shall not be subject to the general penalty provisions as provided in section 1-13 of the city code.  No persons shall be issued a summons and complaint for violating this section.”  I move the amendment.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Is there a second to the amendment?  Without a second the amendment fails.  Fails.

Mayor Coffman:    Ok.  We are back to the original proposed ordinance.  Then I would ask for an aye vote. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Discussion.

Councilmember Murillo:    This is not the first time we have had this conversation.  We spent a lot of time in the last meeting.  I’ve expressed how I feel.  I want to use this time to bring up a conversation around an amendment I proposed and have since amended around the storage of personal property.  I have shared that with our staff to be able to show on screen, but happy to say also say it.  Essentially, I will be adding a section.  In Section 7, would be section 114-11 Storage of Personal Property.  “The city manager shall develop a policy for storage of personal property removed from an abated, unauthorized camp.  The policy shall be presented to the City Council for council’s approval.  The policy shall address the types of personal property that shall be stored, the length of the storage period for unattended personal property, the length of storage period for the personal property of individuals receiving homelessness services, and a location and accessibility of these storage facilities.  This was my attempt to incorporate the feedback.  It sounded like there was some support for storage at this time, but it didn’t make sense to specifically prescribe the ways in which we would enforce something like this.  So, I was deferring to our staff structure to come up with a process that can be developed for our council for further approval.  I want to move to amend this ordinance with this language. 

Councilmember Marcano:    Second.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Is there a discussion on the amendment? 

Mayor Coffman:    If I could ask a question to staff.  How do you, under this amendment, how do you determine what is an item of value and an item that is not of value?

Attorney Joyce:    Mayor, with Councilmember Murillo’s proposed amendment, the city manager would develop a policy, and we could put in that policy possible definitions of what might be something of value.  How you would determine something of value – something like that.  An identification is valuable.  What is storable – it’s something we have to work out that we present to you for your approval. 

Mayor Coffman:    isn’t this property abandoned?  Basically, we are saying they forgot something, or they can’t carry it all.  Is that the issue? 

Attorney Joyce:    Currently, I believe we do store on site anything that we deem to be of value.  Does that answer your question mayor?

Mayor Coffman:  Yes, and how do you identify it to the individual, if you have a number of people living in an encampment? 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Councilmember Murillo would like to address that.

Councilmember Murillo:    Yes, so this is kind of the difficulty, and why I chose to draft language as such with the support of our city attorneys was because:  1 if we are describing specific pieces within the ordinance, in order for us to change that we have to do that as an ordinance.  If it’s too prescriptive it doesn’t give us the flexibility to ebb and flow to our needs, you know, address definitions, etc.  Though I didn’t specifically go down that rabbit hole – because I had a lot of the same questions, so I think it makes a lot of sense to defer to our staff who is going to work with our providers and all of that good stuff, exactly as they do now.  Likely they will be a reflection of, kind of, what we do in practice now, but I like the idea of formalizing a policy to address these categories.  This might not be the most exhaustive – you know, I don’t know if this will be all of the things they consider, but I think these are kind of the areas I heard folks wanting to address for and against the ordinance.  So, just to clarify Mayor, there is not that exact specific definition for that reason. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    My first question is for Jessica Prosser.  You had said two weeks ago that as of right now, important documents, paperwork, identification – that is stored, correct? 

Jessica Prosser:  Yes, so if the abatement contractor comes across something that looks like a vital document, then it will be set to the side.  When we are abating an encampment, sometimes that is done by hand with hand tools, but yes, if something appears to be a personal item to mention an ID, medication, you know, something very typical like that – a vital document, it will be set aside. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    Two weeks ago, I was in support of this amendment.  I have since changed my opinion, and it’s because some people have come forward that are with some organizations that offer services to Aurora, and they would like to stay protected and stay anonymous.  They mentioned that it’s a really big problem if things like sleeping bags and some clothing, stuff like that are stored.  That it’s problematic for an entire facility.  It has time and time again shown that bed bugs come with those items, lice have come in with those items – an array of things have come in with those items.  They pointed these things out.  As long as what is already in place and remains in place, which I feel confident it will – that for medication, identification, personal documents – that those things are secured and, you know, these people are able to get those items back.  I just don’t think that anything beyond that for health reasons should be storing.  I have to withdraw my support for the amendment. 

Councilmember Zvonek:    I could potentially be in favor of this concept as  a companion resolution directing staff to come up with some sort of policy, but I would not, will not support it as a substantive amendment to this ordinance.  I think it is still very vague and there are still some safeguards in place as Councilmember Jurinsky just mentioned.  Councilmember Murillo, if you want to bring forward a companion resolution that sought to do something like this, I would be more open to it, but as far as an amendment to this ordinance I would be a no. 

Councilmember Murillo:    I think that the mayor was admittable to this being a substantive amendment.  He said this on record last time that he would even be open to this being subject to a 3^rd reading as a result of this substantive amendment.  I want to include it as is.  I understand every scenario going through your head potentially as we are having this conversation, because that is exactly the wall I hit when I went to draft this.  I felt like this was the most appropriate way to move forward to give our subject matter experts the ability to craft what that looks like.  I even wanted to highlight the hazmat procedures because I want it to be very clear that we want it to be safe- protect everyone’s safety and like have a process to determine what’s valuable and what’s not.  How much we can keep and how much we cannot keep.  But, again, we would be talking in circles because that wouldn’t be possible on city policy level at this time.  I just feel like it would be more appropriate from an information standpoint to leave the folks who are doing that work to develop that policy.  I hear the back and forth there, but I think this is giving as much structure and ability to define what we mean by valuable, and all of those things as-is. 

Councilmember Gardner:    When we talked two weeks, I said I would support this concept and I still do.  I don’t like the idea of someone facing their camp being abated and their government taking their property and destroying it.  I think what councilmember Murillo came up with is vague enough that it will allows to address the concerns that councilmember Jurinsky brought up, and maybe we don’t include sleeping bags, because of the potential of the bed bugs or whatever that looks like.  I think this is vague enough so that it allows us to address all of that.  It allows staff to solve that, but I think what it really does is it creates the policy direction, and then it tells staff they need to create the policy and come back and bring it to council for approval, which is how are system should work.  I am really in favor of this, and I hope there will be enough support to put this change in here, because I think it’s really important.  It’s just like when somebody goes to jail.  We don’t take their property and destroy it.  It’s a similar concept.  I think it’s really important that we protect people’s belongings. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I actually want to say something as well.  I do think it’s important to be able to protect people’s valuables.  I think defining what valuables are is going to be, obviously, staff, for your direction.  My question to staff:  based on this amendment, do you feel that you would be able to have the resources to be able to store items and to define what should be stored?  Because obviously there is a monetary concern there even from a perspective of having enough space for storage.  I know the Day Resource Center has some lockers.  I don’t know if we could expand on that.  Could you address your ability to come up with a policy? 

Lana Dalton:    As far as coming up with a policy, I think that that’s something we could do in a definition.  I think of things along the line of medication, personal identification – those pieces make a lot of sense typically when a camp is being abated.  Looking at things like sleeping bags, tents, fabric – things of that nature tend to be soiled or it’s just not a storable item at that point in time.  As far as an actual storage facility, I would, personally, based on what I know about the ADRC and the limited amount of sources they have there and quantity of abatements that this may ensue, we would need some sort of storage facility and funds in order to make that happen.  I don’t foresee just a couple of lockers ADRC allowing for sufficient storage for the items that we would come across in the abatements. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  And then if the camp is abated there is a 72-hour notice, but obviously the intention behind the camping ban is to offer alternative shelter, so for those who do accept alternative shelter in that situation, would those shelters have the ability to store items? 

Jessica Prosser:  Yes, so, currently people can bring their personal items with them.  That would remain with any shelter option that would be pursued in addition.  Right now, people can bring personal items with them.  That’s typically a backpack and a couple of bags that can fit in the sheltering option.  So, probably not large tents and, you know, propane tanks and things like that.  It would probably just be what we would kind of define as personal items and our street outreach teams work with folks about what can come along with them. 

Councilmember Marcano:    I just want to state that I support this amendment, although I remain opposed to the overall policy because it’s going to generate a tremendous amount of harm, I do support these attempts to do some harm mitigation.  I will be supporting the amendment, but my stance on the original amendment still has not changed. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Mayor, do you consider this as a friendly amendment?

Mayor Coffman:  Yes, I do.

Councilmember Coombs:    I think it’s really important that this be as an ordinance, not as a resolution.  To make sure that as we are looking at this policy that we understand that along with this policy it is necessary to protect people’s personal belonging.  I am going to support the amendment, and I hope others will as well. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    I still have a problem with this amendment.  I think that city staff is already very committed to preserving personal documents, identifications, medications.  I think that without the proper wording of what I would understand is vague, but they are already storing these items, and I just think that, in any way, if this allows vetting items of fabric, which city staff also mentioned, I think that this could very easily become an infectious control issue, and I am very much against this amendment. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I have a question on – I don’t know if you can bring it up on the screen again, the actually reading?  If staff is not able to come up with the policy, does this negate the camping ban? 

Attorney Joyce:    I believe the way the amendment is written, staff will continue to submit proposals for policies for your approval, and eventually you will either approve a policy or not.  If we cannot come to a resolution for a policy, it may stall the abatement process. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I think that probably brings up councilmember Zvonek’s point that it needs to be a companions resolution, because we probably shouldn’t be voting on the camping ban ordinance and then do the companion resolution, because if you come back and say it’s completely impossible, or you say it is possible and here are the boundaries and the requirements, then we would vote on that as a separate resolution.  I personally think it needs to be separate. 

Councilmember Murillo:    We could talk about all of the possible scenarios that this wouldn’t work out.  We have already outlined that we have a policy that we follow.  That potentially could be it.  I’m hoping that we have more robust discussion.  We don’t have all of the information that we have available to us at this point in time.  We are not the subject matter experts working with these service providers to think about processes.  To talk about actual assets and space we have an available if that’s the will of the council.  That’s the thing, is I am certain there is a policy to be had.  I know it may not be everything I want it to be, but that’s also why it wasn’t very prescriptive and that we were considering input from staff to see what is feasible.  I don’t think they are going to recommend something that they can’t fulfill.  I still think it is appropriate in this ordinance.  It is vague intentionally to address these issues, and now we are talking about it being too vague, and it’s not going to work.  I would ask you all to consider that conundrum.  It’s too much or too little.  I think it’s enough direction to staff to be able to address this. 

Mayor Coffman:    I’m fine with this.  I think what this does is that it memorializes, in a way, the status quo, but it memorializes it to the extent that it is now a part of the ordinance.  Yes, it could be done in the form of a resolution, but I am fine with doing it as an ordinance, and yes, it is a substantive amendment that would, in fact, delay the implementation by requiring an additional vote.  I will renew my clarifying motion on clarifying language that this ordinance does not criminalize homelessness.  There were some members that were concerned about delaying this to another vote, but I do support this amendment and will delay it for another vote.  Next, I will renew my motion for the clarifying language to support the amendment.

City Manager Twombly:    I just want to understand, are we being asked to bring back verbiage for the next council meeting? 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    No, it’s to develop policy.  It’s just direction, right?

Manager Twombly:    So, this will be the actual verbiage in the ordinance, and then we will come back when we feel like we have the policy.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Correct.

Mayor Coffman:    Normally I think that this would just give the discretion to staff to implement the policy, but does this amendment require it to come back to council?  And to council to vote again on the policy?  It gives discretion – is my understanding.

Lana Dalton:    Correct

Mayor Coffman:    Are we actually voting again?

Attorney Joyce:  The exact mechanism – I am not sure.  I don’t know that if the city manager makes a policy and how that’s presented to you for your approval.  That might just be a motion, as opposed to an ordinance or a resolution.

Attorney Brotzman:    This is the same language with our employee handbook that comes to council – council reviews it.  This is the same language used in the employee handbook.  It’s in this particular ordinance.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  To clarify, we would not be voting on policy.  We are voting now on this being included.  With your camping ban ordinance, correct mayor? 

Mayor Coffman:    I think there is a little bit of question here, but I think as I understand it the language, which is consistent with other policies whereby we are giving direction to staff, but the actual implementation language – the rule making, if you will, that the discretion of city management, and so it will come back to city council for a review so to silence it’s consent.  I don’t think it requires a formal vote. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:  I guess I would like to ask city staff, maybe the city manager, what is the timeline to develop this policy? 

Attorney Joyce:    I am aware of what Denver does, and a few other jurisdictions.  It may be a quick turnaround to get some sort of policy, whether it’s approved by a majority of council, I don’t know, but it might be a short turnaround to give something to you.

Jessica Prosser:    I would say probably, reasonably, it would be six weeks.  I think we would want to work with the service providers and folks that would be transporting folks to shelter as well.  Dependent upon the shelter option if that storage can be fully accommodated within the shelter option, or if we would need to lease additional space.  I would say by the time the ordinance would go into effect, we would at least have a policy in place, so that’s about 5-6 weeks from now – from the time of the last reading of the ordinance. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    So, another 6 weeks beyond the 30 days? 

