Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

I will call to order the city council meeting for November 18th, 2025.

We will begin with a Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge to the flag of the United States of America and the Republic for the United States.

For which it stands one nation under God.

Okay.

Clerk, can we do a roll call, please?

Mayor Monguet?

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Wong?

Here.

Councillor Barnes.

Good evening.

Councilor Friedland.

Here.

Councillor Gallegos.

Good evening.

Counselor Sampson.

Good evening.

And Councillor Tapia Vega.

Okay.

Mayor, we have a quaum.

Thank you so much.

All right, we'll begin tonight's meeting with public input.

If you wish to speak during this time, please make sure you fill out one of these white speaker forms so you can access the class doors in the back and get over to Clerk Beck and we'll get you on the list.

You'll have five minutes to speak.

Please state your name and address before you do so.

You also have the opportunity to call in as well.

Tonight we will begin with Karen Norbeck.

Darren Norbeck 800.

Good evening.

I've been thinking about the mayor's comments during a meeting a couple of weeks ago when he told us he was going to resign and pass baton to a new councillor and a new mayor.

He said he was a reflective person and had just turned 30 after spending his 20s at City Hall and was now ready to spend time with friends and family.

I remember when he used to sit out in the cheap seats with the rest of us, and I've watched him through his time on council.

That word he used, reflective, is a good one, and it has stuck with me since then.

So I'm going to borrow it as the theme of what I want to say tonight as we come to the end of yet another council with three members leaving and a new council waiting in the wings.

The mayor is off to spend time with family.

Council Sampson will have time to figure out more ways to use Grey Water.

And Mayor Pro Tam Wong, I imagine, will be looking through what I expect is his vast collection of data points.

Sadly, I don't have a collection, but I do have an assortment of notes and documents.

This morning I looked back at notes from your retreat as you started out as a new council.

My memory told me recruitment and communications for boards and commissions was part of your discussion.

Yes, it was, and filling vacancies twice a year was on the table, as was updating the board's bylaws.

Since then, I've watched as you've had workshops and ongoing discussions about putting changes to the boards in motion.

Taking those changes, sometimes more than once, and creating a new recruitment process.

The new process puts all boards on the same footing, and a couple of weeks ago it became apparent that perhaps despite all your and staff's diligence, the planning commission is not benefiting from that.

So we find ourselves with a bit of a situation that I am sure no one expected to arise.

Not only did we not get new applicants for the commission, which by itself is troubling, but the timing of the vote to appoint comes at the same time as an election and the end of a council term, which has its own issues.

As I often come before you with suggestions, I am here to do that tonight.

Reflection on time spent on council tends to happen at these meetings as councillors' terms end.

Tonight is no different.

Table the vote on the planning commission appointments.

During council comments, have a discussion about reopening the application process with the intent to expand the pool of applicants before a decision is made.

Because through no fault of your own, as you work to improve our recruitment process, there are some unexpected optics involved here.

As we watch what's happening at the national level, I encourage you to keep Lafayette on the straight and narrow by voting tonight to table the planning commission appointments and reopening the process to expand the applicant pool to tap into more of our community.

The planning commission is the second most important board in the city.

In the near future, I think the community deserves to see a reassessment of how and when the appointments happen.

So we and future counselors are not faced with the uncomfortable situation we see tonight.

If you decide to move forward with the vote, I still hope you will keep these thoughts in mind.

To those three of you who are leaving, I wish you good luck in your new ventures, even if they involve being a couch potato on Tuesday nights.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next up we have Frank Phillips.

Good evening, Frank Phillips, Lafayette.

Mayor Mangot.

Counselors.

I actually have the same subject in mind tonight, but maybe with some different conclusions.

First off of Maimontow agreement that maybe we need to take a look at the process for boards and commissions, but most importantly, the commissions, particularly the planning commission, because it does not seem that the recruiting process currently works.

I was one of the people manning the planning commission table at the last recruitment event, and there were very few people at the event, and none of them came to the planning commission table.

So I don't know whether it's a time of year issue.

Maybe you need to look at that or maybe do it more frequently.

I know you don't want to, but that may be the solution.

Maybe a mentoring process of some sort because it's a big jump to get on the planning commission without any maybe prior city experience, and maybe some folks are going, well, you know, maybe I could use some help before I get on.

That might need an opportunity.

So getting on to what was mentioned earlier as the main event of the night.

Um council was aware that there were very few applicants before the deadline closed.

And procedurally, that would have been a better time to extend the deadline.

Not wait till you have people who apply who applied on time.

And my understanding is both being highly qualified to now turn around and say, um, no, well, we're just going to open it up again because we want more candidates.

Um, is my opinion highly disrespectful to those folks.

I think the least you can do is honor them with a vote and let them know where they stand.

So hopefully you will you will take that advice.

Um, also, too, you know, having things like this happen potentially can discourage future applicants.

And don't want to do that either, obviously, with the shortage that we have now, potentially.

Um, finally, I'd like to congratulate Mia Pro Tem Brian Wong on his ascension to real life.

And also to the other folks who are leaving.

Good luck and have fun.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh, next up we have Vicky Ewan.

Sorry, one minute.

Hi, I'm Vicky Elen, 303 West Simpson Street, and it is a trifecta.

I too want to talk about the Planning Commission appointments.

Um, I attended the Planning Commission interviews and the follow-up meeting with the councilors last week, so I heard all of the discussions, and I support what councillors Friedland and Barnes discussed in those meetings, which is opening up the application process to encourage more applications for the two vacancies.

This is not unprecedented.

I remember in 2016, Mayor Berg extended the application period for the planning commission because there weren't enough applicants.

This resulted in five applications for one open PCC, with that seat being vacant for a month while the application period was extended.

During this last round of PC interviews, Councillor Gallego said she was concerned about there being temporary vacancies on planning commission if council doesn't vote during this meeting to fill those seats.

But that already happened in 2016 with no disruption to Planning Commission quorums and processes.

It's not unusual at all for PC to not have all seven members present at a meeting.

In fact, I've seen at least a dozen meetings over the last decade when there were only four members present.

Another point I want to make is that this is no offense, a lame duck council that will be voting tonight to appoint commissioners to four-year terms.

If you extend the application period, the new council would appoint the commissioners, they will be working with for the next two years, and I think that's important.

And it also avoids the bad optics of an entire council who has worked with one of the applicants the last two years voting on whether that applicant should serve on the planning commission.

Going back to the time in 2016 when the PC application period was extended, one of the things Mayor Berg asked for was robust publicity from the city's communications department about the opportunity to apply for PC.

I think that's what's needed this time around as well, using a variety of communication channels, including ones the city doesn't traditionally use.

Because I work in communications, I pay particular attention to how the city handles that.

In fact, I can't even tell you the date of that last open house.

That's how little information I saw.

In general, I think there needs to be much more publicity from the city about the application period, including what the boards and commissions do.

How about if we give each board and commission a chance to highlight their accomplishments during the last year in the newsletter that goes out with the water bills?

What if the city's comm staff did short profiles of individual boards and commission members, which could then make serving on a board and commission feel personal rather than bureaucratic?

We have a great opportunity to examine this as we hire a new comms director.

Regarding planning commission specifically, because this is such an important city entity, I wonder about incentives like payment.

I brought this up to previous councils, and I hope the four current counselors who serve on the upcoming council who will serve on the upcoming council will consider this.

The planning commission has as many scheduled regular meetings as council does every month, and yet, unlike council, they don't receive any compensation.

Maybe it's time to consider changing that.

In the meantime, I agree with what Karen said about tabling the PC votes on your agenda tonight in order to encourage a more robust application process that's free of any perceived ethical conflicts and gives council the opportunity to choose from multiple candidates for each vacancy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, uh next up, we have Ron Spalt.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Rollins for in 1326, Elder Otto Way Lafayette, Colorado.

Couple things.

Uh start off easy.

One, uh one staff to know in the council.

The holiday lights look tremendous.

Beautiful job, city hall outline, the trees are gone, stands out.

Um the plaza with all the balls and all really looks good.

Number one.

Number two, I want to congratulate Brian Wong firstly for your time on the city council and for a planning commission.

Nice proclamation a little bit, you know.

Uh we haven't agreed on everything, but I've really appreciated your hard work.

Thirdly, you're you're going to be talking about the council appointments for the uh boards commissions and all.

If I did my homework right, there are uh nine boards of commission, 30 physicians, and 33 applicants.

I'm blown away and amazed by the applications that you all received.

I've reviewed every one of those applications.

They're unbelievable.

The people that that have submitted very education, MS degrees, PhD scientists, very experienced in their work and very thoughtful in and why they want to be on the commissions.

And I'm so proud to live in Lafayette, you never know who's in town.

These people are unbelievable.

So you know, if they're here, God, man almighty, I'm just blown away, and we're gonna have great committees.

I think uh two of them might not be filled.

Uh maybe they are the human rights board.

Uh there were six vacancies, we only had four applicants, two there, and uh sustainability.

We have five openings, only four applied.

So uh if that's three people that uh, you know, maybe to apply for planning commission.

But that brings me to the last point and uh about the planning commission, and uh, I guess I'm the odd man out, uh defer to my esteemed colleagues here and back.

I've really torn on this thing, and I'm even not sure right now, and you all have a big uh big task in front of you.

Uh I as you know, I'm the Gadfly.

I've uh uh I've since I've been here 14 years.

I religiously attend the council meetings, the planning commission meetings and urban renewal now development authority.

Uh council doesn't attend the planning commission meetings.

The cut to the chase, uh tough decision.

Uh I attended both the interview process.

I agreed with uh councilwoman Galagos uh that they're both highly qualified to be be appointed.

I agreed with council Freelander, he said they're very qualified and had concerns about uh about Brian being on there.

And I had concerns at first too, but then when I've seen what happened with our lawyer, it's okay to appoint Brian, okay.

And then I agreed with Councilman Barnes.

Uh, you know, have a more robust uh uh thing, and just like our colleagues have said, and I was gonna say, you know, this is this I think is the toughest committee to be on.

Maybe that's why we didn't get any people there because it's uh it's really tough.

Uh but if you opened it up, we had uh 10 people apply for city council, six aren't there.

I know one of the council people expressed to express an interest in beta on the planning commission.

Here's a chance.

Some of the people that didn't make the committees, two of them or three of them, I could be a whole group of nine people.

But my concern with that, I have no problem.

Uh I have no problem with reappointing Bill Watson or Brian Wong.

Uh one little concern I have coming up.

If you did open up, if nobody, if nobody appoints, you know, it's a roll of the dice.

What happens?

If you have a whole bunch of them come in, that's great.

I think personally attending all the meetings, or you know, 80% of them, Mr.

Watson is a highly qualified, we have a continuity.

Mr.

Wong in the past has been on the commission.

He's been a uh uh uh you know a chairperson of that committee, both highly qualified.

I'm concerned with the annexations coming up with with uh 287 with the with the with the ranch and with uh uh the gateway and possibly with uh uh the the one over by uh you know 95 and all coming up.

I'm looking for people that have had a continuity, have had a history with the planning commission, that knows the ins and outs, somebody coming in, a new uh learning the whole job.

Whatever you do, I'm okay with.

But I think the ones we have in there now are great, and if you decide to reopen, I hope that Mr.

Watson and Mr.

Wong would reapply.

They may not.

If me, I'd feel slighted, I'd say to hell with it.

But whatever you do, it's your decision.

I agree with it.

We got two good people there.

I didn't get paid for this.

I did not get paid for this, so God bless you in your decision.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Bobby.

And that's all the applause we all right.

Uh next up, uh Grant Swift.

Uh good evening, Grant Smith, 6080s Genesis O Street.

I'm here tonight to not talk about boards and commissions.

I'm here to talk about a commission and a board.

Um, as historic preservation chair, um, we had an interview process and uh nominated Jeffrey Rogers, and during the discussion, our group was very enthusiastic about him.

Um members pointed out that he came to the August recruitment process and had a lengthy discussion with members there.

And later on, as we ended our discussion about him, someone said, you know, if he's not appointed, none of us belong on this board.

All right, as your Lot Sab chair, we are tickled pink that Brett reapplied.

He is a fabulous contributor to our board, knows a ton about small mammals, and is we're just so thrilled that he's there, and then secondly, we're looking forward to working with Judy.

Thank you very much.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Okay, thank you.

Uh next up, we have Frank Archeletta.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I'm here basically this evening to run across three things.

First of all, I want to appreciate you all, JD, Brian, and Nicole for all your dedication, your hard work, and your services to the city of Lafayette.

Even though sometimes you disagree with our perspectives, we are true historians, and basically everything that we have told you throughout the past is nothing but the truth from all the data, all the research, it's all truth.

I want you to realize that.

I don't know you you're supposed to receive this from Doug here in your packet here, but basically, I want to go across a correction here.

The sign currently marked at the southwest corner of the cemetery is incorrect.

It says 1981.

That is a type error, but should say 1892.

The numbers got crossed up there.

It's not 1981, it's supposed to be 1891.

It's just a type error on Doug's part.

That's all.

Nothing more.

A little bit.

I had several conversations with Monty Stevenson and Dan Finnor about the Potter Shield area and what the process was as far as burying people there that were already buried there and digging up the babies there.

And they knew they admitted that, they knew what the process was.

We went to the Human Right Commission and they sent a letter to Monty Stevenson asking to close that Potter's Shield area down, and also to come up with the historical plaque with all the names that are in that area right there.

Unfortunately, here I had a conversation with Melissa, and I took her up the cemetery, and now she's in charge of the cemetery on also parks and wreck.

We walked the grounds and all that, and the reason I did that because they had two more burial sites that was exposed.

It just happened to be those burial sites in that part of sealed area was the Martinez family.

Six of them were burned up in a fire in 1930 in Federic, and they're buried there.

I asked Melissa basically to ask whoever dug them up.

Did they hit a coffin?

And absolutely did.

They hit the coffin that was there.

So now basically, now you're going to the SWCA environmental consultants, and I've been up there for two days with and uh Rogers up there going over the cemetery and all that.

I know it's a tough decision and all that, but you are going to be making decisions here, a resolution basically, number 20 2577, imposing a moratorium on interments at the Lafayette Cemetery.

Unfortunately, there's over a hundred letters that went out, but we have burial plots at that cemetery.

That's sacred ground.

We do not want to be buried in Louisville.

We do not want to be buried in Louisville.

We've had them plus for the 90s, in the 90s and all that.

There's been an awful lot of hardship in that cemetery, and it's been because of the clerks and the headings.

The information the data is over 133 years.

The information that we provide to use from 1901 to 1952, where the 200 names came up.

Out of newspapers, the Catholic Archdiocese, the Catholic Church.

All factual folks.

What happened here in the city of Lafayette?

Racism discrimination, bottom line.

Bottom line.

But we get asked for this underground radar system years back.

And nothing happened until Melissa was at the cemetery.

They said yes.

I where the six Marquises were buried.

And that's why you're at where you're at right now.

That's exactly what happened.

But we tried to prevent all this.

And for whatever reason, through these years.

I thank you very much.

And once again, Gady, thank you for your service, Brian and Nicole.

Even though we never agree on a lot of things, but yeah, I wish you the best of luck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Next up we have Thomas Glenn.

Good evening.

I'm Thomas Glenn, uh 745 South Vermont Drive Lafayette.

I wanted to bring to the attention that the uh formal objection process for uh or formal objection period for the uh Rock Mountain Airport flight plans is now started as of uh November 10th.

So effectively we have 60 days to object to the flight plans that the FAA has put down as far as having the flights coming down through Lafayette along the 287 corridor as well as the other sections of town uh as they're returning back to the Rocky Mountain Airport.

So I wanted to make sure that everybody's aware of that so that plans and processes can get in play to uh effectively address what's going on.

Uh I live near 287 today this morning.

I'm sitting outside, I'm getting an aircraft going overhead right over my house every one to three minutes.