Jessica Prosser:    No, I am just saying, at this point, if we need to look at some options and talk with some service providers, it’s going to take us a few weeks to come up with what exactly the policy is.  Then we would have to write the policy and get it approved through our normal kind of process for doing that.  This would probably be companion business policy memorandum to what we currently have that we will implement this ordinance.  We currently have one.  We will tweak it, make sure we are implementing the ordinance as written now, and then there will probably be a companion business policy memorandum specifically dealing with the personal property piece. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Tonight, could be a final vote on this.  If we accept that amendment, we are looking at another vote in two weeks at a council meeting, and then we have 30 days from there to make it actual law.  You are saying that that policy I going to be designed and then would have to be implemented by staff.  My question to the attorney is, we would not enforce the camping ban until all of that is done? 

Attorney Joyce:  No, what we have in place right now – we have a policy that we are using to abate camps.  This ordinance will not be effective for 30 days after last reading.  It’s about 6 weeks away before this ordinance becomes effective. 

Councilmember Murillo:    I think Jessica was trying to make or share and alignment of timeline that that they could be talking to service providers in this, roughly, 5 – 6 weeks.  It would be another 2 weeks before the final reading, plus those 30 days to be effective.  That’s essentially 5-6 weeks that they would have to develop something when this becomes effective.  I hope that wasn’t confusing.  Staff was just saying that they could come up with policies and have the conversations within the timeframe from when this would be effective. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    Looking at service providers, are we talking about taxpayer money?  Are we talking about taxpayer’s dollars to rent space to store personal items? 

Jessica Prosser:  Yes, we would, right now, accommodate the current shelter that we have.  If there is a need to go beyond that upon the volume that we can expect, then we would put together an analysis of what that would cost. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    If this ordinance passed without this amendment, would it change anything that you guys are already doing as far as storing medications, identifications, paperwork – stuff like that? 

Lana Dalton:    I want to clarify; we are not storing anything.  We are leaving those items on site to pick up.  We are not storing those currently.  If someone were to come back to a site that was abated and there were important documents left behind – we are leaving them behind.  We are not storing them in a different facility for them to come and pick up. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    I would like to say that while I am talking my colleague, councilmember Murillo says under hear breath that she can’t stand that everything always comes back to being about taxpayer dollars, well, every one of us up here has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers of Aurora.  I really don’t appreciate the undertones.  And mayor Coffman, I just would like to say that I see this as a delay tactic, and some of us have supported this camping ban pretty fiercely, and I am a little bit upset that you are accepting this amendment to further delay clearly what the voters want. 

Mayor Coffman:    Well, I also have an amendment that is substantive that would, in fact, delay it – that I would like to get on this proposal.  It was anticipated that this process would take a little bit longer.  We have lived with it for a long time.  People are fed up with it.  People want it to end.  You are right, it would take two extra weeks before the effective date of this proposal.  I think that’s explainable to the residents of this city who have waited so long for this policy.  I do have an amendment that I would like to share after the vote on this. 

May Pro Tem Bergan:    Mayor, it’s different from the amendment you made earlier that failed?

Mayor Coffman:    Well, I understand, city attorney, that there wasn’t a 2^nd, thank you very much – that it’s not a settled question. 

Councilmember Murillo:    I mean, we just had a conversation about decorum and not calling councilmembers out, and here we are.  If I were to share the under-breath comments that I hear from this side of the dais – you guys would be shocked.  Let’s please not open that can of worms.  Some pretty heinous things have been said in my opinion.  I am frustrated that this is straightforward.  It gives direction.  It gives flexibility.  I think folks who have very clearly opposed have taken advantage of every single opportunity to make it sound like something it’s not.  We have said time and time again that the mayor was ok with it.  The mayor also had an amendment that would have delayed it in the first place, so to say that this is a delay tactic is an uninformed opinion.  Again, there is chatter that detracting from the essence, which is – we are taking away everything people have in this world with this ordinance.  How dare we not even provide opportunity to store that safely for people.  How dare we.  This is everything that people own, and we can’t even pass an amendment that will start the conversation, because we are trying to make it something it’s not.  I am very disappointing that that is the case.  I said it.  It is very clear.  You guys read it on the screen about what it does and does not do.  Its eve comes back to council, and we can’t move this forward.  I don’t know what else I would’ve included in this that we wouldn’t have had this dialogue.  Folks are trying to detract from treating people with dignity and storing their stuff.  Again, it’s straightforward.  City council was giving city manager and staff direction to come up with a policy that city council would ultimately approve.  I would just ask that we support this and move on. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    I just want to say something in response to what was just said.  Councilmember Murillo just stated that with this ordinance we would be taking away everything that a homeless person has, but even without this ordinance what’s being kept right now is identifications, personal paperwork and medications.  You haven’t said anything about them losing anything else without this ordinance.  You haven’t said anything about how they are currently being abated. 

Councilmember Marcano:  I do want to point out that this entire ordinance, not just this amendment, is going to carry a pretty tremendous fiscal note.  I want to thank the folks who have come out and testified in person and those who have done so remotely.  I am disappointed to tell you that, if this passes, and I suspect it will, nothing is going to change, because this is what we basically do today.  We are just going to speed up the clock a little bit.  It’s going to keep costing us a ton of money, and you are going to still see folks camping out on the highway.  You will still see folks camping out near your residences, because haven’t actually provided a solution.  I will talk a little bit about that when we get to the main ordinance, but like I said, this is going to carry fiscal note to store people’s stuff, and it is the absolute least we can do if we are going to keep shuffling them around the city until the sun burns out.  Again, you all deserve a solution, and this is not even close to it. 

Councilmember Coombs:    With respect to the amendment and to what we are doing and not doing, what Lana said is that we are leaving people’s items at the site, when the camp is abated, if it seems of value.  That is very different from storing it and moving it safely.  I can’t imagine how many people’s ID’s have ended up in somebody else’s hands or buried in the dirt, or something along those lines as a result of having a policy of setting aside on site items during abatements, and having access to one’s ID is one of the barriers that so many people face in getting housed as well as having access to a phone.  There are many types of items that they may never get back.  If your cellphone is left out at an abated camp, it doesn’t seem very likely that you are going to get that back.  I do think that this makes a big difference between what we are currently doing and as councilmember Murillo says, this is the least we can do to treat people with some dignity in this process. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan: I have question for staff.  When camps are abated, do people typically carry their ID on them, or have you found IDs just left?

Lana Dalton:    Yeah, they can be left behind.  Many times, they leave them in backpacks, which they do carry with them, but they have definitely been seen along with birth certificates and social security cards. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    I would also like to point out that this isn’t something that – an argument has been made that a homelessness person would go to work in the morning and come back and their camp has been abated.  I would just like to point out that this ordinance provides a 72-hour notice that their camp would be abated, so they would have notice to their belongings to move, to go to another shelter, to take a hotel voucher – all of the things being offered.  It’s not like within an hour all of their stuff would be abated.  This ordinance includes a 72-hour notice to vacate. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I would just say that that is a good point, and maybe you would speak to that, mayor or staff, in terms of the 72-hour notice.  They have to be given that notice face to face, correct?

Attorney Joyce:    That’s correct.  We cannot abate a camp without 72 hours’ worth of notice and the shelter option except in some emergency situations like if you are blocking a fire exit, we can’t tell you to move, but we aren’t going to clean your camp up, we will just tell you to move.  If there is a flood zone and a flood is coming, we tell you to move, so there are minor exceptions, but in those situations, we are not abating the camp then, we are just telling you to move because there is a danger. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  As far as personal items, they know that they should keep their personal items in their backpack on them if they have a 72-hour notice? 

Attorney Joyce:    They get the 72-hour notice.  What they choose to do is what they decide to do.   

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I just want to point out that if no amendments happened with this ordinance, the ordinance would be effective April 16^th.  If the amendment goes forward, then I would be April 30^th. 

Councilmember Lawson:    I know that we have a MOU with CDOT for the corridor of 225 – when we see these camps along 225.  My question to you – how does that work?  We have 72 hours here.  CDOT has 7 days.  Can you tell me how that works in a memorandum MOU that we have?  We give them notice of 72 hours, and then we work with CDOT of the 7 days? 

Lana Dalton:    No, we have to follow the CDOT policy of 7 days.  We cannot trump it with our ordinance, because of the way the IGA is written currently.  We would have to follow the 7-day rule for any of the CDOT properties that we would be abating on behalf of CDOT. 

Councilmember Lawson:  Ok – I meant to say IGA not MOU.  So, we have the 225 corridors where we are seeing a lot of these camps.  We still have to go along with CDOT procedure.       

Lana Dalton:    Correct.

Councilmember Lawson:    So, it’s not going to be over 72 hours.

Lana Dalton:    Correct. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    So those folks would get even more notice that their camp would be abated than the 72 hours.  They would get even more notice.  One thing I would like to point is if some these belongings that we are talking about storing, if they are stolen, and we store them, is that not a crime in it of itself – theft by receiving?

Attorney Joyce:    If I picked up an ID that didn’t belong to me, yes, that would be theft. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    What about personal belongings that are taken from local businesses?

Attorney Joyce:    Then there is a problem of how – if I am monitoring the storage facility and it’s all unattended property, like a sleeping bag – whatever it might be – clothes, but not identification, I don’t know who that belongs to, so just about anybody could claim that. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    I think that my question is kind of rhetorical, but why would we store it? 

Attorney Joyce:    Because that’s what council would want. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    Thank you.

Councilmember Gardner:  Motion to close the debate on the amendment.

Councilmember Murillo:   Second. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Call for the question for closing debate.

Clerk Rodriguez:    I am sorry mayor pro tem Bergan; it’s taking a second.  A little bit longer than normal.  The question has been opened in escribe and this is to end the debate.  The motion passes with 9 yes votes and 2 no votes.  No from Councilmember Marcano and Councilmember Coombs.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Ok, so now we are going to vote on the amended ordinance. 

2nd Reading Vote on the Murillo Amendment

Clerk Rodriguez:    The question has been opened on Escribe for Councilmember Murillo’s amendment.  The motion passes with 6 votes to include this amendment into the ordinance with the no votes being Councilmember Zvonek, Mayor Pro Tem Bergan, Councilmember Jurinsky and Councilmember Sundberg.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  I just wanted to say that my no vote was because I think there are still some issues to be worked out.  It’s not because I don’t support protecting people’s belongings. 

Mayor Coffman Amendment

Mayor Coffman:    I have an amendment.  I would renew my motion to amend section 94-122 subparagraph 4, the proposed unauthorized camping ordinance to include the following language:  “No person shall be issued a summons and complaint for violating this section.” 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Is there a 2^nd?

Councilmember Zvonek:    Do we need a 2^nd?  Point of order, mayor pro tem.  Do we need a 2^nd for conversation?  Because I would like to know more about what the mayor is bringing up. 

Councilmember Zvonek:    If that’s the case I would like to 2^nd it, because I would like to hear.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    We have already voted on this before.  There was no 2^nd, which is why it failed, so we do need a 2^nd to continue conversation.  

Councilmember Zvonek:    I will 2^nd it to continue conversation.  

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    We have a 2^nd from councilmember Zvonek. 

Mayor Coffman:    If I could go to Mr. Joyce to discuss the content of this clarifying language.  The mayor’s amendment clarifies that no person that is violating – that is in an unauthorized camp, they are not going to be convicted.  They are not going to be given a summon and complaint.  They are not going to go to court.  They are not going to have a warrant out for their arrest because they failed to appear in court.  But what it does is give the city authority that if you are in an unauthorized camp, we can order you to move and if you don’t move then we can issue – you would be trespassing at that point. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I have a question.  So, there is no enforcement? 

Attorney Joyce:    Of the unauthorized – no, there is enforcement, just you will not be charged with the unlawful and unauthorized camp.  If you fail to move, that could be a trespass.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:  Ok, so then if you fail to move and it’s a trespass violation, then police would have to move them? 

Attorney Joyce:    They would be issued a complaint, or summons complaint.  If they continue to stay, the police department could, if they are available, move them – yes. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Ok – to clarify what the mayor is proposing, it’s to not give them a summons ticket – imprison them, but we could still move them, and if they refused to be  moved, they are in a violation of a trespassing ordinance. 

Attorney Joyce:    That is correct. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    To me, this completely takes away enforcement of this camping ban, and in fact, turns it into what councilmember Marcano was talking about – that this would do nothing.  And mayor Coffman, I will seriously have to consider my support of the entire ordinance if you take the teeth out of it. 

Mayor Coffman:    So, this – the whole intent here is not to clog up our criminal justice system.  The intent is that – from the Aurora Police Department, from their records, they can site no incidents.  They have not been able to site and incident that there has been a problem in terms of someone moving when ordered, but the fact is that they could be arrested if they failed to move.  The goal is just to get them to move to an alternate shelter option.  That’s the objective of this ordinance, but what we don’t want to do is siting people – this clarifies that we are not siting people for being in an unauthorized camp.  We are siting people if they fail to move.  The objective is to get them to move. 

Councilmember Marcano:    Mayor, this actually seems very reminiscent of one of the many amendments that I offered last time we discussed this.  My question from the city attorney is – does this still leave an unhoused individual vulnerable to being charged with failure to disobey a lawful order? 

City Attorney Joyce:    If a police officer gives that order and it’s lawful, yes, it could be. 

Councilmember Marcano:    Ok.  That’s what I thought, and I just wanted a clarification from you, because I do want to state that while ADP was unable or doesn’t have the data for how many unhoused individuals might end up getting charged for that, I did get information from the public defender’s office that we have hundreds of individuals who have experienced homelessness and have been charged with trespassing.  So, the ordinance even with the mayor’s change, will still criminalize homelessness in this fashion.  It will actually enshrine that.  It will institutionalize it in the ordinance.  We are basically going to be utilizing city resources and potentially county resources to the tune of about $138 dollars a day.  We could just be providing housing for these people instead and working with the county to do so. 

Mayor Coffman:    The current situation is – we abate encampments.  The difference with this ordinance is that unauthorized camping is unauthorized camping in that it doesn’t have to rise to a level of being a threat to public safety, or a threat to public health to be abated.  Currently, if an encampment is being abated, first of all, the city does not have to offer and alternate shelter option, but if somebody fails to move under current law, they could be arrested. 

Councilmember Zvonek:  My question is for the city attorney and the mayor.  So, this amendment is clarifying your intent of criminalizing somebody for camping to begin with, but, in fact, when we tell them they must move, once they violate that, then they are committing an illegal act.  Which is the original intent of the camping ban.

Mayor Coffman:  Right.  It clarifies it.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    We can now vote on the amendment.

The Vote on the Coffman Amendment

Clerk Rodriguez:    The motion has been opened in Escribe to approve the ordinance for 2022 – 12.  The motion does not pass with 3 yes votes, 7 no votes.  The yes votes were Councilmember Zvonek, Mayor Pro Tem Bergan and Councilmember Gardner. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    We are now back to the original ordinance. 

Mayor Coffman:    Bring in my motion for passing this ordinance, this proposed ordinance.

Councilmember Marcano:    I am going to sound like a broke record, but I just want to re-iterate that you are still going to see people camping all over the place because we are not providing them with housing.  This is going to institutionalize hate violence against folks in our city who are experiencing homelessness.  We need to implement real solutions such as supportive housing and not set taxpayer earned dollars on fire with this kind of cruel and ineffective policy.  Again, if you give an example of how poorly this does, just look at Denver or most major metros across the United States.  I am going to, once again, move to table this indefinitely, and I would invite my colleagues to join us on a fact-finding mission to Houston, Texas and to San Antonio, so that we can actually see how permanent supportive housing has cut their homelessness rate in Houston by over 55% over the past decade, and how San Antonio has actually brought forward a safe outdoor camping space is truly helping folks transition out of homelessness and into shelter.  I think that all of our constituents expect real solutions from us.  I think y’all know this is not a real solution This is just kicking the can.  This is just going to waste money.  Let’s actually deliver some results for our people. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Is there a second to table the motion, or to table to the ordinance? 

Councilmember Murillo:    Second.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I want to say something, because I don’t think we should table it.  We have had this conversation for a long, long time, and we have residents – I think polling shows about 75 percentage plus want a camping ban.  I just want to say that – you know, when you say it’s not a solution, of course it’s not a total solution.  It is a step in the right direction to address the businesses and the residents that do have concerns about safety and sanitary conditions.  Our city has spent tens of millions of dollars on homelessness from different resources.  Whether it be for emergency services or for shelters.  I have actually requested that information from Jessica Prosser.  I couldn’t even keep up with my calculator, because I think it was hitting 50-60 million dollars, and I don’t think that I was even done adding ARPA funds at that point.  So, a lot of money has gone into it.   We can argue about whether those were the right decisions – where the money went, but I think this is a first step.  We need to have alternative solutions, and that’s what the ordinance does.  No camps can be abated unless there is an alternative solution.  I do want to say that a lot of cities in the United States are changing their policies from what they had in the past.  They are removing encampments, and they are enacting policies that normally they never would’ve thought of, and never had wanted to do in the past.  For example, Portland, they have planned to move over 3,000 homeless people into temporary shelters staffed by the national guard.  Mayor Wheeler’s top advisors said that “our work so far has failed to produce the sought-after results.  In Seattle, two blocks worth of tents and belonging were removed just this past Wednesday.  Washington D.C., mayor Browser launched a program to permanently clear many homeless camps, and the lawmakers actually tried to pass a bill to delay the clearing, and it failed on a 5-7 vote.  Los Angeles, city council used laws to ban camping and they are actually drafting a measure to prohibit people from sleeping outdoors in public if they have turned down shelter.  San Francisco, the mayor declared a state of emergency to clear camps and combat drug dealing, overdose deaths and homelessness that thrives in the encampments.  She said , “it’s time to get aggressive and less tolerant of all of the bull that has destroyed the city.”  Austin, Texas, last year voters re-instated a ban that penalizes campers and prohibits panhandling.  So, these are a lot of the cities that have realized that what they have done hasn’t worked, and they are looking at this as a first step, so that they can then address the solutions to it. 

Councilmember Marcano:    You kind of made my point for me.  There are a lot of cities who are already doing this or are moving in that direction.  They have a massive homeless problem.  It’s going to remain that way.  A lot of what we have discussed tonight that is in this ordinance, you can find this, you know, you don’t have to take my word for it – obviously we all serve on the council.  We all know that this is what we already do.  We are just codifying it effectively.  But you can also see more detailed local breakdowns in local media publications.  I think the Sentinel and Westward went over it in some level of detail.  This is all stuff that we already do.  We already don’t allow camping.  I think that some of these cities actually did allow camping, but all they are going to do is basically join us and Denver and some of these other jurisdictions that don’t allow camping, which by that I mean they are not going to solve anything.  They are just going throw more money at the problem –  moving people around the city faster than we already do here.  They are just basically going to end up in the same spot that we are.  Part of the point I am trying to make is, you know, I’ve heard we don’t want to Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles or whatever.  We are on the path to being that.   by doing this we are just emulating their failed policies that they have already had in place in one way or another.  We already have a soft camping ban.  We don’t allow camping in all of these places.  I have been helping folks get trespass agreements since shortly after getting sworn in in 2019.  There is nothing new under the sun, and our residents know this doesn’t work.  They are fed up, and so am I frankly.  I think we all are, but the issue is we are not putting money toward a real solution.  We have had a patchwork of services, and that is part of why I want us to go to Houston, because they also had a patchwork of services just like we did.  They failed to address the problem until they consolidated all of the real relationships with Harris County, Katie and Pasadena and actually started investing in permanent supportive housing at a large scale.  That is actually how they got these folks off of the streets.  If you look at the unhoused population, they have a great graph from Rice University and it looks like a ski slope until you get to 2017 until guess what they did, they implemented a camping ban, and actually interrupted the ability to their service providers to connect these people with the resources and get them off the streets.  Houston went from having a homeless population that went like this, until now, a little jigsaw.  That’s where they have been since.  So, I want us to go work with them and learn from them how they got on that ski slope, and I want us to be on that ski slope, but I don’t want us to stop until we get to 0. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    I appreciate that, but what I just stated with all of the cities, they are actually reversing their policies to enact camping bans, because the policies that they had placed in place without camping bans were creating tent cities in horrible conditions.  People were leaving those cities in droves.  They are moving to Colorado, because they don’t like the conditions that they are seeing in their streets.  Those are the facts.  That was recently researched.  They are now doing the camping bans.  They are doing those so that they then can move forward with alternative solutions.  So, I am against the tabling and supporting the camping ban. 

Mayor Coffman:    This is not Denver’s camping ban.  Denver has qualifications; thresholds you have to meet in order to be abated.  This does not other than this time window.  I will have a follow up proposal to this that will set a direction for the city that would be comprehensive.  Motion to call for the question.

Councilmember Gardner:    Second.

Mayor Coffman:    We are at the motion to table.  Call for the question.

Katie Rodriguez:    Just to clarify, are we voting on to call the question, or are we voting on to table indefinitely? 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    We are voting on call for the question on tabling.  So, we are basically saying that we want to vote for the table.  By a yes vote, and a no vote saying we are not closing debate. 

Clerk Rodriguez:    Ok.  The question is open in Escribe to close the debate for tabling indefinitely.  Mayor, how would you like to vote? 

Mayor Coffman:    Mayor votes yes.

Clerk Rodriguez:    The motion passes with 9 yes votes and 2 no votes of councilmember Marcano and councilmember Coombs. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Now we need to vote on the tabling. 

Clerk Rodriguez:    The motion does not pass to table indefinitely with the yes votes being councilmember Medina, Marcano, Coombs and Murillo. 

Mayor Coffman:    I would like to ask for an aye vote on the unauthorized camping abatement ordinance, and I would like to make a motion to call for the question.

Councilmember Jurinsky:    Second.

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    We have a second by councilmember Jurinsky, and we are voting on the original motion as an amendment? 

Mayor Coffman:    We are voting to close debate. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Oh, I am sorry, we are closing on debate, yeah.  So, we are voting on closing debate. 

Clerk Rodriguez:    The question is now open in Escribe for voting to end the debate.  The motion passes with 7 yes votes and 4 no votes of Councilmember Murillo, Marcano, Medina and Coombs. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Ok – now we are voting on the amended ordinance. 

Clerk Rodriguez:    We did have a motion for Mayor Coffman and a second from councilmember Zvonek to approve the ordinance with the approved amendment from councilmember Murillo.  The question is now open in Escribe for voting. 

Councilmember Jurinsky:    Can I have clarification, please?  If I vote no on this, is it a no on the entire ordinance, or is it a no on councilmember Murillo’s amendment? 

Clerk Rodriguez:    It would be a no on the entire ordinance since we did vote already on councilmember Murillo’s amendment, and it passed. 

Mayor Pro Tem Bergan:    Yes, with a yes vote you are still supporting the camping ban, and a no vote you are no longer supporting the camping ban. 

2nd Reading Vote to Pass the Camping Ban with the Murillo Amendment (Storage of People’s Belongings)

Clerk Rodriguez:    That’s correct, so if you vote yes then you are voting for the entire ordinance, and if you are voting no then you are voting  no for the entire ordinance.  Mayor Coffman there is a tie.

Mayor Coffman:  Mayor votes yes.

Clerk Rodriguez:  The motion passes with 6 yes votes, 5 no votes.  With the no votes being Councilmember Medina, Marcano, Coombs, Lawson and Murillo. Mayor Coffman votes yes to break the tie. Ordinance 2022-12 passes.

Public Invited to Be Heard

Aly DeWills – Marcano:    I’m exhausted.  Mayor Coffman, I hope your gavel is ready, because this is probably the final Public Invited to Be heard at the end of a meeting since that has been eliminated tonight.  I would encourage you, at least, to give me an extra 45 minutes beyond the 3 minutes both because this is the last time, and also because both other members who spoke on issues that you and your caucus were in favor of were giving 45 seconds to a minute longer than anybody else tonight.  You as a council made decisions tonight that are extremely far reaching; that are really massive changes to the way the city works, and over this process the only person who I have heard genuinely ask what do we do next, how do we accommodate for the changes was councilmember Murillo with her amendment to make sure that people had access to storage when their camps were abated.  It was the only focus on how the logistics of all of these changes you have made have worked.  You haven’t thought about what happens when people who come to speak at Public Invited to Be Heard who come all the way here, and are the 11^th person to speak to – to be in the line, where do they go?  What do they do?  Do you think that they’re going to go away quietly and be thankful that they wasted their time to try to come out here and speak to you?  Do you think that that will save you time in that you will not have to speak to people?  Because we can still organize, and I know that I am a big scary organizer who would call my friends and family from Aurora and ask them to speak on things.  I am looking forward to your Town Hall where I certainly hope that the agenda is as open as Public Invited to Be Heard, or certainly hope to allow that your Q&A would allow people to speak as  much as they would at Public Invited to Be Heard.  I imagine that is not the case, but I look forward to finding out.  And then, finally, I also want to note that I cried tonight on this floor, because you have made – you have done things that are absolutely cruel to people who have lived experiences like mine.  I am the bootstrapped model you want from a homeless person.  In this city I was homeless when I was growing up.  In this city.  The options that you offer, whether or not they are what Seattle does – whether or not it is what anyone else does, would not have met my needs.  I was in a car living that way, and the ordinance that you have passed would’ve made me a criminal.  They would’ve made it illegal for me to do, and I wouldn’t have been able to go to the where you want people to go, because it wouldn’t have met my needs.  Because it would’ve involved being separated from my family to go to certain types of shelters, because it would have involved certain places that were generally unsafe in having my items – even my lice-ridden sleeping bags taken from me, and those lice-ridden sleeping bags, those horrible items that you are not willing to keep for people, are the only source of stability that people have.  If someone is rising, or trying to find stability out of homelessness, they need resources.  And when they are not given resources by their city, they are continuously moved around by their city, and their items are taken away.  You are taking away the only opportunity they have to make stability for themselves.  Would you like to gavel me, sir?

Mayor Coffman:   Yes.

Aly DeWills – Marcano:    You need to think about what comes next.  And then finally, before you do gavel me, I cried tonight.  Councilmember Zvonek, you laughed at me in your glee to celebrate your win in Public Invited To be Heard.  You laughed at me, and I am your constituent.  I will be at your Town Hall.  You can bet on it.           

Debate on How to Finance Ongoing and Future Projects

2022 Winter Budget Workshop

This dialogue was taken from the City of Aurora’s Youtube channel from the January 29th, 2022 Council Winter Workshop titled “Council Winter Workshop 1 29 22. You may find the footage under Videos category. this excerpt starts at the 1:38:43 mark.

Mayor Coffman: Any further questions for Laura? Does Council have feedback for budget priorities presented?