That's basically a deterioration of the quality of life of Lafayette, not just for my neighborhood, but everything along the corridor of 287 and other parts of Lafayette.

So I highly encourage that uh actions get in motion, get the objections in place, and that way we can try to prevent some of this deterioration of the quality of life in Lafayette.

It's affecting our children, it's affecting our diverse uh population of citizens, it's affecting wildlife, which I've talked about before, where I had an eagle on a power pole with a uh plane going right overhead.

I appreciate your time, and if I can give assistance in that process, please let me know.

Of course, thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, uh next up we have Ken Andrews.

Leaving old Ken Andrews, 1655 Warner Lake Trail.

Um I too would like to thank JD and counselors, all of you, uh, and especially those that are leaving.

Um this is the third time that I've come to the council meeting to speak about neighborhood street safety and Waranaka landing.

Uh, I'm getting a little tired, no doubt you are too.

Um, but during this transition period of counselors coming and going and so on.

Well, don't want council to lose sight of what really is a bit of an archives heel for Lafayette.

Uh Wanaka Landing is uh surrounded by arterial routes, 95th, baseline, South Boulder, uh, and further down 287, but it cuts up to Wanaka Lake Park.

And uh, as you've heard me say before, basically, there is no disincentive in Warner Landing not to speed.

There are no speed signs, there are no raised crosswalks, no speed cushions, and it's a bit of a free-for-all.

And it is because there are a lot of destinations that can be got to through Wanaka Landing, and it's also being used as a shortcut avenue rather than going around baseline 95th, 287, and so on.

So I'm not gonna go through all the the points that I've made before and others have made, but do really want to keep that on your radar screen.

Um, this is not gonna take another bond issue.

Okay, congratulations on the ones that you got.

Um it's a very, very low cost solution.

It costs under $2,000 to put a speed cushion in and things like that.

So I understand that JD has sent to you our priority action items.

Is that correct, JD?

You've sent this to council.

Uh I also want to specifically highlight JD's participation and responsiveness.

JD has been very accessible to us, and um we really appreciate that.

We really appreciate that.

Um I'm here not just uh representing myself, but I'm here particularly representing the 26 children that under the age of 10 that live within a few hundred yards of my wife's and my house.

JD got to mention meet some of those and their parents recently.

Um these little kids um they want to ride their bikes, they want to cross the street, go to their neighbor's house, and they also catch many of them catch the school bus on Pascal, which is by a crosswalk that is pretty lethal to be honest.

Um I can't remember how many times I've seen near misses.

I have people telling me every week about near misses, and it's just not a safe environment.

Laffe, it's a great place to live, but we need to have better street safety where we live.

So I just appealed to you with that, and as I say, I'm not gonna prattle on anymore about it, but uh we do want to pick this up with you, counselors, and I guess you may, wherever you are in in the room.

Um we we really want to just do some basic low-cost improvements to make Wanaka Landing safe.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next up we have Michael Joan and Michael, please correct me if I'm mispronouncing your last name.

Good enough.

My name's Michael Johan.

I live at 1600 Wanaca Lake Trail, and I'm here uh on Ken's invitation.

Uh Ken talked about the safety and the speeding and things like that.

I want to talk about the parking issue that has come about with the pickleball court located at the park.

I live right at the corner of Carria and Wanaka Lake Trail, so I'm right there.

I look at it every day.

Um, when that court is full, which is often, and whether however you feel about pickleball in the city or not, the asset that has been brought to the park, the pickleball court has brought consequences along with the speeding is the parking issues.

Uh when that court is full and people park on both sides of Wanaka Lake Trail as it goes up the hill or down the hill, uh, it's an extremely dangerous situation.

I come home to my house multiple times a day.

And when you drive down that hill and people are parked on the inside corner, it is impossible to see around that corner.

Um there are people that get and out of their cars, uh the pickle players with their gear, they're standing there, they're yapping how good the game was, whatever they were doing.

It's a really dangerous situation.

It's a city asset.

Uh good or bad, it's there.

But consequences have come from it along with the speeding, the traffic is has really increased.

I saw it tremendously.

There has been a crew replacing the water line at our intersection for the last three weeks.

Um the amount of traffic that passes through this intersection is huge.

And without the city doing something, it just creates a huge liability.

And for us residents, it you know, I listen to all the people, there's some bigger issues on the table, you know, planning commission, you know, the noise.

This is a neighborhood issue.

It's about safety, it's about taking responsibility for what we have.

Um, a simple thing is that inside corner, if it was striped and signed, no parking, a person can see.

I can't tell you how many times I've come down the hill and somebody's coming up and say, oh my god, where are we?

Uh I ask you to seriously consider what we have there.

As Ken said, some of the fixes are incredibly inexpensive.

And I would believe that a city like Lafayette, I don't know the inner workings, um, would have this you know discretionary funds to support neighborhood safety.

We're one small neighborhood in a city that's growing, but we are a crossroads, and we just need attention.

So I thank you for your time, and Mayor JD, thank you for putting so much time and spending with us helping us understand how to move this forward and good luck in your next adventure.

Yes, of course.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, I'm not seeing any more speaker forms in front of me at the moment.

Are there any members of the public that wish to speak during this time?

Okay.

Uh let me check online as well.

I do see uh one caller.

Um caller uh with the phone number ending in 757.

Talking is now permitted, and uh you may speak when you're ready.

Hello.

Yes, hi there.

I'm my name is Christopher.

I live at the Laluna Co-op Fiat, and I wish to uh put my thoughts behind Thomas Glenn and what he said.

We need to really control these planes.

They're they're becoming not just an annoyance, they're becoming a direct disturbance to my peace of mind.

It's it's we need to do something with it.

We really need to get.

I know people have the right to fly, but yeah, I'm just here to say that.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Well, that uh wraps up our online callers as well as our in-person speakers.

So with that, I will close public input and we will move forward with the consent agenda.

Uh we have several items uh including uh item A, November 3rd, 2025, City Council meeting minutes.

Item B, second reading of ordinance number 23, series 2025, amending section 26-4 of the code of ordinances regarding sketch plan and preliminary plan review procedures.

Item C, second review of ordinance number 24, series 2025, uh granting uh electric easements and you and a utility easement uh to the public service company of Colorado for electric utility and service lines and electric vehicle charging stations on city on certain city owned properties.

Item D, second reading of ordinance number 25, series 2025, enacting chapter 4 pertaining to the setting of fees and amending and repealing provisions in the code of ordinances regarding fees set by resolution.

Item E, resolution number 225-75, approving the 2026 mental health and human services grant program disbursements and authorizing city manager to execute grant agreements with recipients.

Item F, resolution number 225-76, approving an intergovernmental agreement between the city of Lafayette and Boulder Valley School District regarding the student one initiative.

Item G, resolution number 2025-78, approving an amendment to the 21st interim agreement with the Northern Integrated Supply Project, water activity enterprise for participation in the Northern Integrated Supply Project, and finally, item H contract with second amendment uh to see to city manager employment agreement.

Um council like to pull any items.

Yes, Mr.

Mayor.

I like to pull item H, the city manager's contract.

Any other items?

Okay.

Uh can I get a motion to uh approve or actually let's I pause on that.

Let's address item H first.

Uh Mayor Potem Wong.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

What I wanted to do was just take a moment and um make some comments in regards to the city manager's review that we have gone through.

Um while most of this is done as a personnel matter in executive session.

Um, this is a public matter when it comes to council taking a vote on it.

So I just want to take a quick moment um and acknowledge the work that city administrator or city manager Doling had done in the last year, and how much we appreciate the work that you have done.

Um she did get a good review, I think.

Um, and just so the public knows, we have chosen to give her a three and a half percent um increase based on the average of all city staff, and then on top of that, when we look at the current market of all city um managers with our city our size, there's also gonna be a four percent market adjustment.

So that is what um city council has chosen to do, and I just wanted to go ahead and daylight that for the public.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

All right, um, can we get a motion um for item H separately if you will?

I move to approve item H, the city manager's contract.

Second.

Motion and second on that.

Any further discussion?

All right, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

None opposed.

And uh, so that passes unanimously.

I think counselor Barnes is actually did not participate in that vote, just for the records.

Um all right, is there a motion to approve the balance?

I move to approve the balance of the agenda.

Second.

Motion and second any further discussion.

Okay, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, none opposed.

That passes unanimously.

Great.

Okay, uh, that brings us to proclamations for tonight.

Uh we have several proclamations to get to.

Um let's start but with proclamation I.

This is for transgender day of remembrance for November 20th, 2025.

And I believe Councillor Barnes.

I'd be happy to take it if he's yeah, um, Councilor Barnes is supposed to read this in, but he's in the back, so and then once we're done reading this through, I'd be happy to invite you all to speak.

Yes.

Transgender Day of Remembrance, November 20th, 2025.

Whereas Transgender Day of Remembrance was started in 1999 by transgendered advocate Gwendolyn Ann Smith as a vigil to honor the memory of Rita Hester, a transgender woman who was killed in 1998.

And whereas the city of Lafayette is committed to honoring the dignity, identities, and lived experiences of all members of our community, and whereas the city of Lafayette is committed to trans and non-binary people in their health, well-being, livelihood, and we thank them for being a part of our community.

And whereas transgender and non-binary individuals continue to face disproportionate levels of discrimination, bias, and violence that endanger their safety and well-being, and whereas the city of Lafayette supports fair and equal treatment of all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

And whereas Transgender Day of Remembrance honors the memory of people who have lost their lives through acts of anti-transgender violence.

Now, therefore, the mayor and city council of the city of Lafayette, Colorado, do hereby declare November 20th, 2025 to be transgender day of remembrance, and encourage all residents to join in recognizing this day by commemorating those we have lost and reaffirming our shared commitment to inclusion, equity, and compassion.

So moved.

Second.

Alright, we do have a motion and a second.

Before we get to the vote, I'd like to invite a couple folks that are here to speak to this proclamation.

From the Rocky Mountain Iquality Organization, this is Mark Mark and Theodore.

Thanks for joining us tonight.

Yeah, thank you for having us.

I'm Mark, this is Theo.

Yeah, we're from Rocky Mountain Equality.

Um I'm from Boulder, and I just and we work in Boulder County and throughout the state of Colorado on programming on advocacy and services for the LGBTQ community, including transgender individuals.

And I want to take my moment to just thank the city council for taking a moment to commemorate this day.

It's really important to our community, especially now.

So with that, I'll let Theo explain a bit more about what Trans Day of Remembrance means.

So Trans Day of Remembrance is a time to remember and honor trans lives lost this year due to violence.

While is it a time to grieve?

It is not just a day for despair.

It is also a time to recognize the value of our lives, particularly so right now when there are some who would attempt to dehumanize and systemically erase us.

I grew up not that far away in Greeley, and it was a long time before I even knew the word trans.

Um here I'm grateful to now get to be my full authentic self as well as a part of a strong trans community.

I hope that as we grieve those we lost this year, we can continue supporting tribes trans lives now and in the future.

Thank you.

Of course.

And thank you for for joining us this evening.

All right.

Um so there has been a motion and a second.

Any comments or discussion on this proclamation?

All right.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

None opposed.

That passes unanimously.

And I do believe we do have a signed copy of the proclamation.

Do I have it?

Yeah, that's right.

Oh, I do have it.

Um just want if you want to come up, um, just for your your copy as well, if you'd like to keep this, and then we have um one on our for our records as well.

Awesome, thank you very much.

And um, if you want to get a picture with uh sure, sure, I'll be happy to hold that and I can take the picture.

Yeah, yeah, no worries.

If you guys would like to.

Yeah, it's up to you.

Yeah, if you all want to come over too.

Sure.

15 minutes.

Yeah.

Do you want to?

Uh that would be great.

Thank you.

Yeah, we have two.

Awesome.

Well, thank you so much.

Of course, we have everyone.

Oh, yeah, here.

Take it.

Thanks.

Okay.

Great.

All right.

Okay.

Um, onward with proclamations.

Um, our next proclamation is item J.

This is for Small Business Saturday for November 29th, 2025.

Councilor Tapivago.

Thank you.

Whereas Lafayette's progress has been driven by entrepreneurs who are innovative, risk takers, and determined.

And whereas, from the storefronts that anchor Old Town to the companies driving innovations, small businesses are the backbone of the community.

And whereas small businesses comprise 99.7 of all firms in the United States, totaling 34.7 million small businesses and employ 45.9% of the private sector workforce in the United States.

And whereas 68 cents of every dollar spent at a small business in the U.S.

stays in the local community, and every dollar spent at a small business creates an additional 48 cents in local business activity as a result of employees and local businesses purchasing local goods and services.

And whereas Lafayette's businesses contribute to the vibrancy and character of this community, keep money in the local economy, create jobs, offer important and essential services, and employ a diverse workforce.

And whereas the Lafayette City Council honors and celebrates the spirit of local entrepreneurs or their success stories and reaffirms the city's commitment to helping small businesses thrive and prosper.

And whereas advocacy groups as well as public and private organizations across the country have endorsed the Saturday after Thanksgiving a small business Saturday.

Now, therefore, the mayor and city council of the City of Lafayette, Colorado, do hereby declare November 29th, 2025 a small business Saturday, and encourage all residents to support small businesses on this day and throughout the year.

We also encourage residents to visit the city's website at www.lafayetteco.gov forward slash shop small to view a list of local businesses providing special offers for customers on November 29th.

So we have motion second on that proclamation.

Any comments or discussion?

Okay, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

None opposed.

That proclamation passes unanimously.

All right.

Final proclamation for tonight is item K.

This is honoring Mayor Pro Tem Brian Wong's service for the Lafayette City Council.

Councilor Gallegos.

Whereas, following nearly eight years of service on the planning commission, Brian Wong was elected to Lafayette City Council for a two-year term in 2019 and re-elected to a four-year term in 2021.

And whereas Councillor Wong was selected to serve as Mayor Pro Tem in 2021 and again in 2023.

And whereas throughout his tenure, Mayor Pro Tem Wong served as liaison to several city boards and committees.

The city's audit committee, the Chamber of Commerce, and a number of regional boards, including the Consortium of Cities, Denver Regional Council of Government, and Northwest Mayors and Commissioners Coalition.

And whereas during his time on City Council, Mayor Pro Tem Wong has been involved in several transformative projects, including the Willoughby Corner Affordable Housing Project, the adoption of the city's economic development and housing strategic plan, the passage of a dedicated sales and use tax to expand public safety services for Lafayette residents, the completion of key infrastructure improvement projects, the establishment of a new downtown development authority, and the passage of a capital bond to invest in municipal facilities, benefiting all residents.

And whereas Mayor Pro Tem Wong has always demonstrated thoughtful decision making for all residents, business owners, and visitors of Lafayette.

And whereas the City of Lafayette and its residents will reap the benefits of Mayor Pro Tem Wong's dedicated service for decades to come.

Now therefore acknowledging that this is the final meeting he will be attending for his term ending December 2nd, 2025.

The Mayor and City Council of the City of Lafayette, Colorado, do commend and honor Mayor Pro Tem Brian Wong for his dedicated service to the Lafayette City Council and community.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and second on that proclamation.

Any comments or discussion on this.

But I guess today or right now would be appropriate if anyone would like to say anything.

Of course, Council Freeman.

Brian, I think we I don't know if we first met when this happened, but we certainly had coffee when I was running.

You offered that, and I really appreciated it.

And we talked about how we were policy wonks, and we wanted to talk about policy, and it was going to be exciting if I made it on council so we could we could talk policy.

I think we've we've had a few good policy debates.

Um and so I just appreciated that outreach and that opportunity and support um and have enjoyed working with you and really have appreciated those times and we've gotten into the policy details.

So thanks very much, and thanks very much for your impressive service.

Um, really do appreciate your your commitment to this community.

Thank you, of course.