Councilmember Zvonek: Thank you everybody for this presentation. In addition to the challenges that Jim Outlined, at the onset of this, about the volitility of the price, I think that one of the bigger challenges that wasn’t mentioned is just the fact that taxpayers are being hit with higher costs with everything – their house, their paying higher costs at the grocery stores, so I think not moving forward is a good idea because I think the taxpayers are very unlikely to add to the cost that they are already facing as a result of inflation and everything else. If we look at moving forward, I think it’s clear that we have some very big priorities and needs that need to be met and this capital project outline – you gave everything from roads to libraries to everything in between, and I don’t think we can wait until taxpayers have an appetite to increase taxes because it’s not going to be this year, I can assure you it won’t next year, and I think we have to start addressing some of these things now. I think one of the ways we have to do that is we know that the entire package to do all of this was $550 some odd million dollars, and I had asked Greg Hayes what the debt maintenance on that was and it was about $38 million dollars a year. I think what we ought to do is really take a hard look at those tier 1 priorities and narrow that down and figure out what size of a bond package we would need, look at existing assets and revenue and figure out how we can get it done now, so that we can address these capital needs without going to taxpayers for more money. The other 2 potential sources of funding that we have in the short term, 1 – we are having a conversation about ARPA today. I think we ought to look at those projects that are eligible for ARPA funds and make sure that we are dedicating them to get some of these projects off the list, and as Greg mentioned, we are going to get the federal funds at some point in time and he said it’s nice to spend other people’s money, but I think we have to keep in mind that all government money is other people’s money. So we want to make sure that we are addressing these issues with the rest of the revenue that we already have from taxpayers immediately and not just wait for a potential tax increase, and then the final thing, later on we are going to talk about road maintenance. I think it’s going to be critical that as we move forward that we have a plan to make sure that our roads and maintenance is funded on an annual basis so that we don’t continue to add to that deferred maintenance numnber that Cindy highlighted, which is now somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 million dollars. Let’s make sure that on an every year basis our roads are being repaired and maintained, so that that number can stop growing. So I think we ought to look at not just what we need to do to position ourselves to go to the taxpayers and ask them for more of their money next year or the year after, because that’s down the road. Let’s start addressing some of these needs now and look to get the assets and revenue we have for what type of bond package we would need to meet those priorities. That’s all I have, Mayor.

Mayor Coffman: I want to add one point in that I’be been here for a little over 2 years, and I think I saw maybe a temporary initiative to make, in terms of the operating budget to cut it because of concerns about declining revenue and Covid, but it didn’t materialize at the end. But it would be nice to see some initiatives to make our government more efficient in terms of its operating budget to be able to apply some of those savings to the capital budget, and so, it would be nice to see that. Further discussion.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bergan: I was actually going to piggyback off of Councilmember Zvonek becuasse when I had my 1-on-1 we kept talking about going to the taxpayers for a City tax, sales tax increase, and I also asked why are we going in that direction and why wouldn’t we just do a bond package similar to what Denver did? I do like that idea and I guess Councilmember Zvonek said that he checked it out on the total debt maintenance it would be $38 million dollars a year, so is that a certificate of participation type of thing? Or is that different in terms of how to finance it?

Councilmember Zvonek: I believe it would be a general obligation bond and that debt maintenance would be paid for with the revenues. Whether it’s from a tax increase or existing revenue, but I just asked Greg what the annual debt maintenance would be roughly…Greg said $38 million dollars for a bond that would cover 550 million..it was between tier 1 and 2, so my suggestion would be to really dive into those tier 1s and say what are those things that we need right now? It would be much smaller that $550 million. Determine what that annual debt maintenance would be and then look at existing assets and revenue sources that we could dedicate towards that and I know that that’s going to have remarks and tough conversations about what our priorities are, but again, if the priority is doing this, then we should start having those conversations and not just keep waiting for the day in which we can go and ask taxpayers for more money, because I don’t think that is coming any time soon.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bergan: So Greg, are you on the call, Greg? A general obligation bond, versus a certificate of participation – is the general obligation, is that where you put your assets as collateral?

Greg Hayes (Budget Office): I would like for Terry, like for her to speak as well. I do believe the general obligation bond, we would go out and get a vote of the people. We could do a cost. We would already have the existing revenue back looking in order for us to do that. In order for us to do this we would have to have $38 million dollars of money just sitting around. That’s not specified for other uses in order to do the cost. Terry, am I correct in how I am saying that?

Terri Velasquez (Finance Director): Yes, I guess one point I would like to mention is that if you are going to do a CoP(certificate of participation) and it’s transportation related, you are going to have to pledge other assets to those types of financing, and that becomes very problematic when we think about all of the roadways projects that you have see here today. Some of the projects that you have listed, the assets themselves, such as a recreation center or a library may be able to support a Certificate of Participation , but the whole point of doing this as a general obligation effort was that you don’t have to pledge those assets for approval and support for the debt. But we do need to have the revenue that will then repay the debt, obviously.

Mayor Coffman: Terry, the certificate of participation would not require a vote of the people, but the general obligation bond will. Would it not?

Terri: That’s correct.

Setmack: I just want to clarify that it would probably not be a general obligation bond, it would be a sales tax revenue bond that would be bought back by the revenues that came from the sales taxes.

Mayor Coffman: Councilmember Zvonek is saying lets not have a tax increase. Let’s use existing revenue for the debt service requirements.

Setmack: That’s correct. There wouldn’t be any bonding in that event.

Mayor Coffman: Well, there could be bonding, but it would be a general obligation bond, right? Can you do a revenue bond when they aren’t increasing taxes?

Setmack: If you did any bonding other than COPs you would have to go to the voters for approval.

City Manager Twombly: It would be like what we do with the marijuana tax on the recreational centers, so we pledge the marijuana tax revenues, and then borrow money based on that pledge.

Councilmember Zvonek: Correct, that exactly what I am talking about.

Setmack: And just to clarify, you could do a revenue bond question without increasing revenue. You would just have to have revenues available to repay the debt.

Councilmember Zvonek: It would be without raising taxes. You would be asking taxpayers for their approval to issue debt.

Setmack: Correct

Councilmember Marcano: So I appreciate the conversation we have had so far although from my perspective I just want to caution against leaning into austerity measures. I don’ think that that has served other jurisdictions across this country very well historically and I don’t see why we would be in a position for an exception. Also, I just want to point out that the interest rates that we would pay on a certified obligation or general obligation is pretty intense. I think that this is something that the Mayor had proposed actually last year for a discussion point that I don’t think actually ever happened, but I think in the back up we would be almost paying double the cost of a smaller bond just tot take care of our revenue and maintenance. I don’t think that that’s a wise use of taxpayer dollars. That’s a tremendous amount of money for our debt service, so if we are going to consider this, I would like to see comparison of what these different financing options would look like, so long term interest on a larger bundle of public debts versus shorter term more profitable project-based financing that would be able to actually undertake if we do successfully ask our residents for a small tax increase. I would actually like to see us go with the property tax rate, but that’t a different discussion through. I would also like to see if we can maybe sunset any kind of increase and earmark it for the projects that we are talking about here. I just think we are already running a risk. W are already running a really lean and mean city. We are actually one of the best financially managed cities in the country. I think we got that award last year, or the year before last. So there is not really much fat to trim and a lot of people already depend on the services that we do provide. Going through and cutting services, is what I believe I am hearing, I think is a foul hearty thing to do especially when our community is asking us to do more, or not less.

Mayor Coffman: I would like to see the proposal by Councilmember Zvonek to see if we can actually work the numbers in terms of if there would be proposals from staff certain options in terms of what is, it’s no really cutting services it’s the fact that we run a fairly inefficient government. It’s a question of where we could be more efficient.

Councilmember Murillo: I’ve flagged, I guess what, in other conversations what I think this conversation might evolve to. To me, we are saying a lot of words here, but my concern is that, yes, we are going to cut services in the future in a time where exactly, as what Councilmember Marcano mentioned, that’s the opposite of what people are asking us to do. If we want to frame it as inefficient government, we have gotten awards when we want to benefit from those accolades we are more than happy to share that we have received awards as such, but you know, when we have these conversations we are quick to ignore that. We are a non-partisan board, but those are talking points that I hear that are very partisan, so I think it’s incumbent upon us to be fully aware. I’m just expressing my concerns that we might cut services that are really critical for folks in a moment that is really important. I don’t want to see that that is happening. I think roads are important as well, but I don’t think it should be at the cost of other critical services as well. Word of caution on my end. I hope that that is not where this conversation evolves to. I’m happy to review any proposal, and I agree that financing should be adequate as well. We shouldn’t be, again, prioritizing something that sounds nice even though we are taking on an exorbitant amount of debt. We have seen that not work in our favor veted proposals for developments out in the eastern part of Aurora where I was originally 9 percent and we got it down to 3 percent, or something. So I think that transparency on financing is going to be really important. My overall caution and concern is that we are not going to cut services. We are a nonpartisan board, but I am seeing a lot of partisan values being advanced. I want to make sure that that is not going to happen.

Mayor Coffman: I’m not sure efficiency in government is partisan.

Councilmember Coombs: I want to add, in addition to, yes, I am happy to look at any proposal, but I am concerned about the cost of debt financing. They can be extremely expensive for cities and I think any proposal to spend $38 million dollars, whatever the reason, is something we should be looking at very closely, not just saying, “it’s only 38 million on 550 million. No problem.” That increases is to over $600 million dollars, or sorry, near $600 million dollars. We need to look closely at what the actual cost of financing the debt are. In addition, the City of Aurora has not raised taxes since 1993. I think we need to not be looking at this as if we are a city that has been very cautious in raising taxes in the way that many big cities have. We should be able to find a way to get modest tax increase to make sure that we are funding massive expansion, because I think that is the other thing, we have had much larger expansion of our infrastructure already and are looking to even greater expansion of our infrastructure than most cities that do have tax increases. So we need to be looking at the whole big picture and not just these “no new taxes.” Because that’s a fine slope, but we all know that services and infrastructure costs money and we need to provide what’s best for our residents. That may mean a modest tax increase. So, I think we need to look at all of our options and not write any of them off out of hand.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bergan: I think it’s important for taxpayers to have full transparency, obviously, I think these other things we are looking at auctions of how to fund infrastructure which is a huge amount. I think was Councilmember Zvonek said was that was that $38 million was based off $550 million plus and obviously we don’t need to do a general obligation bond on that entire amount. I think he said if we look at prioritizing things that could be cut in half. In addition to taxes, I mean we talk about sales tax and property taxes, I know my property tax just came in the mail and it’s very very high. We also have a lot of fees, so I think people forget how many fees are, whether its your cable bill or your water bill, or whatever, those are impacting people’s ability to budget as well, you know, there finances.

Councilmember Zvonek: The Mayor Pro Tem is correct in saying that $38 million was for the entire $550 million dollars left for needs. We have ARPA funds and we are going to have additional discussion about that today, and there are some of these projects that we have to look at funding for that. That won’t be a big portion of that, clearly. We also have the federal dollars that are going to come in at some point in time that we will be bale to address. And then I think we have to prioritize. I think that the idea of raising taxes, its not about new taxes – its just being reactive and real with ourselves. If we put a ballot measure on this year, go ahead. The voters are going to reject it, and they are going to reject is next year. People are paying more for every aspect of there life right now. We have got to stop adding more to the cost of living. There is a reason that Governor Polis suspended a 2 cent increase on gas this year, because he knows that voters don’t want to pay more right now. So we can either have a serious conversation about the things we can and should do to address these needs, or we can continue to pretend that taxpayers are going to keep answering the call whenever we ask to dig deep from there pockets, which isn’t going to happen. This isn’t a partisan issue. This is an issue of city government has a responsibility to ensure that our capital needs are met, and we have an ability to start doing that in a very prioritized and strategic way, and we ought to put all options on the table. The option of going to taxpayers and asking them for more money is just not based in reality.

Mayor Coffman: Question to staff – when was the last time that there was a referred measure for a tax increase on the ballot, and what were the results?

Councilmember Murillo: I just want to clarify – when I think how was frame the conversation can totally end up being partisan. In it of itself, road maintenance, certainly, we all use the roads, sure, um, the details matter, though. How we go about that, right? Like what are we prioritizing over other services we are using. That one hundred percent will be partisan. That is my caution, and my concern is that, it sounds all good and nice, and I’m open for the discussion. Let’s have a discussion. I want to work with my colleagues. However, when it comes down to making tough decisions that’s where I have concern. That’s where we need to be careful about what we are doing in the decisions that we are making.

Greg Hayes (Budget Office): From the sales tax side Councilmember Coombs is correct, the last tax increase in sales tax was in 1993, and that actually came with an increased expense.

Mayor Coffman: My question was: when was there a referred measure for a tax increase to the ballot?

Greg Hayes (Budget office): On the property tax side we tried a couple of times. We had one success back in 2000. We tried to get in 2012 – that failed, and in 2014. Those years were pretty close.

Mayor Coffman: What was 2014? What was the result? That failed as well – the property tax.

Councilmember Zvonek: Mayor, I just want to point out one thing with the property tax because I know that Councilmember Marcano mentioned it – is that, In Aurora, property is still subject to the TABOR cap. If we raise property taxes, you could raise them up and keep raising them, but we are going to have to give a refund. In fact, I believe, and Greg, correct me if I’m wrong, we are already over the revenue cap in Aurora for refunding property tax. If we raise them, we are just refunding them to voters.