Thank you.

Um there are counselors, Councilor Gaygu.

I just wanted to say thank you.

I'll never forget how two years ago, around this time, right after the 2023 election, you were one of the first people to reach out to me and congratulate me and being the stubborn person I am.

I said, nope, not yet.

Let's talk in a couple of weeks, but you insisted that I was okay.

And even before I was formally sworn in, you also made sure I was included in a lot of processes as well.

So I remember when we were interviewing um for the city manager position, you made sure that my input was also included.

So thank you so much for always making me feel welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um there folks on council, Councillor Topia Vegan.

Uh yeah, so just Brian, thank you.

Thank you for all your service.

Blinding commission all the so much so many years uh for the city of Lafayette.

Just thank you for that.

Um yeah, same as uh Councilor Gallegos.

I got to I got to know you really two years ago.

Um, and it was interesting over these last two years how much I I learned from everybody on this council.

I learned so much just in every meeting.

Um, but with you, uh it's funny because we always see things on like the opposite side.

I'm always on the other side of things with you, but we were able to, like Council Friedman said, kind of come to find some common ground or debate on some sort of policy and kind of understand each other at the end of the day.

And you know, things like sitting together in the gallery of the US Senate because we were there lobbying our congressional members uh for the city of Lafayette are our memories that definitely won't be forgotten.

So thank you for for the last two for the last two years with me, but for all the years you've served our city.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um council if you'd like.

Sorry, I had to step out for a second.

I'm glad I didn't miss this part.

Um I just have to say that serving with you for the last three years has been, or no, six years.

Yeah, it's been six years.

Uh we last six years.

A fast six years, and um Brian and I have had a lot of conversations and talks and disagreements, but um, I really appreciate what we've said is that it's okay to disagree, but you have to keep talking.

And uh I think that's that's for us has happened multiple times, and I really appreciate um your professionalism, your history, your knowledge.

Um, we had to go through COVID together.

That was something I don't want to do anymore.

Don't want to do again.

Uh so I I appreciate trying making that journey with you and uh having all of the conversations and uh wish you the best moving forward.

I I do think that what you've contributed will you know leave it leave a legacy.

So thank you for uh serving with me.

Uh I'm honored to have done so.

So thank you.

Um so I I'll I'll I'll wrap it up by uh sort of saying, you know, for me, I think a lot of people misunderstand um how we as council members um see issues and ideas because uh oftentimes you're only seeing a short snippet uh of a few seconds or a few minutes on our thoughts on issues.

Uh however, it's rare when folks get the opportunity to, you know, or reach out to us and say, hey, let's have dinner, let's sit down, let's talk for an hour.

Let's really dig through your thoughts and minds on whatever issue it may be.

And one thing I really appreciate about uh Brian, your service is that you are always willing to take that time and sit down for an hour or two and talk and really hash out all the details on on my thoughts on things because I feel like there's this perception that you and I are like uh hand we go hand in hand, like whatever I say, you you say we support each other on almost everything, and that's actually not true at all.

Uh Brian and I have disagreed many times, and we get on the phone, and sometimes I let him win.

Um, but um, and other times, you know, uh he provides a very different perspective, you know.

Like he oh, we are we are our political uh ideology is different.

Um we value different things or we prioritize things in different order, and ultimately you're still willing to have disagreement and still be like friends at the end of the day.

And I think that's you know, as we as we reflect and think about our time on council and what we leave behind.

I think one thing that I hope uh the message that we put across is that you can disagree, still be friends and supportive of each other, and without any like negativity, animosity, hatred, or or sneaky you know, political agendas that people have and trying to maneuver situations to benefit themselves rather than uh what the greater good of the community is.

And I think we're we've we've tried to leave that message behind, and I and I support and you were and I'll I'll say you were the first person in the city that really encouraged me to step up and run for leadership position.

And if it wasn't for your um in you thought of you thought about me running for mayor before I did.

You you you told me that you know you what you saw in me and had the potential to be in this position, and I'm being genuine and I'll say this about you two later on December 2nd.

I would not be in my position without you in your support, and like full-on just endorsement, and that did a lot for you know uh my self-confidence to be like, you know what, maybe I should go for it, and that would not have happened without you.

And so thank you for um uh shaping me into being a better leader.

Thank you for criticizing me.

Thank you for being there as a support system when I need it.

Thank you for for being um such a great um you know partner in this job.

Um, I'm so happy to see that you are continuing to get involved regionally and nationally, um, supporting the AAPI community, gathering elected officials from all over the state to meet and discuss um shared issues.

Um you've done a lot of work with business, the business community and in the chamber here in Lafayette, and so you're not just on council to be a city councilor, attend the meetings, go home, and move on.

You're really spending the time um growing our community and expanding it uh statewide and nationally.

So thank you for everything.

Uh I know we still have lots more to discuss tonight.

Um I'm sad you won't be at the December 2nd meeting, but it truly has been a pleasure and an honor to serve with you.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh so with that, we have we do have a motion in the second, I believe, correct?

Okay.

Um all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, none opposed.

That passes unanimously.

Helen, we do have a plaque, an engraving for you.

It just didn't arrive on time.

So you'll get one.

December 2nd.

No worries.

Um great.

All right.

Well, that uh brings us to presentations for tonight.

Um we have one presentation item L.

Uh parks, recreation, and golf the philosophy update.

We have our community services director here.

That's right.

That was hard to follow.

Um we wanted to provide an update to council and the community on a project that we have been working on since the beginning of summer.

Maybe um joining me tonight is Justin Perdue, our deputy director of recreation, Dennis Warrington, our parks open space and golf deputy director and Cara Skinner, who is our consulting partner with MGT solutions.

We'll provide a reminder of uh the components of the project.

I'm gonna talk about the um highlights of the community engagement component of that project, and then Justin's gonna talk about the fee philosophy that has been developed out of this um project.

So, as a reminder, there were many components of this project, one of which was community engagement.

Um we were also looking for the very first time at a comprehensive analysis of um what it costs us to provide the services and programs that we do.

Um, it also included a component that is a benchmark analysis looking at um similar fees charged in neighboring agencies.

We looked at categorizing our services as part of that analysis and developing a philosophy that would guide our approach to setting setting those fees and looking at city investment in different programs.

And the outcome of that will be a fee policy and then a model that staff will use in fee setting in the future.

So to talk about the community engagement that was fairly robust.

We had a project web page on Lafayette Listens, and that is still online.

MGT conducted a survey online that was available in English and Spanish that ran through from July to August.

And we had quite a number of respondents, 625.

The majority of those were English speakers, but we did have some Spanish speaking respondents.

Additionally, MGT conducted focus groups, five different virtual focus groups with Lafayette residents to better understand their priorities for recreation and get some insights into their thoughts and perceptions around parks recreation and golf fees.

Additionally, they conducted virtual interviews with Lafayette staff from community services department, but also internal services like finance, city administration, arts and cultural resources that we partner closely with to get their input.

So highlights of that engagement.

We heard that people do believe that the fees charged should reflect the value, their perceived value of the facilities and the services.

We heard fairly consistently that the Indian Peaks Golf Course, while it may be perceived as on the higher end of pricing, the public perceives it as a higher end course, it's in good condition, and they felt the fees there are appropriate.

On the flip side, we heard from folks that the relatively low price of our recreation programs may reflect the quality of some of our facilities, like the Rec Center.

We heard from folks that if if prices go up, they would like to see improvements to those facilities.

We heard quite a bit from folks about the way that they're able to make payment and register for our programs.

They're interested in different different options for memberships or passes.

They don't want to see a one-size-fits-all, they want to see options that are right fit for their household or their family.

We heard a lot that they would like to see improvements in our mobile and online payment options.

In some cases, there are some services where folks do have to come to a city facility in person to register for, and folks would like to see some improvement just in the convenience of our of our mobile pay and registration options.

And they reported interest and support for differentiated pricing.

So there was broad support for higher rates for non-residents, pricing by household or family, but we did receive mixed mixed feedback on age-based pricing, so perhaps reduced rates for children, teens, or older adults.

Folks were mixed on whether or not we should consider that.

People told us that our programs and facilities are generally more reasonably priced than those at similar public facilities in our neighboring communities.

And the preliminary results of that market analysis that MGT has been helping us with does reflect that.

Our prices are generally lower than peers for similar programs, and in some cases, significantly lower.

Respondents told us that affordability, they're concerned that affordability to programs could be a barrier to access for families or with you know lots of family members or lower income residents, and we especially heard about this around the access to the Great Outdoors Water Park.

As we might expect, residents value the sense of community and belonging that they feel when they visit our recreation facilities and when they visit parks.

They want to be able to see their neighbors and connect with folks at our facilities.

They value and expect that all members of the community are included in these public facilities.

We did hear though that some folks felt that the Indian Peaks golf course does not feel as accessible to the public as other facilities do, and that there are perceptions of exclusivity around the golf course.

We did not anticipate hearing about communication or marketing or sharing information with residents about our programs, but we heard quite a bit.

We heard that folks feel like maybe a lack of knowledge about the facilities and the offerings and the programs available are a barrier to their participation.

They had recommendations for improvements to our website, to marketing, including some great ideas around additional engagement with the community around the golf course to help address those perceptions of exclusivity.

So while folks maybe felt that they also had some constructive suggestions for how we might improve those perceptions.

And they also suggested we provide easier access to information about our current reduced rate program.

So we do have a reduced rate program for income qualified residents, but folks didn't always know that that was something that was available to them.

So that is something that we heard and can incorporate.

So Justin's gonna talk a bit about the cost recovery fee philosophy that was developed through this process.

Based on our need to recover costs for providing these services, and also what we hear from the community.

Our approach is going to strike a balance between recovering those costs and minimizing financial barriers to access for folks.

In our city's level of investment in programs will be based on annual budgets, what's available, and then the general level of community benefit that each program or service provides.

And I will hand it to Justin.

Thanks, Melissa.

Maybe council, pleasure to be here.

As Melissa stated, I'm Justin Purdue, Deputy Director for Recreation.

So I'll continue on with the presentation.

And we want to dig into that approach to fee setting.

So as you can see outlined on the slide, we're looking at a cost of service accounting model.

And what we're really talking about here is breaking down our programs and operations into like service categories and understanding their true costs.

This will help us really assess that fee structure and what is needed and how it fits into the cost recovery continuum that you've seen in the memorandum and that you'll see later in the presentation.

We certainly will be classifying those services along a spectrum again later in the presentation, but really centered around what is a community benefit.

And those benchmarking comparisons that were mentioned, we will do those on an ongoing basis.

Those have been done historically and will continue to do so.

We like to keep a really close pulse on what other organizations with similar facilities and spaces are doing as well.

And that's both locally, regionally, statewide, and nationally.

Expanding on the differential pricing, we have historically prioritized resident rates, them being 20 to 25% below what non-residents are.

And so we're just committed to maintaining that and expanding it in a couple areas, making sure that it is consistent across the board with resident and non-resident pricing.

And truly, it will really help us ensure we're providing as affordable access, equitable access to our residents as possible, and we have the ability to really diversify our offerings and services.

We're looking at accessible benefits of all of the community and providing that holistic value.

You can see some examples outlined just below that definition.

And then on the flip side, the individual benefit services really looking at almost what the privatized industry can provide.

So generally benefiting the individual as opposed to that community.

Definitely prime examples include personal training, private events that may be held in a space, something that may be akin to a hotel providing or somewhere of similar size and scope.

So now I'd like to really pull out the continuum for you, and I'll just go ahead and read that for the benefit of everybody who might be watching or listening.

But common good versus exclusive, all the way from open access activities being that first service category, community events, drop-in activities, education and enrichment activities, beginner and introductory level activities, special events, rentals, advanced level activities, competitive level activities, personalized services, enterprise operations, and then lastly resales.

So you can see there is quite the continuum.

We can certainly provide examples as well if you would like to for that to be expanded upon.

But there is still work left to do.

We are not wrapped up quite yet.

We're working closely with MGT to refine the analysis in their models to understand what those true costs are that I mentioned, as well as how our revenue helps offset the city's investment through our expenditures.

This will allow us to use that model beyond the fee study.

So at that culmination, we're looking to phase in the implementation.

And that will involve staff training and really digging in deep as we move forward on an ongoing basis.

Another item of note is certainly the evaluation of our reduced rate program analysis and looking at that program, see if its current structure is really right sized for us, or if that needs a little bit of refinement as well.

So with that, we welcome any questions you may have.

Of course, thank you so much.

Questions from council.

Councilor Callegos.

Thank you for putting that together.

And I just have one question regarding differential pricing, and if you have any plans to institute it at the water park in the future.

So there is differential pricing in existence at the water park, but we certainly need to dig a little bit deeper into it.

So the resident, non-resident piece, like I spoke about that being consistent.

Is that what you're referring to?

Right now it's just one price, and as someone who has a lot of kids, I have four kids.

It's actually less money for me to take all of my kids to the Broomfield Bay as a non-resident.

So that's something to keep in mind.

Oh, absolutely.

And that's where I mean that being consistent in that resident and non-resident approach, but there's still some differential pricing.

Uh, and I want to clarify with that age demographic difference.

Right.

So there is that piece, but we need to be more consistent in modeling that.

Okay.

Um other questions?

Counselor Friedley?

Um, first of all, thank you, everybody in the team that's working on this.

Um, I think we're, you know, at least I I know I'm very eager to get to the finish line here, so I appreciate the hard work.

Um I do have a couple questions, and maybe um, yeah, just want to know more.

Tell me more about the the cost of service model, the cost recovery.

What are the pieces that go into that model?

Well, it's definitely digging deep into what those costs are.

I mean, that is one of the the biggest things, and then really assigning them to uh what your revenue centers are uh so that we can look at what the city's investment versus the the true costs are as well.

So uh we're looking at personnel, we're looking at supplies, equipment, uh any kind of service contracts that we may have, uh anything that is involved and related to an indirect or direct cost.

Do we include, thank you for that answer?

Um, do we include anything like uh annualized cost of replacement or something to say we're looking?

I kind of brought this up at the workshop, so hopefully it's not super out of left field, but um, you know, we need to replace this thing in 20 years.

We should make sure that our fees reflect the need in 20 years.

Um, as rough as that might be, right?

We can't perfectly predict things, but um, I think especially when we see right the the um investments that we have to make every once in a while, which is you know it is what it is, it's it's expensive though, right?

And we have these revenue generating um amenities that allow us to sort of help build that in.

But is that part of the cost recovery model?

Do we take that into account?

Oh, absolutely.

So depreciating assets is really what we're getting at, right?

And deferred maintenance and things of that nature.

That you know, we understand that the cost of our assets increases as that lifespan increases as well.

So uh we have uh some internal strategies right now, but uh we do need to be a little bit more intentional in the in the thinking forward and and accounting for those depreciating assets over time and and uh making sure they're uh accounted for in the budget so that they can be replaced and and we don't have outdated, let's just say a treadmill that really isn't working and is out of service constantly.

Nobody likes seeing that, right?

Thank you so much for that answer.

I really appreciate that.

I also really appreciate the annual sort of the annual look back at once we're up and running.

Um I think you know that'll keep us we'll we'll get there and we'll stay on the top there.

Um I think that's all my question.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Other uh counselor parts.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just was wondering um, have we worked with MGT before?

Um I'm cannot recall.

Yes, I'm hearing.

Okay.

I was just wondering if we had their experience kind of knew all of the uh Lafayette's philosophies and yes, every head nods.

Okay.

Um just that's the only question I had, thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Uh I'll just kind of reiterate what you already mentioned is the affordability piece is huge.

I think our rec center is very affordable compared to uh some of our neighbors, and I know you know at the end of the day as a government would be fiscally responsible in how we approach these things.

However, you know, we do have different demographics in our neighbors aside from Longmont, I would say, you know, we have we have community need, you know.

I I personally really benefited from those uh prices and those summers of where I would spend every single day at the Rec Center um growing up here, and so um you know, all those things, all those programs like that we do have where we can work with lower income communities to make sure they have access to our resources.

That's just continue.

I know they exist because I've worked, you know, been with the city for a while now that I I know that the opportunities are there.

I just want to make sure that the community is aware of them, and I think we should do our best to continue to uh push that information out as widely spread as possible so that folks know how to take advantage of those programs that we do have.

Um that way when price prices are adjusted, there's still we're still being equitable.

And so um, and I know that's already at the forefront of a lot of the conversations that you are having.

So I just wanted to reiterate that.

Um, and so this uh because this is a presentation, it doesn't seem like there are any more questions.

Um so just want to say thank you and I uh uh welcome.

I don't know if I know I know I've already said this before, but welcome to the city, and thank you so much uh for all the hard work you've been doing so far.

Yeah, thank you.

Yes.

Okay, um, so that wraps up presentations for tonight, um, which brings us to regular business.

Uh beginning with item M.

This is first reading of ordinance number 26 20 series 2025, providing for additional appropriations during fiscal year 2025 for unanticipated 2025 revenues and expenditures required of the city of Lafayette, uh specifically regarding the modification of current 2025 budget line items.

We have our CFO here to get us started.

Hi, good evening, Mayor and City Council Hadam Walser, Chief Financial Officer.

We're gonna talk about the 2025 budget supplemental.

Uh, this is first reading tonight, ordinance number 26, series 2025.

Uh we'll be discussing the budget amendment overview, supplemental highlights, net impact by fund, and then taking any questions you may have, um, and then providing some motion language.

Uh so the amendments, uh, this is the third of the year.

Um, could be revenues, new revenue sources, often associated with a specific expenditure or expenditures, which could be new or reallocated expenditure, also one-time or ongoing.

So, supplemental highlights.

So, from the expense side, we have uh in the general fund um an additional 83,000 for ground penetrating radar services.

Uh, we have a million dollars uh in the post fund uh for the 701 park design and construction and an additional 150,000 expense uh in the insurance fund.

Uh additionally, um, those highlights, we have three transfers from LURA, uh, one into the general fund for a million dollars for the Chase Bank purchase, um, a transfer from LURA for the 700-800 public road streetscape improvement project.

It's a million in revenue and then a million dollars in expense to complete that project in the capital projects fund.

Uh and lastly, we have an additional transfer from LURA for the South Boulder Road Revitalization Program, additional 750 in revenue and 750,000 expense again in the capital projects fund to complete that project.

Um, so net impact by fund uh overall uh across all funds, we have a little close to three million in expenses, 2.75 million in revenue uh for a net impact of 234,000.

So happy to answer any questions, and we've got folks from LURE and uh um other finance staff here as well.

Great, thank you.

Yes, thank you for that.

Um questions uh from council.

Oh we have a motion too.

Yeah, there's a motion to see which is ready.

Are you ready for it?

I can vote.

I can move to take care of it.

I move to approve on first reading ordinance number 26 series 2025, providing for additional appropriations during fiscal year 2025 for unanticipated 2025 revenues and expenditures required by of the city of Lafayette, Colorado, specifically regarding modification of current 2025 budget line items.

Second.

All right, I'll motion in a second any further discussion.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

None opposed.

Passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay, uh, next up on a regular business item N, resolution number 23574 establishing that the City of Lafayette intends to continue to utilize its existing permitting review process for electric be able to charge in systems.

Hi, everybody and the mayor and city council.

Thanks for having me tonight.

In response to House Bill 24, 1173, which relates to the permitting processes for EV charging stations.

Lafayette needs to adopt a resolution that selects one of the three uh options outlined in this bill.

So we'll have a staff presentation, an opportunity for uh council questions, and then a request for a motion.

So House Bill 2470, 1173, excuse me, uh seeks to encourage the adoption of EV uh vehicles by Colorado residents as and to advance a network of EV charging stations and associated infrastructure.

So the Colorado General Assembly uh identified these as matters of state and local concerns, which the city agrees with.

Um EV charging stations uh then based off the state need to be uh streamlined by facilitating uh this process, uh this permitting process.

Um but the bill um as staff interprets it really appears to be geared towards municipalities that have not proactively addressed EV permitting, uh and it's written to ensure that processes are in place so that EV chargers are allowed and then also encouraged.

Uh as most of you probably know, Lafayette adopted uh EV regulations in 2022, so we're doing a lot of this already.

Uh and it's taken me a bit to kind of dive into all of this and then pull myself out of it.

Um but uh I think maybe the easiest way to think about uh what this bill is trying to achieve, and it is really geared towards those municipalities that have not done anything.

It'd be a lot easier to like adopt either one of the options that they allow and plug and play it than to try to marry that with what we've already kind of committed to.

Um, and we'll get into that through my presentation.

Uh, but the options are generally outlined here.

Uh option one is to adopt the model EV code that they have created.

Um that um EV code includes um compliance with several prescribed criteria criteria, including when land use permitting can be required and and when buy right reviews need to be considered.

Um basically what they're saying is that they don't want EV uh charging applications to have to go to planning commission and city council, they want an administrative review.

Uh that's already something that Lafayette's doing.

Uh then they're also talking about um kind of more specifics in terms of uh what we can uh and can't can and shouldn't do, which is like double counting parking spaces.

So if you had to provide additional EV parking spaces in above uh the parking minimums, then that's what's discouraged, and then they try to limit what you can actually like apply criteria-wise, which are like screening requirements and setback limitations.

So that's what option one is is kind of getting at.

And then option two is more streamlined, and it it uh applies to section three, that's actually straight from uh the House bill, and it really tries to get uh cities to adopt like a checklist of what you have to submit, and then um a process by which we go through that checklist and review uh applications according to the checklist.

But one of the key things to kind of understand throughout is that this is for EV only applications versus we you guys see a lot of these things, so I don't want to confuse the fact, and I don't want the public to be confused by the fact that we talk about EV chargers uh when we have a commercial or industrial new development, or if we have a significant redevelopment, it's the actual applications that are triggering those reviews, and then because of our requirements, which we adopted in 2022, um they have to provide EV charging space.

So what this bill is doing uh is just getting to a permitting process, it's not requiring that people actually deliver them.

Lafayette's kind of far out ahead of all of this by actually requiring uh new development and uh significant redevelopment to actually provide EV charging stations.

So we'll get into that a little bit further uh in a second here, too.

Um but some of the key things that we're already doing that this bill is trying to achieve is administrative reviews for EV only permits.

Um that's already being done, so the applications that Lizzie's just kind of gotten through in coordination with Excel, you're not gonna see.

We're gonna process those as building permits through our building code, which um uh and then the streamline review process, I think is already in place.

We really require three application components for um an EV only permit, and that's the application form.

That's the uh electrical design, so the EV charger design, and then um a site plan to kind of show where it is and the implications of citing it where they're suggesting to cite it.

Um then just I've already kind of clarified this, but EV permits are done through the building code.

Um and either one of the two options that are outlined would transfer that over to the land use code.

Uh building code is required because that electrical review, so we'd basically be creating a two-step process where we currently have a one-step process.

Um, and then again, uh the EV regulations that are geared towards EV only permits are pretty rare in the last four years since we adopted uh the code.

We've had two applications, one for Walmart and one for Kohl's.

Walmart's the only one that actually followed through and installed EV chargers, um, and that was because Electrify America was the applicant on that one.

Um, and then obviously the uh ones that uh Lizzie recently coordinated um for our city facilities.

Uh but we've gotten far more uh EV chargers um delivered through our requirements, and recent examples include Khleita Grill, Trade Space, Sugar Loaf, uh the restaurants at 210 North Public, Daily Grains, BASA, Kindercare, and Carl's Jr.

And that's only been in the last year.

So what you guys did uh in 2022 is far more effective uh than what's being kind of considered uh by the state now, and I think it's a reaction to other municipalities that aren't as committed to achieving these goals.

Uh so hopefully that's an easy thing to kind of uh understand, but I'm here for any questions you might have.

Of course, yes, thank you so much for that presentation.

Uh questions from council.

Well um I wanted to say thank you for coming to the sustainability resiliency advisory board meeting um this month and having this conversation with them.

I know there was you know very varied opinions on that board about it, and I think they really benefited from hearing from you and um being able to ask you questions and talk through it a little bit.

Um so I just really appreciate that.

Um I did note that in I think in the bill language, there's a certain time we have to provide a report.

Yeah, we still have to do that, and we still will do that.

Yeah, I think it's the first one is March of next year, and then there's another one in 2027.

But that we have to do kind of regardless.

Awesome.

I think the question then would be like, what report are we giving them?

Because it's what we'd be getting through what they're intending to do, is probably far less.

It'd be like the four versus the couple dozen that we're actually getting by requirements.

So and that's what's tricky too with like the time frame for the reviews is we can't really quantify like our land use reviews that go to like are part of a bigger application.

Um we we kind of hone all that in, and I think that's the other benefit to this.

A lot of those criteria are like you need to this is how you need to look at it, and and basically kind of your steps and what you can and can't do.

It's it's almost as if it's kind of trying to control uh jurisdictions that may not want them.

And we are you guys kind of set the path for us.

We know that they're wanted here, we're not trying to create obstacles.

So that's what a lot of that that bill is trying to do.

So in my interpretation of it.

I think one of the things that I thought was very compelling in the sustainability and resiliency advisory board conversation and in the comments that we received from two of those members, is you know, the check, right?

Of like, are we meeting our goals?

Um, you know, I'll I trust you a hundred percent on what process is best.

And I think having that if the report's the right time, I'm not sure, you know, whatever, but I I do think okay, they're trying to get us to a certain point where there's good support with charging in our community to allow for increased EV adoption, right?

Are we meeting that goal or not?

Regardless of the process to get there, right?

But like, are we meeting it there and gives us a chance to say maybe this isn't the best process, or maybe it is, right?

Um, so that would be my kind of question or comment back would be um we'll just love you know an opportunity sometime in the future to say, let's just check.

Like, how are we doing?

Are we doing pretty well?

And especially with, I totally hear you on.

We got a bunch of level twos installed.

I think that's what's required in our code is you know, some level of probably level twos.

Um, I don't see that many level threes in our community.

Walmart's a great setup that's it's super fast.

We've got a couple, we're getting more, which is awesome.

But like to me, that's uh what does our community need in terms of the level of charging in the right places and are we getting there or not?

And our have we developed the framework to sort of allow us to get there.

Um obviously the market's gonna have to deliver it for us.

Um, so we don't have complete control unless we go and get rebates and grants from the state or from our utility.

But um, I would really appreciate that in the future of just let's check and make sure are we meeting what they're trying to go and what we as a council pushed for in 2022.

Okay, yeah, and I think that we can have that conversation through the building code update too, which is coming next year.

So that's where all of these regulations lie, and then we do need to probably like it wouldn't have been easy for me to tell you an exact number.

Sure.

Um because we don't track it, right?

We they kind of get aggregated as part of the whole review, and but we can start tracking that better so that when we have these opportunities and when we report back to the state, we know that you know, and and that's the other kind of trick is like Carl's Jr.

just put one in because they're through construction.

Vasa is in the process of uh installing theirs, and that one, like I think that one's kind of the unique example of a redevelopment that's not net new, but because of how expensive, like and and how much was invested in that, they triggered needing those upgrades per our code requirements as well.

So those are coming soon too.

So uh, but thank you when they're built versus when they're required, and then like you know, is is two different things too.

So understood.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh other questions.

Um, did you have something?

Yeah.

Did anyone else have a question?

As of now, I don't think that's okay.

Cool, yeah.

I've got a few questions.

Um so this one's interesting to me uh for a few different reasons.

Uh, but but I have some questions I just want to clarify.

I want to make sure I understand it fully.

Uh you you can do high level, you don't have to get into the weeds.

Yeah, but you can you explain uh the difference between and why we would want to keep it in the building code versus the land use code.

So the the main thing, I mean, I it's working, right?

For one, but it um the building code of a building review is required because of the electrical review that is done for any kind of these installations.

And and and I should have included that too.

It's that's a point that I want to make is that this is what's tricky with any of the state regulations is like if we didn't have anything done, this would be helpful because it would kick start us down that road.

But because we've actually started on this and been doing it already, like trying to right size what they're asking us to do with what we're already doing is probably a much bigger lift than just adopting the model code or the H HP Um option that that is outlined for us.

So um we're gonna make some changes to our land use code, and I think the most obvious ones that kind of come well, we need definitions, so putting them in there.

One of the things that they contemplate that really doesn't happen is like a primary use for EV chargers, and that would be kind of like the equivalent of a solar farm where a property is just EV chargers that has not happened so far.

So getting out in front of that in case it ever, if the finances are there for that ever to occur, where would we want that to happen?

Probably not in a residential district, probably in a commercial or industrial district, but you know, those are the kind of things that the land use code um is better to address than the building code.

But the building code um, I mean, it captures everything, like, and then it doesn't add another so the it is in my mind a little counterintuitive to put it in the land use code when you want it to be streamlined because if you're gonna do a buy-right development, like a building code is the quickest path to that review without layering in additional planning review, which also typically requires an additional fee.

So does that answer your question?

Yeah, it does.

I have a quick follow-up to that.

It's because we are updating the code right now, right?

It's another it's in the drafting process.

Was this considered?

Was it considered moving it over?

Did we look at the possible option of doing so?

Not really, no.

But it's because I mean, we're responding to this because the state's asking us to.

Like if the if this was coming from applicants that are saying that our process is broken, I think we'd have looked at it a lot harder.

But we have not had that feedback, and honestly, like the feedback we're getting is about like the the expense of our regulations and how like difficult some of that is for you know smaller businesses and uh that type of thing.

Because there's an expense to it, and I and we try to push them to grants that are available, and I don't know how long those are gonna be uh in place.

So that's kind of the evolving uh circumstances with anything related to electrical or um, you know, it's worked so far, but it's a lot been based off of state and federal uh grand money available.

So got another question.

What are the components of the bill, especially if we are to take this path forward is uh the the reports that we have to get back to the state?

So 2026 and then 2027.

Yeah, one of the things that I I'm really interested in in 2027, we'd have to report back kind of the time frame, the timeline of what a lot of these applications are.

Do we have that number for today?

So if we were to average out the applicants that we have now, what is the what is the turnaround for our city for these permits?

So the last one we did was in 20 uh 22.

That was the Walmart one, that's the only one we really have.

Um the even like it kind of gets muddled.

Um so Kevin, our chief building official estimated two weeks for this type of permit, but that's because you have to like generally have to bring in a new uh transformer, and so like you have to work with Excel.

And we don't do anything in two or three days when we have to work with Excel.

That's just how things are.

So um, and sometimes they put that like on the building, and sometimes it's standalone, and sometimes that impacts landscaping.

And some like the Walmart one, I think they lost three parking spaces just for their infrastructure, and then the chargers themselves were basically uh, you know uh the same amount of parking spaces, they just put them in between spaces.

So it wasn't a significant, but like that one because Walmart has so much parking, doesn't really have an impact, but on a different site, it could.

So those are the things that just require more review, but primarily the electrical and Excel piece.

And we don't want to have uh this the circumstance with I think a lot of people come to us before they've talked to Excel and kind of got that all coordinated, and then they submit something, and then we work with them.

So if we had a two to three day turnaround and we had to hit that requirement in order to be compliant, we'd probably also be denying applications, which is not customer service friendly and not really something we want to back ourselves into.

So I read that I just want to make sure that that's that's correct.

So our our main pushback on the three-day timeline is because we won't have the ability to actually get it done, so we'd be declining a lot of applications.

That is that.

That's that's part of it, yeah.

And I just don't think it's a realistic expectation from what we but we don't have a lot of data.