Greg Hayes (Budget Office): You are right. We are over that cap. We can adjust the narrative to say, to basically de-Bruce that specific piece of the property tax.

Councilmember Zvonek: So you have to De-bruce it first and then raise taxes.

Dan: The property tax mill levy would be set to collect what is necessary to service the amount of debt that’s authorized. That portion of it that is necessary for debt service would not be subject to the TABOR cap. Typically, all mil levies under jurisdiction there is an operations and maintenance piece and then there is a debt service piece and the way questions are asked here in Colorado, debt service, portions of mil levies are de facto, not a part of the TABOR cap.

Councilmember Marcano: Councilmember Zvonek, you are correct, we would have to De-Bruce and thank you staff for that explanation, because that was kind of the angle I think we discussed in previous years in our workshops…more generally, to address infrastructure needs here, I think that we as a council, we need to revisit and potentially revise, both our Unified Development Ordinance and our comprehensive plan, because part of the issue that we are looking at here is just how we have chosen to grow in the city of Aurora I think is frankly unsustainable from a long-term capital infrastructure cost. That’s what we are seeing now, so to summarize my feelings about this, I think that we should try to pay down as much of the deferred maintenance as we can on our roads, but also make sure that we are not continuing to dig this hole. We need to move towards a more dense kind of approach, kind of development philosophy as opposed to just basically endless suburban sprawl. There is a lot less infrastructure that needs to go into support. Denser housing options and I just think that its the responsible thing to do to ensure that we have a sustainable city. We have, if I’m not mistaken, A fairly sizable piggy bank right now. We are, again, an exceptionally well financed and run city. I think it is time, if we want to get away from the tax discussion at all to break into that piggy bank a little bit and see if we can pay down this deferred maintenance and get to a point where we are sustaining what we currently have and then very, very carefully evaluating any additions to our infrastructure, which also means we have to tamp down on our overhead overuse, I think, reckless overuse of metro districts in the city. We can’t keep doing this, because even though it doesn’t cost us necessarily anything up front, we end up paying for it ultimately. We have to pay the piper at some point, and we can’t afford to do so, as our opening problem statement to that infrastructure portion of this presentation very clearly laid out for us. Just some food for thought, but I’m hoping we can have some more of this conversation sometime this year. I think it needs to be done.

Laura: That concludes the presentation. So I think today, does council have any further feedback on the identified project priorities that we shared and does council support staff in moving forward with the following next steps outlined? So continued development of the pla, constructing a community engagement plan, ongoing education and then evaluating grant opportunities, and identifying project candidates?

Mayor Coffman: Laura, I just don’t think you have enough information right now to move forward in that direction, but I would be happy to entertain. There were a lot of questions my members and so I think we need some of those questions to be answered before we know enough to move forward, but does anybody have any further comments on this?

Mayor Pro-Tem Bergan: I would like to get some answers too, whether we are going to get a general obligation budget bond, then what would that look like. What would be prioritized in that? Are there other sources for transportation bill that would get funding from, Councilmember Marcano mentioned, you know, some of the monies that we currently have could they be allocated? I think we need to look at that first rather than continuing with the community engagement plan.

Laura: On the community engagement plan it would be continuing to identify project needs in the city to refine the city’s capital improvement plan to inform the solvency conversation on sources that could help support the needs as part of that plan. We want to make sure we have encompassed all. If Council feels comfortable, solving what we have identified today and using that as our starting point without further conversation.

Mayor Coffman: The plan is there, but the plan on how to move forward is not there.

Councilmember Marcano: I feel like we are still identifying, or maybe finalizing a list of problems so I support the continued development of the CIMP (Comprehensive Infrastructure Maintenance Plan). When we get community engagement I want us to have maybe a couple of different proposals. Maybe what councilmember Zvonek mentioned. Maybe the original, potential increases, or ballot questions for, you know, tax increases – property or sales tax, whichever way we want to go there. I prefer property tax, but I know we have other hurdles to overcome there. Maybe using, you know, dipping into our savings to address some of these issues and also do education around basically the pros and cons approach. I think that’s the best way to move forward with that. I’m feeling kind of split. I want the continuation of the development of the plan, and I want us to start thinking about how we can educate the community, but I also want us to come up with solutions that we want to bring to community as well. I don’t think we are quite at the solutions point yet, but we are close.

Councilmember Zvonek: I think that we have the start of what we need in order to get to that solution. This is a very comprehensive list of which we don’t have the funding for all of it available. I think again. let look at the tier 1, let’s prioritize within, and let’s start moving on some of these things. Let’s start doing things for our city in getting some of these projects done instead of continuing – we can add to the list. I think we can chew gum and walk at the same time. Let’s take what we already know and let’s develop a plant to start addressing these things. We can have a bunch of different options, and I would love our pollster to go and ask voters if they want to raise property taxes, raise sales taxes, or fund these projects with existing revenue. Do that poll, please. Let’s move forward with what is already here. If the team wants to continue to add things to this list, great, but let’s take care of the projects that we know that we already have in front of us.

Councilmember Coombs: And so I think we can move forward, because regardless of the approach we take, whether that’s debt financing, which I think that’s what we should call it, not using existing revenues, because we don’t have enough existing revenues to just spend everything. I think we need to make sure we are telling people we want to debt finance. Regardless of the approach that we want to take, these are steps that we could be taking regardless of that approach. I do think encouraging staff to actually move forward and start doing the work is appropriate.

Councilmember Zvonek: Mayor, just one quick point, all of this is debt financing, even if you raise taxes. All we would be doing is using the tax increases to pay the debt, so it’s all debt financing. Let’s call it what it is. The difference is are we paying for that debt maintenance with existing revenue? Are we paying for it with more property taxes or more sales tax? Ask that question. I would love to see the results.

Mayor Coffman: I think the direction is to go forward with the planning, and then council will have further discussion on the approach…there have already been a number of approaches raised to staff to take a look. By looking at an analysis of those approaches, members may have additional questions in terms of how to proceed, but at least we have a starting point.

Jim Twombly (City Manager): We have gotten a lot of feedback from Council, and I think it would probably best for us to kind of gather that together, do some preliminary analysis of some of the things we’ve said, and maybe if we can come back in a month or six weeks, something like that…to have further discussion, that would be helpful.

Mayor Coffman: If we go to the ballot, whether it’s revenue bonds, general obligation bonds, certificates of participation. Well, a revenue bond doesn’t have to go to the ballot and certificates of participation don’t have to go to the ballot. If we do do a general obligation bond, we will need to know the deadlines if there is appetite for a referred measure to the ballot that we have to have this done.

Twombly (City Manager): That’s that right. That is why I started this off this morning saying that we realize and we don’t think it would be smart to do anything in terms of a tax increase this November, and so we have time to, I think, really explore different avenues here and that, as I said, one of the things and I think Councilmember Zvonek hit on it, too, is we really need to drill down on the projects that we have looked at. We feel like they are all needs, but if there is a way for us to drill down further, we have time to do that to look at different alternatives. The ideas was to really focus on the projects at this point.

Mayor Coffman: An amount was determined that we could afford to expend debt in debt service on, say, a general obligation bond. How much money does that equate to given the current interest rate environment, and then how many projects could that take in in terms of the priority of projects that are out there.

Councilmember Lawson: Also, I think it’s really important, and I am looking at this not only in the position I am in on council, but just as a taxpayer. You know, you really need to give people the real listed amount. Really looking at these evaluation of theses state and federal grant programs, and working on making those efforts, I think it’s really important in trying to say, hey, we are not just digging out of your pocket. We are trying to look at these other programs. I think it would be more of a little bit of a selling point for taxpayers. I think that that is really significant in this evaluation.

November 2nd, 2020 Debate about Raising the Minimum Wage

You may watch the video of this contentious debate on the City of Aurora’s Youtube channel under videos and titled – Aurora City Council Meeting 11 2 20. The debate begins at the 1:41:16 mark. *Note* most of the contributors and transcript is listed below but not all.

Adam Fung: Good evening City Council. I’m Adam Fung. I’ve lived in Aurora for 8 years. All of my life I have been a rank and file employee. I have put blood sweat and tears and all of the work that I have done from being a server, from being a mailman to now a broadband tech. We need to think in terms of a trickle up economy instead of a trickle down economy. We need to give purchasing power to the working class. During this pandemic, who is thriving right now? It’s the wealthy that’s thriving. They are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It’s the same notion every single time. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. And the only way we can solve this problem is if we raise the minimum wage for the working class. When the working class can thrive, they don’t have to live paycheck to paycheck. I have seen many people who have to suffer, because they have to work 2-3 jobs to pay for cable bills and other utilities that they need. And working these jobs they become slaves to the system of being part of wage labor, basically where they are literally just commodities now. They are human beings. Working class people are human beings, and they need dignity and respect. Having more purchasing power will make businesses thrive. It will be a cycle where we can put money back into our economy, especially during this time of Covid-19 when people are putting money into our economy, the economy has no bounds. So, I strongly urge you to support this ordinance. We have always seen the disappointment of the last time when this ordinance was voted down by the council. Now it’s your chance to help the working class families and that’s my part – that’s my bit. Thank you very much, everyone. have a good night.

Angela Mokay: Hi, and thank you counselors. My name is Angela Mokay. I’ve been a registered nurse working in home care most of my entire adult life. I’m currently in the middle of purchasing a home care agency in this area after losing my job in March due to Covid. I’ve done every job from caregiver to registered nurse to administrator of a statewide agency. After losing my job, I wanted to make an impact and create an agency where caregivers would be proud to work for. I want you to understand how the propose wage increase will effect the delivery of home care services to our most vulnerable population. The people in Aurora who rely on home care services overwhelmingly have them paid for by Medicaid. The reimbursement for Medicaid to an agency is about $18 dollar an hour. If you increase the minimum wage to $17 dollars an hour, then home care agencies will stop providing services to Medicaid recipients, in Aurora, because we cannot operate off of a $2 dollar margin. The cost of labor, plus overhead, will exceed the reimbursement rate. No home care provider can operate as a business at a loss when their overhead costs exceed their profits. Typical industry overhead costs are around $3 dollars an hour. I want everyone listening to understand one thing, if you live in Aurora and you, or your family, need Medicaid home care, you will not get care. Aurora will become an island where sick people, veterans and Medicaid recipients will not get care. I have appreciate that you want to help one needy population, but it shouldn’t come at the detriment of another. Please rethink this well-intentioned, while very unworkable proposal. Thank you.

Steve: Hi guys, I appreciate you listening to everybody tonight. I’m a small business owner here in Aurora. I live and work in Ward III. This minimum wage thing, I think everybody has good intentions, yes. We have people that struggle, and I get that. We have all been there. Everybody at that age when things were tough, and I get that. But put yourself in a small business person’s shoes just for a minute, ok? They raise minimum wage, and what can you do? You are already struggling, so what are you going to do? You are going to raise your prices, right? to try to cover it, and we have heard that several times tonight. We are going to raise prices. Ok, so, in that situation win the prices change, who benefits? Nobody benefits. The only person that ever stays then same is the minimum wage worker. Maybe there paycheck every week will buy the same that it did last week, but everybody else gets a pay cut. Think about the person that said she was paying her people $20 dollars an hour, right? Ok, well, you guys put this minimum wage up, all of the sudden the prices go up. You think they can spend the same amount of money? Do you think they can buy the same amount now with their paycheck? No. Everybody loses. All of the people. All of the people that have went to school to learn a skilled trade. The retired people on social security. Students. People that don’t have a paycheck that are depending on other things. Their buying power is less, so the only person that stays the same is the minimum wage person. And then think about this, ok? We just talked about how we would have to raise prices, ok? Do you want all of Aurora to have higher prices? Because I don’t know about you, but most of the customers out there are pretty worried about how much things cost. Especially right now. If they can go to Denver, if they can go to another city and get something for cheaper, because they didn’t have raise their prices, so what happens then? Well, then, Aurora loses taxes, don’t they. Think about that. We are going to lose, not only are some of our businesses going to shutdown, but I couldn’t afford it. I will tell you right now, there is just no way. I couldn’t afford it for what I sell I would be out of business. You would have businesses gone, and people are going to go and spend there money in other cities. This is a bad idea. I mean, a little restaurant makes about 5% profit. 5%. If we do $350 thousand dollars in sales that means we made $17,000 dollars that year. And you want me to pay more. Thank you so much for your time, guys. Don’t ruin it for everybody. Bye.

Molly Simon: Thank you so much. My name is Molly Simon, and I am the manager for local government affairs for the Colorado Restaurant Association. We are asking this council to vote no on this proposal for the following reasons: First, if this proposal passes, more restaurants are likely to close, and more restaurant employees are more likely to lose there jobs. We are in the midst of a hundred year pandemic, and already 50% of restaurants are telling us that they are in danger of closing in the next 6 months. At a minimum wage hike of this magnitude we are certain to see that number go up. Second, because of the way the tip credit works, minimum wage raises gives to the highest earners in the restaurant, the servers and the bartenders, at the expense of the cooks and the dishwashers. Make no mistake, these wage hikes hurt the very people they are trying to help in the restaurants. And finally, the way that this proposal has come to fruition is an egregious and unethical violation of a legislative process – the polar opposite of transparent governance, and a massive violation of the business community’s trust. The business community was told the discussion would be tabled until 2021 in order to give businesses more time to weigh in. Now the proposal is being forced through without the businesses the opportunity to analyze and provide comments on the $17 dollar wage. This is has effectively shortened the time that businesses will have to absorb the cost of any type of minimum wage increase. If you care about Aurora restaurants I encourage you to vote no on this proposal.