Like honestly, we have I don't know, we didn't track like the review time frames for the Kohl's application or Walmart when they were four years old.

So um I think I mean we also the only other like context that we have for that I think is that we're gonna have an additional staffing.

So part of it is just like staffing, right?

Like we have a certain, I mean, we're never not busy, so like to drop everything uh because we had an EV permit come in and we may have other priorities.

I mean, we might be able to do it.

And then like the the new staff uh member that we're getting through that grant is gonna be dedicated to EVPV, so our capacity could change, and if anything, it should be going in the right direction so that it's not two weeks, hopefully it's closer to a week, but I don't know that two or three days and coordinating things with Excel easements and that kind of thing.

Um, it's really that realistic.

Amazing.

I appreciate the answers.

I know these are hard questions.

I've no, no, no.

Um I sense a lot of hesitation just from reading the memo for one specific piece, which I actually love, which would be kind of a checklist, right?

Yeah, uh, I I sense hesitation that our city doesn't have one, and I feel like maybe we're kind of gearing towards not having one.

What do I what do I feel there?

What's the pushback?

Because if I'm looking at it from the outside, I feel like that's that's not I mean it's one of our more we don't have checklists for our other applications, so it's just I mean, we can do that.

That's not a heavy lift, but the list would be like I said, it would be application form, it would be electrical design, which is a pretty involved design.

So, like whether not you just say that that's it, or you have to go into all the detail, like that's like a 20-page document of how those things work.

And that's pretty standard for anybody that has to do this on a day-to-day basis, and then the last thing is a site plan.

Tell us where it's going to be located.

So it's a pretty it's we could do it.

It's not a heavy lift, but I don't know how much benefit like we haven't heard that from applicants that they're confused about the application process or anything like that.

It really is just the time coordinating of the reviews and the referral agency, like an Excel.

So it requires public works time, it requires building time, it requires planning time, and it requires at least one uh election provider.

So great.

Thank you.

Sure.

Oh my gosh.

No worries.

Um Council Barnes.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Counselor Tapia Vega brought up two questions for me.

Um, number one, just um I understand we are looking to bring this into the land use code, or we're not we are looking not we're not looking to we would look to supplement like because the land use code hasn't been updated since the 2022 building regulations, we'd be looking to appropriately update the land use code with very strategic and limited things, but we wouldn't want to be moving this over.

It would only be like you know, like we want to build in an allowance for parking spaces to be reduced and not have to trigger another site plan review because they said they were gonna provide you know the bare minimum of whatever.

So if we're if if and that's more of council direction, right?

Like, and that's why through the land use code, we're gonna daylight that to you, and if you agree, and we still have the support for EV chargers, that's the direction we'll head, but it'll have I mean anything's kind of a trade-off, like we'll either have a little bit less parking or a little bit less landscaping.

But it's you know, but uh right now the way our code reads, it's not very flexible.

So we'll be we'll build in that flexibility.

Uh the other question was I I heard heavy like this is us trying to do a report out as a heavy heavier lift than just adopting what they said.

Is that no that that's not what I the report on the actual number of chargers that we've we've created through our regulations is the report that is that we haven't been tracking.

So, like that would be a heavy lift, but that's different than adopting this or not adopting this.

Oh, okay.

So the heavy lift of finding the numbers to put in the report.

Heavier, yeah.

And then I what I did want to clarify and um before this might I might not be answering your question as directly, is that this is certainly like adopting what the state has given us.

It's very easy for a jurisdiction that's done nothing, but it would be much it would be a bigger lift for us to actually marry what they've asked us to do with our building boat regulations, and it would actually create more process, which isn't really the intent of the goal, the code either.

I think it really is for those jurisdictions that haven't done anything.

Here's a playbook to operate by, and then like there's there is like the uh how would I say this?

Uh the desire, like if there was consistency throughout the state, sure it would be easier for everybody.

But there's not going to be consistency throughout the state.

We had like we've heard more about other jurisdictions opting out to live out of this, like root climbing and doing than we have about people that are operating.

Okay.

I was just asking about staff time to do the report.

It's not by heavy lift, it's not an excessive amount of time to do that.

Oh no, we'll get it done.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

I mean, we we just now that we know that there's a target, we'll start tracking it.

Okay.

So yeah.

Okay.

Sorry, I think I answered a lot more than you were at your end before.

Uh appreciate the context.

That's all we have.

Thank you.

Um any other questions.

Okay, well, um, staff has presented um some options in front of us.

Um, so I'd like to open it up to discussion now.

Um, see where members of council are, if they're interested in following staff's recommendation or uh are the other options that are available to us.

I get your thoughts before we take a motion.

How would we like to proceed?

Oh, sorry, Council Sam.

This makes a lot of sense to me that we follow what's in here.

It doesn't make sense to me to go backwards and make something harder for businesses to put in EV charging stations.

And this seems to work not only with this, but also the grants out there that would help expand the EV charging stations.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, other folks on council.

Yeah, I'm in agreement.

I mean, I think you heard my comments um already a little bit of just you know, um, I just want to check our assumptions, you know, at a certain point.

Are we actually meeting the goals and are we are we fostering an environment that is um supporting EV charging in our community?

Um, you know, and how we get there, I I don't I don't really care that much as long as we hit the goal.

And so I I will defer to the experts on how we get there, and so I think it's a fine recommendation.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Um, yeah, so um I'm okay with the recommendation.

Ultimately, there are things that I've talked about tonight.

I think could could change in stream.

I'm always in favor of streamlining things, so that's the one thing for me.

I also want to hit goals, but really streamlining the process and maybe making it easier for anyone to come here and do what they want to do, which we obviously were we want EVs, we want to make sure it's easy for them to have these.

But yeah, I I understand the recommendation from staff, and I'm I'm in favor.

Great.

Anyone else?

I'm also in agreement with staff's recommendation, and I want to keep the existing permitting process.

Okay.

Well, seems like someone feels I move to approve resolution number 2025-74, establishing that the city of Lafayette intends to continue to utilize its existing permitting review process for electric vehicle charging system permits.

Second.

Okay, a motion and second.

Um all those in favor, please say I.

Any opposed saying no.

Okay, none opposed.

Okay.

Uh well, that brings us to our final item under regular business for tonight.

Item O.

This is um a resolution for uh number 2025-77 imposing a moratorium on interments at the Lafayette Cemetery.

Uh we have our deputy city manager here to get the conversation started.

Okay, mayor and city council.

We have for you this evening a moratorium on interments at the Lafayette Cemetery.

And I'm gonna give you a little bit of background on this matter, and the purpose of the resolution will have some time for questions, and then I'll provide motion language.

So as you're aware, the City of Lafayette owns two cemeteries.

The two cemeteries are the Lafayette Cemetery, that's the historic cemetery that's located at 11 East Baseline Road on the map here.

That's in the northern northeastern portion of the city of Lafayette.

And the second cemetery is the Coal Creek Cemetery, which is at 1742 Empire Road.

So this is actually just outside Lafayette in Lewisville next to the Louisville Cemetery.

And it's where that blue dot is on the kind of southern portion of this map.

A little bit of history.

The City of Lafayette Cemetery, which is the cemetery we're primarily going to talk about this evening, was dated to the city of Lafayette in 1891.

It is a historic cemetery predating that time.

It includes a potter's field.

So this is a portion of the cemetery that includes unmarked and unidentified grave sites from over a century ago.

Throughout the course of the span of this cemetery, it has varied ownership.

Obviously, before the city took it on, the Potter's Field existed and management varied over the course of this time.

So during the city's duration of oversight and management, there were various times when the city had mortuaries that took on the role of owning some of the sites and actually selling sites.

Meanwhile, the city was also selling sites and selling plots at the at the cemetery at the same time and throughout the course of time.

And then the city continued to sell plots and discontinued selling plots at the cemetery in the early 2000s.

There have been ongoing concerns, which you've heard about definitely over the course of the last couple of years regarding the completeness and the accuracy of the cemetery records.

So we have been aware of some of the issues with the cemetery records and with the conditions at the cemetery for the past, you know, over the course of the past several months, and we've been taking actions for the last year or so to kind of address some of these issues.

We purchased new software.

It was in the budget for this year, and the new software implementation is underway, and this is going to improve access to information both for patrons of the cemeteries and also for staff to have access to the data and the records.

We are just initiating a cemetery survey that's underway to augment and confirm the existing maps and the records that we have and the data of the cemetery records.

We're also working with necessary partners internally.

We have a team of folks who work on cemetery issues, including the city clerk and then the parks team as well and our communications team.

And we're also working externally with a cemetery consulting group that has been helping us and is going to start helping us with the management of the cemetery on site and is also helping us with this moratorium matter as well.

And then we've been working with the Office of the State Archaeologist on the issues that we've been facing at the cemetery as well.

In red you can see the moratorium on interments.

That's what we're talking about this evening.

This pertains to coffin burials only, and this is to protect the existing burial sites at the cemetery.

And this is requiring some outreach to plot owners.

As you are aware that we have a number of people who do own plots at the Lafayette Cemetery, and so that have been have not been used or accessed.

And so we want to protect the existing burial sites at the cemetery.

And so we are conducting outreach and you know, this is a difficult some difficult conversations with people who have purchased sites and may not have access to those sites in the way that they anticipated that they would, particularly during the course of the moratorium when they can't access the site for a coffin interment.

So we're having conversations with them so they understand what their options are during that time.

And we are continuing to maintain visitor access at the cemetery during both the surveying that's happening and during the moratorium.

So this resolution for a moratorium will effectuate the moratorium on interments for coffin burials only.

It will still allow for the burial of cremates during this time in those plots.

The options that it provides for current plot owners should they need access to their plot would be for Kerman's burial on their existing plot.

They could, if they wanted to have a coffin burial, transfer that plot ownership to a the Col Creek Cemetery to a plot.

Um where they could refund their plot the plot purchase for what the current cost of a plot is.

The way the resolution and the moratorium are set up is that it allows for the city manager exception if that would were to become available or necessary based on any particular site.

Happy to answer any questions.

And we also have a resolution.

Sorry, we have had motion language for the resolution.

All right.

Well, thank you for that presentation.

Um questions from council.

Counselor Barks.

Thank you, Mayor.

Clarification uh allows for city manager exception if necessary or available.

What does that mean?

So we are um we're conducting research and data at the site actively, and um, we don't know what the findings of that are going to be.

And so that's a process that again, you know, we don't have any data back from that.

We don't anticipate we will for another probably eight weeks.

Um we'll know more about the status of the cemetery and the status of the moratorium once that data comes in.

So we don't know what the duration of the moratorium will be and what the closure will be.

Um, we don't know what the next steps will be following you know the moratorium.

Um, if for some reason we're at the tail end something should happen, a burial comes in and we know and we have data at that time that says that we might have a site that that person owns that is clear, and we could potentially we could have the flexibility to make a decision.

The city manager could have the flexibility, but we just don't know what the circumstances might look like.

So we this leaves you know some options open depending what data you know we might find as this evolves.

Thank you.

Yeah, all right.

Um there questions.

Okay.

Um, if not, we'll take a motion, please.

I move to approve resolution number 2025 77, imposing a moratorium on interments at the Lafayette Cemetery.

Second motion and a second, any further discussion?

Just a quick comment, I just want to thank staff for putting this together.

I know that um the cemetery has been a hot topic for the last couple of years, but I think that we are taking the steps that we need to ensure that um we do what's right by the by the individuals that are in that cemetery.

So I appreciate staff's work.

I know it's a very sensitive topic.

Um, and I'm ex I am very supportive of the fact that we will bring bringing in an outside company to help manage the cemetery, something that normally is not within the scope of city services.

So just want to acknowledge that.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh motion and a second.

All those in favor please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, unopposed, that passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, that wraps up regular business.

Uh, which brings us to council appointments.

Uh we have this um two items under this uh beginning with item P.

This is board commission and committee appointment for terms beginning December 1st, 2025.

And the planning commission discussion will occur after that under item Q.

Yes, thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm here to discuss the board commission and committee appointments for terms beginning December 1st of this year.

I'll walk through a bit of background and our process for this recruitment, um, outline some of the next steps for the appointed board and commission members, and then turn it over for consideration of motion language.

As a reminder, we transition to a semi-annual recruitment process wherein we do the primary or the larger recruitment in the fall.

So this was our second fall recruitment process.

And the purpose of doing this was really to um improve some efficiencies, align not only the terms but also the recruitment and coordination uh outreach efforts, um, improve some governance and kind of consistency in the terms on the boards, as well as um provide more consistent training and onboarding for the new board and commission members.

And so this year's process followed the exact same cadence we used last year, wherein the applications were opened the last Monday of August.

So that was August 25th of this year for almost a month through September 19th.

And then that first week of the applications being opened, we held a recruitment open house at the Bob Burger Recreation Center, and then the boards and commissions individually took the month of October to review the applications, interview the applicants as necessary, and then ultimately recommend appointments for your consideration that are being presented this evening.

As we heard any appointments made tonight, those terms will begin December 1st, and then we'll wrap up this annual cycle with the year-end celebration on the 4th of December.

Just a summary some of the outreach outreach we did for this recruiting process.

We had a mix of in-person engagement, both promotion at on the tail end of art night out, and the open house I mentioned.

We had some printing materials such as the newsletter, a number of digital methods, such as our news flashes on our city calendar.

We had social media posts, and then there were also some targeted outreach opportunities.

Um, some boards have lists of previous applicants, for example, that are these are promoted to those previous applicants.

Others have dedicated social media channels through which they can share these openings.

Um those targeted options were used where available.

In terms of the applications we received, so there are nine boards and commissions under consideration for this agenda item.

Um and the table is organized to show the number of vacancies or open or anticipated openings as terms are ending, the number of applicants for those openings, and then finally the number of recommended appointments.

So you'll see here the majority of the boards and commissions will have the same number of recommended appointments as vacancies or upcoming openings.

Before I turn it over for questions and a motion, um, I just want to summarize some of the next steps.

So, as mentioned for the to wrap up this annual cycle, we'll do um our year-end appreciation event on Thursday, December 4th.

And then we also have the training for new members, and so this is a uh kind of replication of what we did last year, and it's to provide a more consistent uh training for all the new members.

Um it's the same training offered at two times to meet available to offer availability for these participants, and we cover some fundamental topics such as open meetings law, um quora, open records, um the roles of staff and council liaisons, things like that.

And then I mentioned a semi-annual process, so we will plan on doing our spring recruitment to fill any vacancies that come up between now and then, as well as any of the seats that weren't filled through this fall recruitment process.

So that'll kick off in March.

So there's some motion language for your consideration on the screen here.

This is a long motion because it's one motion that would appoint all of the recommended applicants in the packet.

Um, there is a second slide that has some different motion language if there are any amendments you would like to make to the recommendations in the packet.

But at this time, we'll turn it over for any questions.

Thank you.

Sounds good, thank you.

Uh questions from council.

Councillor Sampson.

I have a question for the rest of council.

Um, had since we are all liaisons to a board or commission.

Have any of us heard from our from those boards and commissions that were liaison to that they had any concerns, or did they are they in full support of what's on here?

I mean, you heard tonight.

I'm I'm liaison to the historic preservation commit commission.

We had our chair here say they were very happy with who they who they are hoping to get appointed.

I'll say I'm uh advisor to the older adults advisory board, and I think they're very excited to have Bob back on.

So yeah.

Um so I think for open space, you heard from the chair.

Yep.

Uh same chair.

Um, I think.

And um, I think open space is is good.

I mean, they have qual really qualified uh people on there.

Um, certainly, I mean, you know, you look there, and it was um two people that are already on.

Well, one person that's already on that did it, and the one new person.

So's a little different.

Um, I don't know if I mean there's a lot of people, I think that have been there for a little while that were not term-limited that didn't come back.

Oh a few, a few.

And so I do think maybe they had just concerns around they didn't want to do it anymore, you know, for whatever reason.

Sure.

Um, and so I think you look at the numbers for them, and that's part of it is like five vacancies is just a lot of vacancies, and um hard to fill that many, especially if you don't have like a full complement of folks kind of returning um that are throwing their name in in addition to the new people.

So unless you're you know, different different answers for different boards.

Okay, thank you.

Uh I forgot Karen Williams.

Uh sorry, Karen.

Uh Bob and Karen, they're they're excited to have them back on the older adults and board for Karen.

She's had a little bit of that.

Yeah.

Um, any other questions or further discussion?

All right.

Well, there's a motion if someone would like to make it.

I moved to appoint members to the Cultural Arts Board, Historic Preservation Commission, Human Rights Board, Library Board, Mental Health and Human Services Grant Program Advisory Committee, Older Adults Advisory Board, Open Space Advisory Board, Public Art Committee, and Sustainability and Resilience Advisory Board as presented in tonight's meeting packet.

Second.

All right, motion and second.

Any further discussion?

All right, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

None opposed.

That passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay.

That brings us to our next item for tonight.

Under council appointments.

This is item Q, planning commission appointments for terms beginning December 1st, 2025.

There is no staff presentation for this.

Because this is a council appointment, and we did have a subcommittee that meant to meet uh to interview candidates and review applications that consist of uh councillor Friedland, uh Councillor Gallegos, uh for short time, Councilor Topia Vega, and then Counselor Barnes.

Um so um so it's really up to us to have a discussion.

Uh I actually want to turn it over to Mayor Pro Tem Wong actually to get us started.

Yes, um, Mr.

Mayor.

So I think that this is probably the most interesting item of the evening, as since there's so many of us still here this evening to watch it.

Um, but what I think that my time on council, I have always stood for equity.

I have always stood for when we define a process that we should follow that process.

So what I would like to do right now is to make a motion that the city council appoint Bill Watson to an opening on the planning commission, because Mr.

Watson did follow the rules, and um I do have the ability, since it is not about my position to go ahead and make that that make that motion and that nomination.

So I would like to go ahead and move that council approves Bill Watson for planning commission.

Okay.

Um there is a motion.

You guys are gonna really test my Robert's rules and all that.

We do have a motion on the floor.

Do we have a second for that motion?

Second.

Okay, there's a motion and a second.

Now let's open it up to discussion.

Um from others or thoughts, if there is any.

So I'm confused.

I thought we have a resolution for both people.

I believe, yes, we do.

And I and I believe Mayor Pro Tem Wong uh is hoping to separate the two.

Oh sure, I know.

And then you called me, Mayor, and asked, and I told you if we wanted to do this, we needed to have the staff do two different resolutions.

I said ask them to do that so that we could do this according to Mayor Pro Town's statement of let's do it on the process.

But I feel like we're we're not doing the process.

We're breaking the process.

If there has to be a resolution to this, I feel I feel like we're not following process.

So I I think the way it was published and the way it was intended is to do both.

So it sounds like Mayor Pro Tem Wong would like to separate the two.

So that's that's just what's happening.

Mayor Monkett, if I could have a city attorney jump in.

Yes, please.

Thank you.

So these will be two motions.

One motion for each vacancy, uh, so that Mayor Pro Tem Wong can has made this motion, could vote on the first one, and then my understanding is that he would recuse himself from the second motion.

Does that help?

Yeah, I believe that's what's still one resolution.

There's no resolution associated with this agenda item, I think is what the confusion is.

It's two motion items.

Correct, just like the last item for other boards and commissions just by motion.

Okay.

Just yes.

All right.

So there has been a motion, and there has been a second to that motion.

So now we're in the middle to start still have that discussion going because I feel like folks have stuff they would like to add to this conversation.

Yeah, I'd like to hear from the committee, because in the past the process has been the committee speaks.

Yes, committee of three speaks, and then we start the discussion.

And uh the reason I made the motion was because um in consultation with the city attorney, it would it may go into conversations that would then um impact and into the potential impartiality, or that I would get into the topic of further conversation in which I would recuse myself, I would be recusing myself, which I am going to when it comes to my nomination.

But I did want to participate in this, so on the advice of city attorney, um, this is why it was separated when in conversation yesterday that she called me to outline what the process was, and I suggested this process.

Just to be clear transparency why this was done, why I'm doing what I'm doing.

Okay.

Um so let's like do other members of council would you like to speak to this motion?

If not, we can vote on it.

Go ahead, Councillor Friedman.

I thought it was you know, uh, along the lines of what Pro Tem Wong said and along the lines of public comment that we heard um from um commissioner um Phillips, you know.

I I think you know we have an applicant who was fair in the process who submitted, um, and we we need to be sure to be fair to that applicant.

So I I'm supportive of the motion.

Okay.

Other folks would you like to speak to this motion?

Councillor Gay.

So I participated in the interview process, and I thought Bill Watson was very qualified.

I valued all of his answers during the interview.

I scored him very highly, so I would like to move move forward with that appointment.

Okay.

So I'm I was also on on the committee and um at the last moment, maybe not the greatest choice.

So I do think if uh one of my colleagues on the committee would like to second it, then we can vote for that.

So I'm just so there has been a motion to second already.

So now it's it's just a discussion.

Yeah, I'm a I'm if we want to vote on that, it's fine with me.

Okay.

Would anyone else like to add to the conversation?

Otherwise, go ahead.

Uh I'll just say uh the one thing we always talk about, especially with boards and commissions, is institutional knowledge.

And I think uh Bill shows that he's been on on the commission.

He of course had an incredible application from everything I hear.

He's he's been amazing on the commission.

So institutional knowledge is important to me, and I'm glad that we're separating them so we can we can vote and get ideally um a very strong planning commission.

Okay, counselor Sampson.

Yeah, so I still have more questions on this.

Of course, yeah.

So my understanding is we only really have two choices.

We we vote this either yes or no.

There is no because what I keep hearing from the public is things like, well, why aren't you gonna open it up?

And former mayor Christine Burke opened it up.

Do we have to open if we were to have that discussion later?

Are we open are we able to open it up for everybody?

Or in other words, can you separate this?

Can you vote for one and still open it up?

Or do you have to open it up for both?

You can separate it.

Right now, the motion that's on the table is to appoint Mr.

Watson.

Um, so the next procedural step would be to take a vote on that.

Um, if it was not to pass, one of the options would be to reopen for that position, and then we have the second position, which also could be either voted on tonight or reopened.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um, so there is just to follow procedure.

There is been a motion.

There has been a second.

We're we're at the point of discussion.

I'm ready to call for a vote unless someone on council would like to continue the discussion.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed say no.

No.

Okay.

That motion passes six to one.

Umr.

Watson uh on your appointment to the planning commission.

All right.

Um, so look to continuing on to item Q.

Um, there is a second vacancy that we need to discuss.

Mayor Tem Wong.

I will be recusing myself on this one, so I will step out of the chambers for this discussion.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Um, so we as as a as we are, we are all aware, uh, Mayor Pro Tem Wong has applied to be on the planning commission.

Um, there were several uh few members that are on um served on that committee to review applications um and to um interview those applicants.

Uh we did have two uh just for folks in the public that don't have the full context or background on to this discussion.

We did have two applicants um uh for two vacancies.

Um and so I would actually just want to turn the discussion over to the committee members, counselors Gaygos, Barnes, and Friedland.

Um, you all had um meetings and discussions, so um gonna look to you all to to share your recommendation on how the rest of council should proceed.

I guess I'll go first.

So I voted uh in my advice was to not appoint either the candidates as I felt like it was important to have a larger body of people participating in, and I would like to move that we uh table the vote tonight, reopen the uh process or vote to reopen the process tonight.

I don't know if we can do that uh tonight, just so we have a larger body of applicants, including the applicants who have applied already.

Uh so that's what I feel like is the most important piece along along the way.

Okay.

Um so um just just to reiterate you have you you counselor Barnes are suggesting no appointment tonight, uh, or postpone that appointment to a later date so we can um reopen the applications to get a more you know a robust bull of applicants.

Yes, great others uh on the committee you can go first.

No, please, I insist so I had recommended putting Mayor Pro Tem Wong through to the next round because it was found that he is eligible, he'll just have a later start date than the other candidates once his council term is officially over.

He interviewed extremely well, he has that institutional knowledge.

Uh he's seen planning commission from different perspectives, and I think that is an asset.

So something in the conversation that we had a couple weeks ago that stuck out to me was not marketed well.

And I think we have a fantastic communications department, and I want it to see for myself if it was not marketed well.

So I went through every social media account and came up with a list of dates where this process was mentioned.

So it was mentioned on Facebook and Instagram on September 4th, September 16th, September 10th, August 28th, August 27th, August 26th, August 25th, post it to next door on August 25th.

The open house took place on August 28th.

Additionally, it went out in the Lafayette Connection in everyone's utility bill in multiple languages, and that was also available in paper at the Rec Center Library, Senior Center, City Hall, the collective, as well as post it on a community members blog.

So I'm not sure how we could have marketed this process better, but I just wanted to put that out there.

Okay, and so just to clarify, Councillor Gallegos, you are seeking to reappoint, or not reappoint to uh appoint American Wong to the planning commission.

That is correct.

Okay, Councilor Frederick.

So you can see my recommendation in the um in the in the agenda or in the agenda.

Um so I do think that you know, looking at our numbers across the board, there was something going different this year than last year, right?

We had I think much different across all of the boards of commissions in terms of interest.

And so I do think it's something we should probably discuss at the council retreat about how do we continue to take another incremental step.

We made some good changes, so but I'm gonna leave that aside because I don't think it's really super relevant at this point.

I do think the place that I have hesitation is appointing a sitting counselor to the planning commission of all bodies.

You know, I think putting a sitting counselor on one of the other boards also feels a little bit odd, right?

You know, like during their term, um at the end of their term.

Um most of those boards are you know, just really advisory in nature, they don't have a quasi-judicial responsibility in really important planning processes for our community.

And so for this one, it does feel like this is a really high profile and important one, and I fear that having us appoint somebody that was just on council.

Um it has the perception of something just odd going on in my view, and so I think we should try to avoid that as best we can.

And so you know, that's that's really my hesitation specifically for this appointment.

Um certainly qualified, has been chair of planning commission, had a great interview in agreement.

I just think we need to part of our role is to protect the you know the public perception of this body.

Um and I think you know, sort of having that sort of easy off ramp, um, you know, is it doesn't help our public perception, and so that's why I have hesitations.

Um, so I would be supportive of of staying the decision and reopening um for a new pool.

Hopefully, we can get a um we can get a really competitive pool.

I also thought something that you mentioned, Counselor Barnes uh during our deliberation around we need to do everything we can to like increase inclusivity and diversity on all of our boards and commissions, especially planning commission.

And I you know, quite frankly, I think you know, um I I don't see that in this pool, and so you know, I think having a conversation about that as well at the board uh at the council retreat is really valuable, but um I'll stop there to allow others to digest.

And just to clarify your agreement with Councillor Barnes to reopen the applications, I guess in this scenario, since we just made that up my main, it would be for one vacancy, it would be for one vacancy, correct?

Right.

Um so we heard from the committee members.

Um any of the other counselors want to share their thoughts on how to proceed.

So I tend to go with, you know, we've we have a group of three that went and interviewed, and so I tend to lean with that a lot of the time.

Um I'm gonna talk a little bit about something that makes it even more complex.

I do believe if the two council members that were candidates and ran um received a donation from Brian Wong that there is a conflict of interest for them to vote on this, and one of the things that I would say um, because conflict of interest is basically you get something for something else, even though there's a quid pro quo that happens beforehand, we don't know, doesn't have to be said.

Um that's one of one of the things if we're trying to be above board and we're trying to be um remove all conflict, the best thing to do would be to move this based on all the issues at hand, move this to a different date, move open it up for a longer period, and allow for a greater group of applicants on this.

Um I do, I will say, as somebody who sat on Planning Commission, um, it is a great stepping stone for going into city council.

It is, as people said, they had eight meetings last year, but there is a lot of information that you go through.

You've got to read through the code and you've got to read through lots.

I mean, we were talking about the plans, 20 pages long.

That seems small to me in some cases.

When you're going through everything and evaluating that, one of the things I remember when we were deciding to do this with the boards and commissions is I remember someone on council asking, so planning commission's gonna be in that same timing, too.

And my thought immediately was ooh, I wonder if that's long enough.

Because in my thought, if people are candidates for council and they aren't elected, that is a great thing for them to step into.

Furthermore, I happen to agree with the thought that if the next council is the one that's going to be working more closely with the planning commission, the next council should be voting them in.

But I do agree that there's a lot of thought to decide whether you're going to be on planning commission.

One, I don't think there's a planning commission in the state that is compensated through a pay.

They can get um reimbursed for travel, they might get a meal that you know, if they meet at a certain time, they might um receive training, that kind of thing.

But planning commission is a lot of volunteer work, and I've tried um I've talked to our staff about is there any way to get some sort of compensation because it is work, not as much as council, but it is work.

Um, I like the idea of training.

If you don't come in already knowing some things, it is it's a very difficult commission to step on to.

Um, so there I I like the idea.

I don't think marketing and promotion is gonna be it.

I think you have to just going out to the public and saying this is what you have got to do.

You've actually, I was asked.

I was asked to run for planning commission or put my name in the hat.

Um because the person knew that I had experience with the code, with um understanding the way local government works, especially having worked in planning.

And you know, and we look at it, we've got two architects on, we've got somebody who's a permitting consultant.

Um we've got people, we have had one person who used to be on council, but also has worked with NROM, so they understand a lot of that.

We have a planner.

Those are the type of people that understand what their role is on planning commission.

So it's a wonderful, but it's a wonderful stepping stone for somebody who says, hey, I just I really want to learn more about this.

Um I think those are my things.

So I would if I had a choice, I I'm gonna say, yes, next council, see if you can talk about this.

I do think there needs to be more time allowed for people to apply in for planning commission.

I love that idea of talking to people about what does this mean?

What would your what do you have to do for this?

Or having some sort of mentorship on that?

Um, I think that would make somebody feel a lot better who is not familiar with what's gonna be uh their responsibility on that.

Um but also knowing, you know, even me looking at okay, there was eight meetings last year, even though they're supposed to meet um twice a month, they may not have things to evaluate and vote on.

Um so there might be, you know, that there could be a little less stress taken off of certain people, you know, the anxiety of oh my gosh, I'm getting in the same time commitment as council.

Um it isn't the same, it's close, but it's not the same.

So that's my thoughts.

So you would like to um uh uh I was gonna say table table the this appointment that's fine for the next council the the post-December 2nd.

I think that's what I'm hearing is that we're either saying yes, or that's kind of the thought on the table, or we're we're tabling it for a different date.

Does that mean that this council, if we table, does that mean this council has to do it before we walk away on the second?

What I would recommend if you're thinking of bringing it back at a certain date is to postpone it, not table it.

Because table it means that there is no certain date coming back, and if it isn't picked up, then it automatically dies by the end of the next business meeting.

So what I'm hearing is that you want to have this conversation, you just want to do it later.

And if that's the case, then what I would recommend is a motion to postpone.

Can we can this council postpone to a date that the new council would be sitting?

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Um, councillor Tapia Vega, would you like to do this question?

Sure, I'd love to.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, go for it.

I can't hear about this.

Uh my question is more legal is would it be postponing or tape postponing to consider Brian Councillor Wong's opening?

Or would it be tabling to consider just or would this council like to just make a motion to reopen it?

So I think those are the two things.

So I believe that tabling it would mean that you continue to have this applicant's discussion at a different date, not reopening it.

So we want to just be clear.

Or this council could make the decision to reopen the code.

Correct, which would be a motion to reopen that.

But would it but could choose to fill that seat at a later date?

I don't see how we would be able to do it by December 3rd anyway.