Unknown Community Member: Thank you very much. Good evening members of the Aurora City Council, and thank you for the opportunity to testify tonight. I understand that the Council is voting tonight to increase the minimum wage to $17 dollars an hour. With that, I hope that you would agree that this is not the time to introduce a minimum wage increase when businesses are struggling to keep there doors open, let alone, survive through the worst economic conditions in recent history due to covid-19 and quarintines. An increase in the minimum wage would drastically increase the cost of doing business in Aurora and would result in more closures, layoffs, reduce salaries for employees and would increase costs for products and services. This mandate would not provide the additional income that the emotional arguments for this measure depicts. The businesses would be out of business. They would not be providing a higher wage because the business wouldn’t exist, and the local communities would be the ones that benefit from our local wage increase. as indicated earlier. Any implication that this is tied to some focus study that suggests resistance to this measure is racist or somehow tied to reperations is not sensical and is just pandering. I specifically emplore the At-Large Councilmembers – the ones that are up for re-election in the near future. Some that ran on small business platforms that were discouraged, I just want you to know that we are discouraged to hear that you are likely to vote for this and support this increase for the minimum wage. I respectfully request your opposition to this measure for the business health of Aurora. Again, as a business owner, I oppose an increase to the minimum wage, as a minimum wage was recently increased already, and this would only cause additional, unmanageable burden on small business throughout Aurora and in no way would it increase the quality of life of the individuals living within in. Other things like reducing the cost of living, improving educational opportunities. Anything besides putting the entire burden of all of this on small business would make far more sense than what we are doing here. I thank the Aurora City Council and I appreciate your time.

Rita Larson: Good evening Councilmembers. My name is Rita Larson, and I am an owner of a wine shop in Aurora, Colorado. At this time I want to express my opposition to the proposed minimum wage increase. As I mentioned, we are a small business establishment with my direct competitors being Costco that is about 4 miles away on 470 and Parker. We already have a difficult time competing with stores that are in Centennial and now with the proposal, if passed, I will have to raise my prices to cover the new wage. Meanwhile, these outlying stores in these various cities will not have this devastatingly increase to deal with, while I will have to do everything I can to stay afloat. My only other option will be to lay off many of my employees which means myself and my family will have to struggle in hopes of remaining a profitable business. I am a latina businesswoman hoping to retire in a few years and with this wage increase is not where I want to be at this part of my life, and will devastate the business we have built as a family, not only for ourselves, but also for the customers and the community- the community family within Aurora that we so love., which will now be destroyed if the wages are put through. I do want to express that I do carry a full-time job in addition to my ownership in order to pay for our family’s expenses. You say the ordinance will help minority women and minority businesses, however, if this passes, you are only making my business more difficult and will destroy and plans, which, as a Colorado native and an Aurora business owner may have in any future plans within the City community. In closing, I do not support the $17 dollar minimum wage. I thank you councilmembers for your time and trust that this agenda item will not pass for the City of Aurora. I want to thank you all for your time.

Sydney Hawkins: Hi Council, my name is Sydney Hawkins, and I live in Ward III. I am a former employee of the City of Aurora. I used to work for the homelessness program. I would like to speak in my support for the minimum wage increase. I am really impressed with the City of Aurora as like a national leader in putting something like this forward. I believe it will be helpful for the working class, youth, family, elders and especially people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness due to evictions. I heard some anxiety earlier today about the RFP money for homeless services, not really knowing where it goes, what it’s for. I know increasing the minimum wage would make that RFP money stretch a lot further because we would have a lot less folks entering the homelessness population, because they would be able to pay for their rent and other living expenses. I know especially Councilmember Lawson and Hiltz deeply care about people experiencing homelessness in Aurora. I am encouraging you to support a minimum wage increase, because that will the people I know you all care about so much. I know the rest of the Council cares too. In conclusion, I support it, and I hope y’all will support a minimum wage increase as well. Thank you.

Randy Webb: Hello, this is Misses Randy Webb from Aurora – Ward 4. I support the minimum wage increase in Aurora. Unfortunately, it is possible that some people may believe that Mayor Mike Coffman tweeted referring to the minimum wage proposal simply as $17 dollars per hour. Mayor Coffman is making a habit out presenting this kind of misleading information. Sure, it does call for $17 dollars per hour in 2025, but it is false to say that it calls for any minimum wage increase right now, or that it calls for a large increase in 2021. It is true that the Coombs minimum wage increase calls for 60 cent minimum wage increase for 2021. If I person is working full time at 40 hours per week, that is about $100 dollars per month gross income increase. Currently, the minimum wage is $12 dollars an hour. Now, if I business cannot pay a worker $12 dollars an hour or $12.60 an hour, they will probably be behind in paying the city water bill, taxes and other expenses. That would be sad. As always, and especially in tough times, a business has to figure out how to make end meet and how to best encourage customers. it is true that this minimum increase proposal still puts Aurora behind Denver’s minimum wage. Each and every year listed in the year. Most likely also including in 2025. We should be concerned about losing workers to Denver and other places. Looking at current cost of living and future estimates in the City of Aurora this is not even a minimum family wage at all. Please remember that Mayor Coffman is a longtime political figure with deep pockets. he doesn’t have to worry about relying on a minimum wage. Thank you Councilmember Coombs for taking on the tough job and standing up for and respecting the working class. We should all know that capitalism comes with responsibility for others. Thank you council for the opportunity to comment. I encourage all of you to vote for this minimum wage proposal.

Leon Dick: Hi, thank you for hearing me today. I’m calling in to echo the convictions for many others who called earlier to voice my support for minimum wage increases in Aurora. I work for a racial justice organization – Colorado People’s Alliance and as I canvasser , I’ve been speaking with members of the Aurora community. I here from them again and again everyday, whether they are minimum wage workers or make higher wages, they support minimum wage increases. They do, like I do, think that a living wage is a human right. It is a strategy that minimum wage workers have not been given basic human rights. Increasing the minimum wage will be a stimulant for the economy and I believe it will not, as many of the praponants of the increase claim, hurt small businesses. Increasing the minimum wage, while most immdeiately impact minimum wage workers, but it will go on to effect the community as a whole to create a more vibrant Aurora – helping small businesses and entreprenuers. I also want to quote an Aurora resident who I spoke to earlier today about the topic. She said, “if any businesses big or small are going to fail because of a minimum wage increase that makes the make their employees give a living wage, that business should not exist. In other words, we should never tolerate the exploitation of workers. I have sympathy and a lot of respect for small business owners. My parents are small business owners. My parents and many other small businesses know that this is an urgent issue, and they want to support their workers. They know that we all deserve a living wage. I also want to turn away form the concern for small businesses and look at the issue that is more central to this issue – big stores like Walmart and Kohls in Aurora. These companies are demanding everything from their workers while depriving them of a minimum wage. This hurts the workers. This hurts small businesses. We all deserve better. I hope that the Councilmembers for yes on ordinance 13.b. and increase the minimum wage. Thank you for those working in support of this issue, and thank you all for listening.

Elden Larson: Hello, my name is Eldon Larson. I am the owner of One Experience Cafe here in the Southlands Mall in Aurora. My entire 401k it tied up in this restaurant – $550,00 dollars that I worked 30 years to earn. My goal was to retire in the next 3-5 years, and this is my retirement income. It is very sad the way Ms. Coombs introduced this ordinance in such a shamed way. I see in the backup papers that the town halls didn’t even happen. They are still to be determined. Coombs says businesses support this, but then I see the businesses that support it, they have one employee, and they don’t even have any expenses, like rent. How can an ordinance not be out of study way back in October and then one month later Ms. Coombs announces on Facebook that it’s over and that she already has the votes before we even get a chance to discuss it with council. In 2007, I stood in the council chamber, the city planners brought forth their 10 year plan with the council , and they voted 11-0 in favor of my business. Including Mayor Tower. 13 years later, the City is trying to stifle business and make it impossible for me to compete with places like Parker and Centennial that are 5 minutes away from my business. I want to quote the 2015 platform of Councilmember Lawson’s platform. We need a long term strategy to promote so our businesses will be encouraged to come and invest here. “Our City should support small businesses so they are able to flourish. Recently, a developer asked me to go into a $40 million dollar Aurora account center. I had to say I am not interested because of the ant-business stance of the City Council.” Aurora City workers during Covid have been fantastic. Last week they called me, asking me “what can we do to help you flourish?” I had to say, “Look, I need the Aurora City Council to get out of the way of my business.” They are trying to destroy us. My servers currently make $25-$45 dollars per hour. That’s at an $8.98 minimum wage. The national minimum wage for restaurants is $2.14. The state wage went from $5.21 to $8.98 over 5 years. I had to raise my prices every January to compensate. This proposed $14.00 dollars for servers is unsustainable. it will cost me $135,000 over the next 5 years and $360,000 over the next 10. I can’t compete with that. This proposal will effect the servers because I am going to have to eliminate their tips and pay them a minimum wage and that’s going to be a 50% pay cut. My kitchen staff already makes $17-20 dollars per hour. Minimum wage is $12 dollars, but the marke has driven the price kitchen up. Now, I’m going to pay a non-skilled dishwasher $17 dollars per hour? So, what do my skilled members have to make, $20, $25 an hour? That’s going to be another $300,000 dollars over 10 years. I made $4,000 dollars in 2017. I lost $23,000 in 2018. I lost $75,000 in 2019 and 2020 is a disaster. There is no reason for me to stay open or renew my lease if this passes. 18 people will be out of work and I will lose my retirement. Please do not pass this minimum wage.

Kimberly Armitage: Hi, Good evening Councilmembers. Thank you for listening to everyone speak this evening, and I would just like to radiate that I hope that council chooses to vote no, and mainly for the reason to look at the time. Minimum wage really effects everything as it goes up the ladder, especially with the fact that I work for the YMCA, and we offer programs and services and what this will do will also help us increase the cost of offering childcare to single parent families. Most of the individuals we have employed in Aurora – We have about 200 employees and they are between the ages of 15 and 21. To pay a 15 year old a minimum wage of- a living wage, which is the same as what we would be paying our site directors at locations makes things very difficult for us to be able to operate, and increasing the costs to be able to bring children to these services. If we have to continue to increase the costs of these services, what it’s going to do is that it’s going to end up leaving kids more at home as opposed to being in a safe place after school as well as school off days. Seattle is a good way to look at how it effected different types of positions. I do encourage the Council to vote no this evening.

Mary-Ann Mayor: Good evening everyone. I am calling to voice my concern about this proposal. I have lived in Aurora since the early 80’s. I have been a single mother. This legislation is dangerous. Raising the minimum wage will discourage new businesses from coming to Aurora, and it will cause existing businesses to leave. This will result in a loss of revenue. Additionally, since this is only for Aurora, it will be taxed onto consumers. People will go elsewhere to shop. For businesses that do not leave but increase their prices to consumers, lower income or fixed income citizens in our community may not have access to inexpensive food. Some of our citizens are going to school like I did when I was working full time. I went back to school to get a better job, and many times I had to rely on fast food in order to just get my child fed. Not the best thing, but you know, If I had a test coming up I needed to be prepared, and I didn’t have enough time to cook a meal. I’m afraid this is going to leave some of our elderly people to have to decide between medicine and food…This will raise unemployment and possibly loss in wages as employees’ hours will be cut, and some employees will be terminated. We have already seen this in stores. For example, in store I know that the manager is making $17 dollars an hour and they don’t have enough people to cover doing what they need to do. That manager is making $17 dollars an hour. his company is not going to be able to change his wages, and he has a 4 year business degree from one of the best business schools. We are talking about high school students making the same amount as a person with a business degree?…Minimum wage was never designed to be a living wage. It’s for people with no skills. It’s an entry level position for people with no skills to get their feet wet. Researchers at Harvard Business School did a study in April of 2017 stating that a $1 dollar increment in minimum wage leads to a 14% increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5 star restaurant, which is the medium rating on Yelp. You are going to be killing businesses here. You don’t penalize people for making more money. That is ridiculous. Thnak you.

Vita Brown: I want to say hi to Mayor Coffman and all of the City Councilmembers, and I want to thank Alisosn Coombs for having the courage to care about people. I have listened to all of these people talk, and I am really disgusted. We have people out here working two or three jobs. They don’t have time to spend with their families. They don’t have food. They don’t have anything. The minimum wage has to be increased- point, blank, period. And thank you, Alison, Juan and Crystal Murillo for having the guts to stand up and do what is morally right. You cannot put your foot on the neck of a poor person and pay them nothing. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. That’s all I have to say.

Unknown Community Member: Good evening Councilmembers, and thank you for allowing me the chance to speak. it is evidently clear that the pandemic has created havoc for employees and business owners. All of us are suffering. I happen to be a member of the business advisory board, and I find it my responsibility to at least express what I have observed in conversations with numerous business owners. it is our responsibility to listen in open public forum what the small businesses are telling us, so that’s where I am going to speak that message. The small businesses that talked to us are minority owned businesses – hispanic, black and immigrants. these are people who have put there lifetime of sacrifice to keep their slate and financial challenges to get the businesses going…I do feel that, at this time, because of the pandemic and from what messages we have heard from the small businesses- vulnerable business owners – that this would destroy or at least, take to edge many small businesses who could potentially close, have layoffs and also, if nothing else, cut hours. Cut the cost to the employees, but what’s the benefit? The health benefit? If they reduce the hours, employees would lose health benefits, because they are not concerned for their employees, and for this you have to cross 32 hours to get that. There are many unintended consequences that we have to consider at this time, because of the pandemic. We also have to recognize how the other costs of living can be addressed. What about housing costs? What about health care costs and other opportunities we can give the citizens of Aurora so that we do not destroy businesses, but we also allow people to re-train and to get into a higher quality of life. This is the wrong time to consider this proposal. Next year I will support this. Thank you.

Richard Barahona: Hi Council, I am a 25 year old Auroran living in Ward 3, and I moved to Aurora when I was 10 years old. I have lived here for 15 years. I graduated from Smokey Hill High School and CU Boulder. I love Aurora, it’s my home. I’ve also worked minimum wage jobs as a tutor, cashier at the Burger King on Chambers and Iliff and library assistant. My dad is a small business owner and my mom is a housekeeper and despite that, the three of us work diligently and tirelessly, and they still struggled to put me through college. My parents continue to be working class and only earn enough money to pay for their immediate expenses. That is despite them living in Aurora since 2006. They continue to earn the same amount of money. They are once accident – medical disorder away from falling into debt, unable to save any money for retirement or to save money to send their kids to college to mitigate significant financial loss. This is the story of most Aurorans living in the City, and wages in this country have stagnated since the 60’s, and meanwhile, the cost of housing has skyrocketed. If the minimum wage were adjusted for income growth for inflation it would be around $21.00 dollars an hour. And we are here trying to fight for $17.00 dollars. When Colorado raised the minimum wage, jobs didn’t flee to Wyoming, Utah and Arizona. Businesses didn’t shutdown, but the cost of goods didn’t burst. We have one of the most thriving economies in the country. Like Colorado’s increase, Aurora’s will not be any different. Increasing wages for more people increases the velocity of money, which leaves more money in the economy and mitigating the loss of jobs increases the cost of living. Thankfully, for my family, I am set to graduate law school, and I will be able to help them save money, but most Aurorans aren’t so lucky. You and I both know that the average worker in Aurora struggles with housing prices and just a note, for every small business owner that calls in, they are dozens of impoverished Aurorans that cannot afford to take the time to call in, and the reason why is because unlike all of the small business owners in opposition, they are working two to three jobs just to stay afloat. You have the power to change this, so please vote yes on the ordinance. Thank you.

Kevin Patterson: Thank you, my name is Kevin Patterson. I work with Colorado People’s Alliance. I am here to speak in support of the minimum wage. I was born and raised in Colorado, and I am a new resident of Aurora, currently in Ward 6. I have worked a minimum wage job in Aurora at Best Buy…for 5 years. This experience inspired me to work with working with people across this country to raise the standards. Working folks deserve a fair share of the work that they put in to these corporations. Let’s stop the race to the bottom. We know the minimum wage has life-saving components, as noted by the article minimum wage could lower suicide rates studies say, reported by the New York Times earlier this year. We know that this impact is greater in communities that look like mine. In Aurora, one of the most diverse cities in the United States, the time is now to reinvest in our essential communities or frontline workers who have been putting their lives on the line during this pandemic. I want to think Councilmember Coombs for realizing that it’s time for minimum wage workers in Aurora to receive a raise for keeping our society afloat during this pandemic. Thank you for your support.

Dolan Knapp: First of all, I just want to thank all of the members of the City Council for serving. You guys are way underpaid, and I just admire your work – all of you. I just wanted to say thank you to Alison Coombs, Crystal Murillo and Juan Marcano. Thank you for all of the hard work you are doing. I love you guys. Angela Lawson, Curtis Gardner – I want to thank both of you for thinking independently. I know at this time in the world it’s very hard to be independent. We are at arguably the most tribal time in our world’s history, or our country’s history, and it’s really takes a lot of courage to think independently, so thank you Angela Lawson and Curtis Gardner. I just want to start off by saying, yes, I love the City of Aurora. The diversity – not just racially, but also thinking-wise – intellectually, so many different ideas. The fact that we are one third Republican, one third Democrat and one third Independent – it’s just an amazing place to be in terms of innovation, the exchange of ideas and the culture. The culture is so rich. I’m worried that I’m going to be forced out of Aurora at some point, because it is becoming so hard for me to just stay above water. Paying the rent, most importantly, that’s been the toughest part. That has been the biggest part of my chunk of money to leave me every month, but also we have to consider healthcare costs are going up a lot faster than wages and the cost of education, higher education. If you want to go to the University of Denver you are paying $50,000 dollars a year. Who can afford that these days? Especially if you are working in a restaurant in the back, in the kitchen, you are working your butt off, and you are not even making a living wage. You are paying these people basically just to survive so that they can go home, go to sleep, wake up, have some food and go to work the next day, so that they can make money for you, so that you can use that equity and put it in the stock market? I’m pretty sure only half of the country has access to the stock market. The stock market is shooting to the stars, while the rest of the normal economy, the real world is going down. We are in a K shape recovery, and this has been happening since the late 1970’s with Reaganomics, globalization and technology. I know that it is not one person’s fault. It’s globalization. It’s technology. Those are the two things that are keeping wages down, primarily. I don’t want to blame anyone. We all want everyone to be happy and live and not be displaced. I don’t think we are asking for much for $17.00 dollars an hour by 2025. I think that it is totally reasonable, and I just want to say thank you guys for serving, because I know that you are underpaid and you have major incoming coming at you all the time. There is a lot of pressure for you to perform. I just want to thank you for the passion that you do have for the City of Aurora. Let’s get this thing on the right track, and let’s make this work for everyone. Thanks, guys.

Linda Servey: I’m calling tonight because I am a former small business owner. As a matter of fact, I’ve had a few small businesses over my working lifetime. The situation we are looking at now is really very desperate for people that are at minimum wage or even below. As a business owner, I couldn’t in good conscience pay my people less than what it took for them to live – have food on the table, have a roof over their head, be able to have their children go to school. It would be so far below the bar for me to exploit people who were giving their all for me and my businesses. I never had that situation. I would not have that situation. I would find ways to make it work. I also offered health insurance to my employees. I gave them sick leave. I gave them benefits, and I did not make a huge amount of money, but I could sleep well at night because I knew that I was treating my workers well. As far as the people who followed my business, who gave me the opportunity to serve them, and I would really like for the people who sounded so angry to take a minute, step back, think about the fact that there are children who are hungry. There are people sleeping in their cars or couch surfing. There are people who are falling simply into destitution, and we need to keep them in mind. The minimum wage is one way to force larger businesses to pay a better wage. When that happens, it makes it much better for circulation of money in our local economy. Those small business owners, like me, I would urge you to think about ways to be a good, ethical employer, and to take the time to figure out ways to work, and have to your workers be having a living wage. Thank you.

Councilmember Coombs: So I wanted to just clarify a couple of items, because I heard some folks bring up some things that, yeah, I just want to clarify and provide more information on. Some folks seem to be under the impression that this would go into effect as $17.00 dollars an hour in 2021. That is not accurate. it will be a 60 cent increase in 2021, which is 28 cents over the amount that statewide increase that has already been planned. I also wanted to give some more information about the issues related to Medicaid reimbursement rates, specifically, the bill does include and give consideration to funds for nursing homes subject to appropriation. it also includes a requirement that the CDPHE give a report every July based on how many municipalities have increased their local wage and provide recommendations with respect to increasing those Medicaid provider rates, and that why we did part of this gradual increase, again…because it gives time for those adjustments to happen, and it gives time for businesses to adjust. That’s why we are doing 5% increases in the first two years – is to create space for those changes. As far as businesses going to Denver, Denver already has a higher minimum wage than we do already and will continue to. Those are couple of factual corrections I wanted to make. I also wanted to point out some of the other changes besides going down from $17.00 dollars an hour form $20.00, which is the cost of enforcement. We found a lower number for the cost enforcement based on additional conversations with folks in Denver that we can look at in the initial year just as a program manager and a part-time support staff for the purpose of figuring out what the structure is going to look like and what kinds of complaints we may receive. Also, directing the department to put small businesses in contact with resources. I just wanted to make sure that those points were clarified. I look forward to the rest of discussion. I’m sure that folks have many points to make.

Dave Sundberg: Hello everyone. I would like to point out that the City of Aurora is one of the larger employers in the City of Aurora. And the City of Aurora, which the City Council oversees is one of the biggest culprits of paying minimum wage. I have two kids that have worked for parks and recreation and have sought better jobs and found better jobs than the minimum wage paid by the city of Aurora. I would say shame on you for being hypocritical on this issue without, first, making sure that your house is first in order before telling businesses what to do. Whether you are a small business calling in tonight or a community organizer, we could all stand and agree that no one like a hypocrite, yet you are being that way. Why don’t you first table this for a period of time, put your house in order, pay no one less than $15.00 dollars an hour and then come to us, and tell us what to do. I say shame on you, Nicole Johnson. I would say shame on you, Alison Coombs – Ms. Lawson, for not having your own house in order before telling us what to do. Why pay people poorly? Why not first oversee that, which you have the power to do? I think it’s disengenuine and hypocritical, and that’s all I have to say. Thank you very much.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bergan: I just want to say thank you to everyone that called in. I know it’s late. For those that talked about the workers and wanting the minimum wage for the workers, I personally have worked minimum wage jobs in my life. My first job was at the age of 16, and I have worked ever since then. In fact, when I was going to college I worked 3 minimum wage jobs to be able to pay my tuition. I empathize with people that are at the minimum wage jobs, but again, that usually is a starting point. I had to share roommates as well…But one thing that I need to point out is, the minimum wage workers just got a state mandated wage of 90 cents, less than a year ago. In 2019 it was $11.10 and in 2020 the state raised it to $12.00 dollars an hour. Of course, there is a cost of living adjustment that goes with that every year. Typical restaurants or small retail stores in Aurora operate on a margin of less than 5%. We have heard some of the people say that tonight. You know, that really means that $10.00 dollar burger makes them 50 cents profit. Another thing to mention is, beyond the wages that they pay, they also incur payroll costs. They are paying for Social Security. They are paying for state and federal unemployment taxes, worker’s compensation and those that offer health benefits, or other benefits have those incorporated as well. Then, they are paying, typically, a lease for the place that they have on top of utilities. There is all of those added costs. There have been some comments about people – you know, it’s just about the rich, the wealthy, and they don’t care about the poor, but that is really not the case. You have heard a lot of testimony tonight from many business owners that are struggling to make it during this pandemic and even before the pandemic, were already having to struggle with the state imposed minimum wage. And trying to find out how they are going to be able to make their profits, whether they needed to lay off employees, cut hours or raise prices. I think we have to consider that, especially if you look at the restaurants. One of the things – it’s not just the pandemic that has them struggling, but we are going into winter, so those restaurants that were operating at less capacity because of the restrictions that were put in place, now don’t even have the option to do outdoor patio seating. That is going to put them into a really precarious situation where they are going to be in trouble. Really, businesses have two options. They can either raise their revenue, and they can do that by raising their prices, or they can cut costs, and when you cut costs, that means you either fire employees, reducing hours, eliminating benefits, or moving to other jurisdictions. We are talking about a City minimum wage, and that means we are now going to have competition from other jurisdictions. Southeast Aurora, for example, boarders Parker and Centennial and in fact, we are not that far from Lone Tree. I have heard from businesses that said they are looking at relocating as soon as their lease is up. This is not what we want. We want to help our workers, but this is not the right solution. I think what we need to do is working on economic development, because we want to bring in good paying jobs for our workers and bring opportunity to them. We can work with our counties with the job centers that they have. It is also our responsibility to not lose jobs, and so, I am going to oppose this proposal.

Councilmember Gardner: I have a couple questions for staff as it relates to costs for the city. First is on the enforcement piece. When this was in front of Council 6 or 7 weeks, ago staff had put together an estimate needed for enforcement of about $350,000 dollars a year. Apparently, Councilmember Coombs decided it only needs 1.5 FTE. I don’t know what the basis for that was, as staff reached out to other cities to talk about their enforcement departments including the City of Denver. I just want to confirm with staff that they still agree with their original estimates of 3 staff members, three FTE at an estimated cost of $330,00 dollars.

Terri Velasquez (Finance Director): Trevor and I have had a few discussions regarding that matter. He was the one that reached out to Denver, and yes, we do believe that we need, at a minimum, 3 FTE for the enforcement effort. It may be short that it doesn’t have any review of the contracts for purchasing. We would need maybe additional resources related to that.

Councilmember Gardner: Going through the ordinance it looks like there would be enforcement, salary scales for other city employees that would have to be increased that aren’t accounted for. This ordinance creates a mandate for the creation of posters that, according to city staff, would cost anywhere from $30,000-$70,000 dollars to create the postrers. The Aurora municipal court would need to create a process or docketing system to deal with these new cases. There is going to be an impact to City contracts. I think it is pretty clear that the cost of the city would be pretty significant – very quickly. Council, of course, has already approved the budget for 2021, and so, essentially by passing this, we would be creating an immediate budget deficit. My question to staff is – have we done an analysis of how we would make up for that deficit? Would be cut costs? Would we have more furlough days for employees? What are some things we would make up for some of those essential, immediate budget deficits?