So yes, it would be the new council having the discussion on a new applicant pool.

Okay, so I guess that's something we need to decide as well if we go that direction.

Okay.

Um I do want to quickly hear from Council Tapia Vega, give my thoughts, and then we do need to come to a consensus if possible with six groups.

So Council Topia Vega.

Sure, thank you.

Uh so a few a few moving parts for me here.

Uh I just want to make sure I hit them all.

Uh, first and foremost, uh, thank you to the committee that the interviews uh we really appreciate your insight.

Uh the one thing I I don't like about this process, what I've heard is I I keep hearing the same term, it wasn't um sufficiently marketed.

Uh I actually, Counselor Gallegos, I truly appreciate what you brought up tonight.

That's I I didn't know any of that.

That's that's way more than I even thought it was.

Um I I think kind of blaming this on our staff and on our communications and marketing uh staff is is kind of a cop-up for this for this council.

Uh what I would want to do is remind this council that if we don't like the results of this particular recruitment process, it it should fall on us.

We're the ones who came up with this process, and a year ago, uh this process did amazing amazing things.

We filled so many vacancies with this exact process.

So I think we should just be take responsibility for the fact that if we don't like the the process and the overall results of the process, it is not on our staff.

So that's the one thing I just want to make clear it is on us.

Uh the other part of this that I want to make sure I emphasize is the fact that this is our process, and we should it would only be fair for us to follow through with this process.

So, regardless of what you feel about the process, it went through, and the two applicants that we had, one has already been appointed, the other we're speaking on.

Uh they followed the rules.

They got their application in on time, and I think it's only fair that we take a vote.

Uh and the other thing I would remind council of is if this vote fails, it technically reopens regardless because now there's a vacancy on planning commission, and because of the process that we built at some point that it's gonna open up again.

So uh my recommendation is that we just vote and see what happens.

Okay, all right.

Vote tonight.

Um my thoughts are I think that throughout my years on council, we have constantly struggled with filling boards and commissions, as that's why we redesigned the whole process and changed the term limits and did all of that to increase recruitment.

And I think we are trying, I don't think we're there yet.

There's obviously things we should continue to um to invest more in to get more applicants, because regardless of who it is, two applicants for two vacancies is not ideal, um, even if they are two highly qualified great candidates.

Um so I think that the next council should really consider you know continuing to make this a priority, as you guys mean in your um uh retreat and strategic planning.

Um think let's think critically on how we can address this problem long term, because it is a problem.

Um during that same time on council when we have had these issues with lack of applicants.

Um I don't remember ever having conversation to this level.

Um where we are we had the two applicants, uh we felt like they were qualified, everyone seems to agree at least on that, um, and then decided not to appoint.

Uh in an effort to bring in more candidates.

And so I guess the question that keeps popping into my mind is if we do want to have more applicants, we do want to expand the pro uh we do want to expand the candidate pool in hopes in hopes for what?

Like in hopes for to get an excellent qualified candidate, we already have that.

And so to me, it genuinely, and this is just my opinion, and a bunch of folks will disagree, as is usual.

Um, but it feels personal.

It feels like there are folks that do not want to see uh uh a specific person, whether that be because they're a city counselor or for other reasons, not on the committee.

And so that's it, that's how it feels.

And so and this once again, this is my my persp perception of things, as you mentioned earlier, Councillor Friedland, is that um there could be a public perception of what we do, and I think that is true.

I think you know, voting not to appoint um Mayor Pro Chem Wong for perception reasons could also be perceived the other way around as well, is that um the appointments not going through for other like political agendas or whatever it may be.

Now, once again, that's probably some people feel that way.

Another group of people feel the opposite, as you mentioned, they agree completely with what you said, which is fair.

And a majority of people aren't watching city council meetings.

Um, and so um aren't paying attention to to this.

I just that that's just my perspective, and once again, folks are gonna get upset with what I say, but it's my honest opinion.

Um but I do want to hear from you all, because this is a team decision, it's not what does JD want.

Um it's more so what what does council how do you all move on forward?

How do you want to move forward?

And if and I'm willing to listen to you all and hear you all out and move in that direction, even if you know it's different from how I feel.

Um and so just hearing from you all, it sounds like there are at least three of you that would clearly like to reopen the application.

Uh and I'm hearing from councillors gallegos and councilor gallegos to uh move forward with the appointment of mayor part of uh Mr.

Brian Wong to the planning commission, and I'm hearing from Councilor Tapia Vega is let's just vote.

So yeah, that's my summary.

And then me, you know, just oh my one's on.

Um okay.

So, anyways, um that's sort of where things are.

Would anyone like to add anything to discussion?

Because otherwise, someone, if someone would like to make a motion to get to your point and vote, we can do that.

Um, but I would like to hear if the folks would like to add on to what others are saying, have a further discussion.

So I also have some reservations to leaving planning commission with an even number of commissioners.

So the same way we're split here tonight, they're also gonna be split on future decisions since all that vacancy is filled.

Okay.

And uh how many times does the planning commission meet from now until end of the year?

Any more time?

One, I believe.

Once for orientation, right?

So we could have a land use item or two on that agenda on the 10th.

Or we wouldn't be meeting on the 24th.

If I understand correctly, it would be we'd if we open the process again.

Uh if we vote no, then we'd have to open the process again.

So planning commission would be even numbers for more than just one.

Depends on the timeline, right?

Yeah.

I mean, it depends on that what we decide.

All right, um, so um would anyone like to add to the conversation?

If not, would someone feel free to make a motion and we can vote regardless of what that motion is?

Um, what um I just need some folks to give direction on how you'd like to proceed.

I'm going to move that we uh postpone till the December 2nd meeting.

December 2nd?

Oh yes, that's our next meeting, right?

Yep, that's uh that's like the transition meeting.

So you'll you'll have there'll be I guess two parts.

There'll be this council and then part B will be the second council.

So when you say you'd like to postpone to this December 2nd, are you saying December 16th when the new city council is I'm going to postpone until December 16th meeting?

Okay.

So council Barnes is making a motion to postpone using.

Okay.

Can I ask a clarifying question?

Would they also be to reopen the uh application process?

Uh yes, postpone and reopen the application process.

Thank you.

Okay.

So you sorry, so you would like applications completed by the 16th and interviews to have that conversation.

Sorry, there's just a lot of nuances on what postponing means that staff would want clarity on.

Yes.

Okay.

So reopen beginning tomorrow.

Yes.

And have interviews conducted by this council committee, because it would need to be to then debate with the new council.

Yes.

Okay.

So you you're I just want to make sure you've made that motion so I can do my job here, right?

You're officially making that motion to postpone.

Yes.

I'm making the motion to postpone postpone this decision and reopen starting tomorrow until December 7th.

It's December 16th, thank you.

Boggy birth.

Okay.

Are we allowed to ask questions before a second to just clarify the motion?

Sure.

Yeah, I also second.

Now you can now you can.

Okay, thank you for the second.

Um I just want to think through the timing, right?

Because staff has would have to publish.

Um then we would have to schedule uh the committee, you know, the small small group, do the interviews, make a recommendation, come back.

I'm just not sure if there's enough time between now and the 16th to do that.

Um and I don't know when our meetings are scheduled for January, but um I don't know if there's much benefit either, because Planning Commission is meeting before that anyway, so we're we're already gonna miss the December meeting.

So we're we're already gonna miss the December meeting.

Right.

December 10th.

December 10th.

So if there's a January meeting.

January 6th.

That's our meeting, right?

Yep.

So if we're meeting January 6th, we could potentially do it then just to give more time for publicity, more time for all the steps that have to happen, as long as when is the planning commission meeting that in January, the first one is it that Thursday?

It doesn't seem to be up on our calendar yet.

So I think staff to have it.

Maybe hasn't been a term maybe.

It could be as early as January 14th again, depending on what applications come through between now and then so as early as January 14th.

So if we if we met on the if we postponed until the 6th, we would still meet the timeline, and it would give us just more flexibility to staff into our process.

Um so we might be able to do both things.

So January 6th, you're saying?

Yeah, correct.

So do I need to unsecond that so he can amend?

I don't think we could vote if we can fail.

Yeah, we could.

It could also be a friendly amendment that you both would accept potentially.

So it could it could go either way.

Yeah, am I supposed to do that first?

Yes, if you want to accept the friendly amendment, yes, counselor Barnes.

Are you good with that about it?

I accept the friendly amendment.

Yeah.

Yeah, I thought he was making you're making the amendment to move it to the January 6th.

I'm accepting the amendment.

I move we move it to the move to January 6th.

2026?

2026.

Second.

Okay.

Any questions?

I read a couple of points of clarification.

Uh so January 6th, between now and then, we were instructing staff to reopen the application, close the application, reconvene the subcommittee, but at that point we might have a new council, so I don't know what happens there.

And then at the January 6th meeting, everything would come back and we would make the decision on council then.

Yes.

Okay, perfect.

Are we also directing staff on how we're marketing?

I mean, that's the biggest thing everybody keeps talking about, right?

How are we supposed to?

We can't do an open house between now and then, obviously.

So to the people who are kind of uh asking us to to push this forward, how do you suggest we market and how do you suggest we actually get the applicants that we want?

Because that's obviously been the biggest point of contention.

Well, I heard you say that it's council's responsibility that we shouldn't blame it on others.

So I would suggest all of us get out there and start knocking on the doors of people who have experience in this.

I would agree.

However, uh, I would like to hear from the people who specifically made the claim that it was not marketed well.

Uh that's me.

And yes, I think we should get out and beat the bushes and find professional contacts.

And uh just to be perfectly clear, I've always felt that it's council's responsibility, staff did market it, and any failure in the process, I think is still ours.

Uh so I think we should be part of the process of doing what we can to supplement what the city is doing for marketing for one of our boards and commission.

So I do feel like it's our responsibility.

And if we come up with any processes that could potentially benefit the recruiting process, I think we should I think we should do that and make those suggestions.

Well, hopefully we'll make the uh uh Colorado Hometown Weekly, so that'll be a great opportunity.

Sorry.

My wife is gonna be mad at me for it because I always make jokes when times are a little tense.

So apologies.

Um I mean I would say the first thing I would say is I'm not a marketing expert, so I appreciate your point.

I hear you.

It's a it's a fair criticism.

Um but you know, I I would I would lean on staff to say, you know, what are the things we can still do?

Shake the trees, and certainly agree with the rest of the folks that have just spoken.

Yeah, we should we need to get out there and and um and talk to people and say, hey, you know, you'd be a great candidate, come on and think about this, it'd be a good opportunity for you.

So um I definitely hear you.

Um, but I also think we direct staff based on the process that we've determined, and I think it's fair for us to say, hey, you know, it feels like this wasn't as comprehensive as it could have been compared to the year before.

So you know, let's let's trust in the experts to go and try to find those holes that maybe existed.

Um so maybe a cop-out.

What would your ideal candidate look like?

If we want to if we want to market it, right?

We have to let's put out some things that we're looking for.

You know what I mean?

Yeah.

If we're gonna ask folks to apply, they need to know what kind of candidate we're looking for.

Yeah, I think somebody with experience in the in the code.

Um somebody with um, you know, diverse perspective, diverse lived experience.

Um, you know, somebody that maybe um brings a new perspective that we haven't had on planning commission before.

Um somebody with um, you know, uh running small business that understands the challenges of a of a small business applying to the planning process.

Um I think there's a lot that could probably come out, um, especially if I thought about it for a while.

Um what what would you say your ideal candidate might be?

I think we have I think we have an ideal candidate.

I think when folks are hiring for a position and they market it, like we we experienced this internally, like when we were hiring for city managers, but you before um before uh Ms.

Dolling stepped in uh prior to that.

Um we send out a bunch of applications to the community on all the things we look for, and we had a community input on that process as well.

Um and actually that first batch of applicants um wasn't very strong.

And so we're like, um this was to uh this is to fill Mr.

Klopopy C.

Um and then we're like, okay, let's push more, let's expand more, and then we were um through that process, and we did that.

We found a a great applicant in uh Fritz Bray, you know, who served the city uh for years as well.

So that was awesome, and that worked.

So you know, um, as you're mentioning, that was a great um example of of what you're intending to do.

Um at the same time, though, when we did experience that, the few applicants we did get were unqualified.

Um they didn't have a strong background in city management.

They maybe were a department head here and there, but they had no like city management experience.

Um and like for or they lived they lived in a different area of the country, and so they didn't have like Colorado experience.

So just a lot of different reasons uh we ended up reopening it.

I do think it as I mentioned earlier, um, I do feel like we have an ideal uh candidate already, uh, which is why you know I'm I don't know if I'll be supportive in in the proposed motion, uh because once again going back to my original question is we're doing all this reopening in hopes of what in hopes of finding a candidate that's strong experienced and all that.

Yep.

And so I guess this is probably where we're gonna disagree, of course.

But um I feel like it's there and the only it's it's I'm finding it hard to come up with reasons not to go with what's been proposed.

I heard from you your your one concern, but other than that.

So let me let me let me dive a little deeper on because I as I said in my recommendation, which I'm sure you all read, um, I do agree that uh Brian Wong is a qualified candidate.

Um and I but through the process, right?

We all have the ability to know how marketing was going.

And I think it is a challenge to see a opening that is not has does not have enough applicants, doesn't have an applicant for it.

And instead of saying, hey, let's let's work on this, putting one of our names in the ring.

To me, that's the perception issue.

That is a challenge.

He had right an understanding of the process that others in the community didn't.

And so that's the perception issue that I'm talking about.

So I think I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that he's not a qualified candidate, to be clear.

I'm saying to me it's a process issue and a perception issue that I think we need to guard against as this council.

Yeah.

Can I can ask a question of staff?

If someone who isn't on council, just a resident were to come and ask uh how many applications have been received for a certain board, is that information that would be publicly available?

Yeah, we share it.

Okay.

I have a question too.

Yes.

So um with the proposed motion on the table, um will um may uh Mayor Pro Tem Wong, who will transition to no no longer uh on council, uh, will he be able to still keep his application in the mix?

Yes.

Okay, this would extend the deadline, valid applications submitted would remain in in the bin for consideration.

Okay, good.

All right.

Um go ahead.

I think we also need a contingency plan.

What happens if no other candidates come forward after we go through the trouble of reopening this process, and we are once again left with one application for one vacancy for a volunteer position.

Well, yeah, I think that's something that the next who's ever in the council at that point will have to consensus.

That's why I think this is not your problem of taking this.

Um okay.

Well, I I do want to address the motion though that has been laid forward.

So council Barnes did lay out that motion um to postpone uh the the uh the appointment to this vacancy, reopen applications with a deadline of January 26th.

And that at that January 26th deadline is where that the council 26 or 26th.

Right.

You can go to the 26th, but that's not a meeting.

I mean on January 6th, anything can happen.

And so on the January 6th meeting that council will be required to will be expected to fill that vacancy.

Correct.

If they don't, I suppose they could again postpone it and reopen.

Okay.

That's that's up that's up to that's up to you to those guys, right?

Yeah, and they can do that how for however long they choose to, right?

It's I'll totally up to them.

Okay.

All right, so there's a motion.

There's a second.

Any discussions on that?

We might need to do a roll call we'll we'll see.

All right.

Uh motion and seconds.

Um, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no.

No.

There it goes.

Would you like a roll call vote?

Why does it matter?

For just for her records, if she didn't hear who said yes and who said no.

Uh I would like to do a roll, but I guess would you like me to just or you can tell me?

Sure.

So that that motion it ended in a 3-3 split.

Uh with councillors Tapivega, Councilor Gallegos, and myself voting no and that was the original motion as amended.

The motion is amended.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

All right.

So the motion fails.

It yes.

Okay.

Uh we gotta we gotta get through this.

So um, what is there an alternative that someone would like to propose um to what's already been motioned?