Terri Velasquez: So we would definitely need to go back to our list of options to consider. it would have to be further expenditure reductions, or increases revenue because this would be ongoing costs and not onetime, in nature, for the most part. We haven’t done that at this point, but that would be a process that we would have to undertake.

Mayor Coffman: I’ve got a question related to Medicaid if someone could answer this and that is – nursing homes are treated differently than home health care agencies when it comes to Medicaid reimbursments in receiving this increase in the minimum wage. I wonder if someone could answer that.

Councilmember Coombs: That is how the bill was written that there is a fund for nursing homes specifically, but there is also a separate section written that requires the CDPG director to make recomendations for increased rates for the home health care providers. There are provisions for both within the bill and those providers are treated differently from the state in terms of funding.

Mayor Coffman: We cannot mandate our department of public health and environment protection.

Councilmember Coombs: No, they are mandated in the bill to take action. The state bill that allows this to happen mandates them to take action.

Councilmember Gruber: Consider the ordinance already a done deal. What you are seeing here tonight is simply, Councilmember Coombs talked with Colorado People’s Alliance on this ordinance and now its her intention to re-introduce it on her Facebook page. She already had the votes needed for this to pass. I have no reason to take Councilmember Coombs at her word. Further, only some of the Councilmembers knew this was coming back. As a matter of fact, we were told at study session that it would not. Councilmember Coombs sent this email to a business group, quote, “I want to be clear that we are not moving forward for the minimum wage in the city of Aurora…I do not want the proposal passed late in the year to go into effect January 1st. Throughout this process I have been trying to set a timeline that would give businesses time to plan prepare. Continuing to push at this time would not enable that. All the best, Alison,” unquote. Bringing it back in secret and having 6 votes for the Colorado People’s Alliance posted her video, is the opposite of transparent. Let me go into some details. First off, when the economy was doing well, last February, before Covid hit, many companies paid well above the minimum wage. They couldn’t keep their employees otherwise. They also had funds available to pay more because their businesses were doing so well. It was an employee market, and workers could take their labor to the company that would pay them the most for it. it’s called a free market. Covid changed everything, and now companies are barely hanging on. Next, the ordinance is merely identical to the $20.00 dollars by 2027 ordinance that was shot down in study session. The primary difference between this ordinance and they ordinance and the ordinance Council voted against was that this ordinance stops in 2025 at $15.00 dollars instead of 2027 at $20.00 dollars. It’s important to understand that the State minimum wage will go up in 2021 as well. It will go from $12.00 to $12.32 and then the City will raise it to $12.60. The total 2021 impact to the employers in Aurora will be 60 cents per hour…the actual impact of the small increase on small businesses is much larger. Since many of the businesses are operating at a margin of less than one percent, these costs can be fatal. This ordinance will also effect City finances, because we hire so many minimum wage workers ourselves, that was stated by one of the speakers, we either going to have to come up with money to pay for the ones, and we only hire because we need them. Now we are going to have to hire either less students, or we are going to have to have additional money to pay for them. The contracts with the City are also going to have to require modification to ensure that a company from Centennial that wins an Aurora contract, is paying an Aurora wage to its workers while they are working in Aurora. The City is going to have to inspect that…If you go into the ordinance, the ordinance is specifically design organizations like Colorado People’s Alliance to fine employers that are not complying. The Colorado People’s Alliance and those third party groups will have the authority to sue on behalf of the employee without the employee having a say one way or another…

Councilmember Lawson: Mayor, thank you for allowing me to speak. I do think that we need a minimum wage, and I am supportive of that. When I talked to council in full disclosure, Councilmember Coombs, about a week and a half ago, I didn’t have this proposal in front of me. I also though that some things a I found out through the week, and also today, I didn’t know that she did not actually talk to the business community about this. That’s where I am having some problems with the process and how this was done. If we are going to have, part of this process to me is the interaction with the business community. I definitely think we can come up with some type of collaboration. A person like myself who has promoted civic engagement, that has been her thing and the way that this proposal has went through and the information that I found out just from talking to the BAB chair and also the executive director of the Havana BID, that this wasn’t going to come forward and then all of the sudden it does come forward based on an email that I saw, which I had contacted Councilmember Coombs over the weekend about rumors that I had heard about this. I actually have the physical email in front of me. I just don’t think that this is right. We had an actual businessperson, I was copied on this proposal – he had a proposal to go lower on the wage. He had an amendment. He had something, but because of the timeframe, he couldn’t present it. Looking at the process, and going beyond from what everyone else is saying, for me, it’s how this went through. I know she got pressure from the community. Her people have put pressure on me from the community, but the thing is is where is the collaboration with the business community and also with, to kind of see if there could be something good for the worker and also good for the business owner. There is information that I found out about that I didn’t know prior to this, because I’m thinking that this happened, but it didn’t. I just can’t support this at this time. I also want to caveat that was stated by some people on the phone stating that people that are wealthy have businesses. I disagree with that, because I know people who have struggled to get a business in Aurora. I go to them, and I know what their struggles were. they are not rich people. They started from, some people, nothing, and they built their businesses. For me, this particular issue and how this came around – this is not something that I like to roll with. I really think, I know the intention. I do support a minimum wage, but I really don’t think that, for me, this process in not allowing the business community to have some input on this proposal itself, even though, I know Councilmember Coombs said they weren’t going to go for it anyway, regardless of that, they still should have the community process. I will be voting “no” on this proposal.

Councilmember Berzins: I want to thank all of the people that gave their evening to go through the terrible process that we have. We have go to do something about this. It made us look really bad in the community’s eyes. I was moved by some of the people that spoke. I will tell you, when my husband came here as an immigrant, he did not expect to have it easy. He expected to work hard…He worked several jobs and of course, they were low paying jobs, because he had broken English – almost no English at all, but he did it. He was proud of himself for working hard. Learning English, going to school, learning a trade. He joined a union. He’s a union electrician. He is proud of that. He never said anything about being a victim, and he couldn’t get a better paying job. He went out and did it. He worked hard. As an immigrant, he worked and worked and joined a union, and sometimes we live paycheck to paycheck. I came from a family that lived paycheck to paycheck to paycheck. I know what all of that is about. All of this business of saying that anybody that has a business is rich, that’s not true…I am not sure who is behind all of these ordinances coming back, because from the video – the first part of the video said “they asked me to bring it back.” I’m not sure who “they” is. I just want to thank the people that I need a higher wage – I understand that, because I have worked low paying jobs myself. My husband has too as an immigrant. I see the business side, too, and I think that Councilmember Coombs and Marcano, and the folks that are going to vote for this need to realize that – when you pass these things, there is unintended consequences. If people lose their jobs because businesses go under, or they have to cut down on employees, they also lose their health insurance. They lose more than just their jobs…It’s a tough life, so I think we need to help the businesses any way we can now through this Covid to stay in business, and help them employ as many people as they can. When it comes time to go through the ordinance, if we are going to do that tonight – don’t know…I wanted to say what was on my heart tonight. It’s a tough way to make a living by working minimum wage. We know that that’s not a lifetime job. It’s a stepping stone into something else like my husband…he knew it was a stepping stone into something different. We have to think about those things. Thank you.

Councilmember Marcano: I want to thank everyone who called in tonight and shared their thoughts and stories with us. I think that it is important as policymakers that we not just consider the data, which does support the measure before us, but also the real lived experiences of folks who, quite frankly are ignored, taken advantage of, dismissed and betrayed on a regular basis. To our workers that organize hard, who called us up and kept the pressure, even on those of us who already were in support of this, I appreciate all of the time and energy you put in. You all work ridiculous hours and have a lot of other responsibilities. I want to thank all of you for being as engaged as you can be in the economic circumstances. To my colleagues – I just want to say empathy doesn’t pay bills. We have an opportunity to help 30,000 people. It doesn’t sound like that’s going to happen anymore. It is what is. I will echo councilmember Gruber’s comments – there is an election next year where we can make sure this doesn’t happen again. Thank you.

Mayor Pro-Tem Johnston: I want to address some things that I feel have been lost in some of this…At study session I said I support minimum wage increase. I was wondering if there was a way to address this in a different way – talk to her after that. She really worked to address a lot of the concerns. There was so much organizing – that this was $17.00 an hour January 1st. Where she really, I felt, was listening to some of the business issues, some of the worker issues and said – ok, I have something in line with Denver. It’s going to be less. It’s going to be incremental. We don’t know the enforcement piece right way, so let’s start with this and then build to it. It is different from a lot of concerns that I had with the first proposal. I felt that she addressed that with this new one. I know that It’s not going to be what it takes to put us over, but I needed to acknowledge that, because there was so much information about this huge increase starting January 1st. That wasn’t the case.

Councilmember Hiltz: There was some misinformation. When this first came up I said I supported raising the minimum wage at the local level. I just didn’t have time to process was 17$ would look like. Given that I was a last minute amendment and we ran out of time on that discussion and so, I think we all have some frustrations with the process overall. That is separate from doing what we need to do to help the workers. I am going to support this. I got the information I needed. I reached out to some other folks. Mayor pro tem Johnston reached out to the Bell Institute, and I got some additional information from them and just was able to really get the information that I think was missing with the $17.00 amendment the last time around. That was my hesitation then, and so I will support this today.

Councilmember Murillo: I’m feeling a heavy heart right now. I’m disappointed. I feel like the direction is that this isn’t going to pass. Before I keep going, I do want to thank everyone who chimed in, even if you weren’t in support. It is really important for us to hear testimony, especially when we don’t agree. The fact that we kept making exceptions to let folks speak, regardless, I think is very meaningful. Thank you everyone for chiming in…I am disappointed, because it feels like we have gone through such a hard time during Covid and what I worry about and struggle with is we see lots of relief and aid coming for, even through the city, supporting our small businesses. By no means am I saying that’s making this easy, but I’m not seeing where workers are prioritized where they get that same investment and there ability to weather the storm. I often see that it’s our minimum wage workers who bare the brunt of impacts when it comes to big changes like this. I guess I am most disappointed to see that we have gotten away from that prioritization and that value of people and workers and deserving to have a livable wage. It wasn’t a livable wage before Covid, and Covid has certainly made that worse. I am frustrated to hear the posture around wages when half of the time I think we hear support around our police and fire departments and how their wages aren’t high enough compared to Denver, but then when we try to make that argument for working wages, somehow that’s not a valid argument…It seems a little lopsided. I’m disappointed…I also haven’t heard any amendment, any proposed amendments in this conversation – a lot of framing and narrative that was embedded in false information, misinformation around how quickly the minimum wage would be increased is what I heard. This is a classic tactic we have seen on this Council before. When there is something controversial, people spread misinformation to confuse people. It didn’t really give us a chance to give us a conversation about something of merit. Instead, it feels kind of like an out. We didn’t get to discuss the merit in depth, yet again…In the end, our community loses out. I’ve known Councilmember Coombs to be a staunch advocate but also not unreasonable. I know that she had been working with groups to try and find something that was palatable… I would have loved to see this move forward. I still would love to see it move forward, so that we could talk about ways that we could mitigate impacts to our small businesses. We have our 3rd round of small business grants coming out, so to say that this alone is the only way that we are supporting our economy is just narrow, and it doesn’t take into the full scope of all of the other ways that we are supporting small businesses and trying to give balanced relief to our community.

Councilmember Coombs: I want to express some disappointment that our working people are going to have to wait a full year before they get any relief. I think that’s what we need to be talking about here. Our businesses are getting relief. We have a program that is opening this week that is going to give our businesses, yet, more relief…everyone is doing what they can to provide relief for our businesses, and that same level of relief is not coming to our people. We are going to see more homelessness. We should probably expect more calls about encampments, because people are going to have no choice. And about people living in their cars. And about people parking their RVs in front of people’s homes as we have discussed when we are talking about homeless shelters and homeless services. We talk about wanting to give people a hand up and not a hand out, and that’s what wages equal, more meaningful wages are a hand up. It’s just really disappointing that we don’t think our workers should have a hand up now – that they should wait until the whole pandemic is over. Meanwhile, we can address any other issue that we want; any other issue – policing, campaign finance reform – those aren’t controversial at all. We are going to address those issues now, but we have to wait a full year for our workers to get any relief.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bergan: We actually are helping a lot of our vulnerable. We just passed a $3.8 million dollar grant package for a lot of different organizations – Second Chance Center, for Aurora Warms the Night , the Day Resource Center, you know, all of those organizations are being helped with those monies. You know, we also did grants earlier in the year, but certainly, we try to help as much as we can. I want to point out that it is not true that we haven’t helped.

Mayor Coffman: The question before us is the adoption of item number 13.d. Will the clerk please call the roll.

Mayor pro tem Johnston: Yes

Councilmember Berzins: No

Councilmember Lawson: No

Councilmember Hiltz: Yes

Councilmember Murillo: Yes

Councilmember Bergan: No

Councilmember Gruber: No

Councilmember Marcano: Yes

Councilmember Gardner: No

Councilmember Coombs: Yes

Clerk: Mayor, we have a tie at 5-5.

Mayor Coffman: Mayor votes No.

Clerk: The item fails.

*Note* The Mayor only votes to make or break a tie.