We could vote in another way and then from there seek clarification on how to move forward if we can't get to a four vote.

You're the most passionate.

Why don't you make the motion?

And you don't have a conflict of interest.

I mean, I got nothing to lose now.

Um, well, yeah, I just want to do that just for the record.

Okay, so I will make the motion um to move forward with the appointment of Brian Wong to the Planning Commission.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Motion and a second.

Any further discussion on this?

Okay.

Ready for the vote.

All right.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no?

No.

Okay.

So that motion is 33 split and it fails with councillors Friedland, Barnes, and Samson voting against all right.

Now what do we do?

Okay.

So um uh point of clarification for the attorney.

Um we would like to, you know, I'm willing to work with you all to to make sure we can get to a consensus um to move forward.

Um a decision on this is expected to be made tonight on how we move forward, or what would be the result if we don't come to a consensus?

I've continued three threes.

Well, someone someone could put another motion on to to continue it or postpone if we wanted anyone wanted to revisit that.

Um otherwise the vacancy still exists, so we're still under standard protocols to come back and try to get it filled at the next regular meeting on December 2nd.

Well, or to for you to take some sort of action and decide what to do.

Okay, well, can I can I ask a question?

Does it not just open back up in March?

Yeah, so that would sorry, I was helping clarify because we have the standard process, we would probably in any other board situation just let it lie until March when we do our semi-annual recruitment process, which is when we fill vacancies that occur.

Otherwise, we would follow our uh process that has been established.

Okay.

Also the next meeting, either council or the meeting after that, the new council could also provide direction to do something different than that as well.

That is also an option.

All right.

Um I would like to see our council work together and come to a consensus.

So here's what I'm gonna say.

First, um, regardless of what decision we make tonight, folks in the public are gonna be very upset with us, whether they're on one side or the other.

As you saw, our council is very split three, three.

I think there'll be a perception, as you mentioned, that you know, a sitting pointing a sitting counselor could seem like there's a conflict.

There could be a perception of that.

I will I on the other hand feel like that at the same time, even I agree with what what you're saying.

There could be a per there is a public perspective, there is a public perception that if we don't move forward with this appointment, it could see as we are being influenced, and there's a perception of that as well.

Both things that can be true.

Like of this is me being objective.

So because of that, what makes this job and especially this mayor job very difficult, as one of you will probably fill that seat, is we're constantly juggling.

What is this person gonna think about that?

Was this person gonna think about this?

And people are gonna get mad at you, and that's what makes this job so hard.

There are folks in the community that are huge supporters of the work I've done, and there's folks in the community that don't agree with some of the the votes and decisions that that I've made in in this position position.

And I always find it tricky, especially in the mayor position, because not only are you juggling public perception and their views uh of you, you're also juggling, you know, your fellow counselors and their thoughts on how you conduct you know the meeting, things like that.

And then you're also you know, you have more meetings with staff.

You have more meetings to understand, you know, their you know, uh curiosities and their thoughts on on how we vote, and then that also impacts your decision, and you're constantly being tugged in different directions and in and folks are giving your opinions, and no matter what, folks are upset with you.

And so I'm saying this because one of you is is gonna fill my seat, and when you do do that, it's something just to be fully aware of.

You're never gonna be able to please one person, you're never gonna be able to make everybody happy, and it makes the job really difficult.

The hardest part for me personally.

That all being said, the ultimate goal is what is in the best interest of the residents of your fellow counselors and of city staff, and how can we just move along?

I don't foresee uh I feel like we are at this kind of stalemate.

So I'll be the bigger person in this and show you how you know how my desire or not not show, but like I would like to set an example of my desired outcome on how a council should conduct itself, and even if you feel like it's not what you personally want, you do it uh for an effort of progress in moving forward.

So councillor Barnes, if you remake your motion, I would be willing to cons reconsider my vote.

I move to postpone this decision until January 6th, and ask the city to reopen the process for applications.

Second, motion and a second, any further discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no.

No.

That motion passes forward to two.

All right, so the next council that does um, you know, so so let's just let's for the public now, so they're aware on how to proceed on how we are gonna proceed.

Let's let's once again share those dates.

So tomorrow the application will be reopened, correct?

Correct.

Then Mayor Purdue's long application will still be a part of that pool, or does he need to reapply?

It will remain part of the pool.

Okay.

Then other folks will be eligible to apply up until what date the holidays make it tricky, so I was looking to try to make it ex longer than what our most recent one was, and I would suggest December 19th so that the council committee would have the week after the Christmas holiday and before the new year holiday to conduct interviews to be able to make it into the packet by January 6th.

But I am completely open.

I just was doing some rough math.

I would put the application period about eight days longer than it was this past time.

December 19th.

Completely completely a council decision, just throwing out a date to get a conversation started.

Thank you for doing that.

That works for now.

That's four.

That's a full month.

I mean, we're at the 18th.

You do a full month of the yeah.

So it I mean how I want to hear from you for because you'll be on that council.

So what works for you?

That works.

Yeah, I think that's a good amount of time, and we have the the week after and the week after that.

So we have two weeks where we might be able to find a day to do our deliberations.

Um I think that works.

Okay.

So applicants will have until December 19th to submit their written applications, they'll give opportunities for interview.

And then on the January 6th meeting is where you will be well if the council is expected to fill that vacance.

Correct?

At least have it on the agenda to discuss the key.

It'll be on the agenda.

All right.

I suppose I am assuming, which is means I need further clarification that the new council would appoint the subcommittee for the interviews and not this council.

Yeah, I think that would make the most sense.

Okay.

Anyone on council want to add anything, or do we feel like we're good to move on?

All right.

Well, that wraps up council appointments for tonight.

And I think we can go grab.

Yeah, thank you.

All right, uh, we'll conclude tonight with staff reports.

Um, beginning with our uh WC attorney filling in tonight.

Um city attorney's report.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Tonight I have a request for council to authorize the city manager to extend a closing date on a transfer of property, uh, which is portion of lot 18 Vista Business Park.

Council previously approved this transfer on September 2nd and authorized the city manager to close on September 26th or within 60 days of that, and due to unforeseen circumstances, closing has been delayed.

And so we would ask for council by general affirmation to allow the city manager to reschedule closing as needed to effectuate the transfer as approved by council.

Yes.

Are there any objections?

Any objections?

No.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Nope.

All right, on to the city manager's report.

All right, thank you, Mayor and Council.

So a few items tonight.

So, as we mentioned before, um, we had our third annual um employee celebration.

So I had mentioned it because city facilities were closed, and now I'm happy to share kind of a picture up above of one of the award recipients.

And so this was the third time that we've done it where we um honor our employees for our safety award and our core value awards, and just pleased to announce that you know we had two either staff or team members uh received the uh core value of accountability, community focus, innovation, integrity, and teamwork.

And also like to give a special shout out to Casey Carlson, senior civil engineer, who has been in front of you a few times as he was selected as this year's core value champion for being nominated in multiple categories, and um most notably one of his um larger projects, which was the public street planter project that you now see, which was coordinated with multiple departments and a huge success.

So just congratulations to him and the contribution he made to the commute community and city.

Also um excited to announce one of our newer uh grant programs, our vacant to vibrant program is now live.

You can click that website to um access the application fee.

But this is um uh the free uh sales and use tax rebate program, and it's designed to encourage the activation of vacant commercial and industrial spaces so uh interested businesses can review the eligibility and always contact staff if they have um any further questions.

And then um also excited to announce we as a city received two major uh grants for next year.

Two of these were also discussed during the 2026 budget, and so the first one is our court management case system, which is hopefully um allowing us to transition to a paperless case processing and file system.

And then also excited to announce we received that multi-year Dr.

Cog um building policy collaborative jurisdictional sub-award.

And so this is really for the through the federal climate um pollution reduction grant and intended to advance reducing building-related climate pollution emissions through local policy change.

And just a final reminder, we had the holiday food drive in partnership with Sister Carmen going on and collections, public collections are at the collective art center through December 1st.

And they were always ongoing at the library.

Looking ahead, we will be canceling our November 25th workshop, and then December 2nd, we'll have two meetings, regular meetings.

So the first is with this current council considering some consent agendas and recognition of outgoing council members.

We will adjourn and have the Judge Baelhash install our new council and oaths of office and then adjourn a second meeting to select the mayor and brandier pro tem for that evening.

So that gets us into December.

Thank you again.

All right, thank you for that update.

All right, we'll wrap up tonight with council reports starting on December.

Councillor Steps.

I only had one question.

I believe we somebody brought up last time.

Do we want to give some of the council contingency fund to Sister Carmen?

Um even though you know staff payments did get renewed, there's still going to be higher costs for health insurance and other expenses.

I don't know if we I just wanted to bring that up again.

See if that's something we wanted to do, talk about or not.

Yes, I do believe other uh folks on council did bring up that possible idea.

I think we have oppos two thousand or sixteen hundred love, sorry.

I would just suggest you direct the staff for the remaining balance for somewhere between 18 in 2000.

No math momentum.

Apologize, I don't have it off the top of my head.

Well, would uh yeah, well, I mean it's up to it's up to you all if someone has an idea or would like to propose uh spending that money for Sister Carmen or another organization.

We can we can do that tonight if you'd like, or it'll where we don't have to use we don't have to.

Yeah, so it's up to you all.

That was that was my idea, so I'm still in favor of it.

And I don't know what the rest of council thinks.

Um so you would like to direct staff to use the remainder of our continuum funds uh towards Sister Carmen, yes for Sister Carmen's bank specifically, right?

Uh or does it matter?

Doesn't matter now.

Okay.

Okay.

How do the rest of you feel about that?

I'm uh in favor.

Likewise.

All right.

Sounds like we have consensus on that.

We'll get that process.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Councillor Gallegos.

Nothing from me tonight.

All right.

Uh Councilor Barnes.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I am going to be testifying to the Air Quality Control Commission on Thursday, and I'll represent us as well as I can.

It's on a zone non-attainment.

And I am really grateful for staff who contributed uh information and I can present to the states to see that we we are actually seeing uh impacts here.

Um some of them are anecdotal, some of them are uh real impacts to individuals.

We have a problem.

We're uh weather disasters right now cost this country one hundred and one hundred and one billion dollars.

So we we're living in this changing environment, and I think the way we're responding with our climate action plan uh and multiple other actions that we've taken, even our EV uh policies that are in place in our affordable housing.

I think we're moving in the right direction.

And uh just like to uh offer that anyone else who might have something that they can provide to me to testify.

That would be great if you have any knowledge that you're being impacted by uh Ozone non-attainment.

Uh Jamal Gilmore, who was appointed to the human rights board, just text me and said thank you all for trusting.

So uh it's already there are people paying attention out there.

Uh and that's all I have.

All right, thank you, Councilor Barnes.

Uh Council Freeland.

Yes.

Um just wanted to give you an update from LOSAB.

They had a positive uh joint meeting with the Erie Open Space Board as well.

Um I think it was good conversation.

Um they do that with Erie and with Louisville annually.

Um I also wanted to there was a public comment about um and maybe you've seen the the news around that the FAA kind of officially said these are the routes.

Um there was some publicity through RMMA about that as well.

They had an open house.

And so we already have a letter that we sent recently.

And so I think that would be easy.

Looking at staff, maybe to say that wouldn't be a hard thing to do.

It would be appropriate.

And so would love maybe to see if council is okay with that.

It's okay.

No, no objections.

I also know Mayor Pro Tem Wong, you you mentioned uh superior letter, I think that they were working on.

Um I was planning on bringing it up in my comments.

Okay, great.

Then I'll then I'll wait for that.

Yeah.

Um and I just want to, you know, reflect a little too if I can for a second.

Um, you know, SRAB, I mentioned you know, there's quite a few people flowing off.

Uh there's you know, somebody from SREP who's been elected this cycle.

Um, and I was on SRAB before that, and the waste board, and you know, some of the people from the waste board moved over to the SRAB when that combination occurred.

And um I think it feels like an end of a chapter for the group.

Um, with some folks, you know, kind of moving off.

Um, and so I you know, it's it's uh it's bittersweet because you know, certainly having those people um that were really pivotal in building the group, standing it up, being a part of that, being okay with ambiguity.

Um, you know, they're they're ready to say I'm gonna I'm gonna spend you know my uh first Thursday or second Thursday of a month a little differently.

Um but certainly I think it's also a good opportunity um for new folks to come in and some fresh perspectives and make sure that group is really functioning at a super high level.

So um bittersweet, but I just want to say that out loud that um you know it's it's uh interesting to see how these things evolve over time.

So everything for me, Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Tavia Vega.

Uh just one thing from me.

Uh just really thank you to everyone that we appointed to the boards and commissions tonight.

Those are uh those are those are tough.

So those are long terms, and we we love the work you all do.

So just thank you for being willing to work and uh do it for free for the city.

Uh we really rely on you for for a lot of things.

So just uh huge thank you to everyone who was appointed tonight, and that's all I have tonight.

Thank you.

Um I'm I'd like to go ahead and go next.

Um for my comments, it's just um we did have members of the public tonight come to speak about um traffic safety in their neighborhoods, specifically in the Wanaka Lake um trail area.

And um, you know, staff has has had the opportunity to um sit down and meet with some of those folks.

Uh we also attended the sort of a walking field trip in that area uh specifically along that uh that road road where the pickleball courts uh meet meet the neighborhood.

Um and so you know, we had the opportunity to meet the city manager and I and public works director to have an opportunity to kind of look at that area and figure out you know what's possible, what's not.

But you know, I really want to make sure since you know I'm running, um you know, I only have a I guess this would be my anultimate meeting, but my last council official council comments is that I uh you know, I would really like to see some changes happen in that area um uh to make to make crossing the street specifically near the pickleball court area safer for pedestrians, uh whether that be adjustment to the parking on one side of the road or the other, whether that be striping, signage, moving the crosswalk, uh where folks can have that you know, the flashing crosswalk.

Just just kind of some ideas that folks have come up with.

I would like to see staff prioritize that as a traffic safety issue.

Um and like I said, staff has already been working on this and they already have data information on the area, and so I just wanted to see if council would be supportive and seeing if we could you know prioritize that that's area of of Lafayette where in the Wanka Lake Trail neighborhood as an area to make traffic safety adjustments um to make crop pedestrians specifically pedestrian crossing safer when entering and exiting the pickleball court area.

And I would just want to see if you guys what your thoughts on that word.

That's that's where I that's what I feel to see if folks were supportive or they wanted more clarification on exactly what I'm seeking.

I just wanted staff to sit down and meet with those residents again and to figure out how to make how to make their neighborhoods safer.

That's really what I'm hoping for.

I'm supportive.

Um absolutely I'm supportive.

There are so many people utilizing the lake, the pickleball courts, the playground, so anything to enhance safety there.

Council Barnes.

I mean, I I see the bad behavior, and it's it's unacceptable.

Um this just this morning I saw somebody doing.

I wish I had your number on speed up.

Uh somebody driving with twice the speed limit and then disappeared.

And I don't know if they cut through the one a clay trailhead um uh trail, sorry, uh direction, but I know that there are multiple places that people are redirecting.

So yes, I'd like to make sure that we do address that specific turn.

I I don't have a hard time understanding how bad that is.

I do think we need to address that, maybe it's with a speed cushion.

But I also think we need to understand like if that is a slower point, where do where does this bad behavior move?

So I just want to make sure that we're we also consider like what are the impacts.

Yes, we need to do it, but what are the what are gonna be impacts so we can of course um hopefully have an idea of what what's next as people try to figure out how to speed through the city.

Yeah.

So our city manager, sorry, I didn't mean to just throw that at you, but um, is more so just like another opportunity to sit down and meet with residents, and I know you're already doing this, and I know you've already met with them and and exchanged emails, but uh just prioritizing it as a traffic safety issue, and I give me back to council with options and how it aligns with our vision zero plan and where this street falls in the priority level too.

Okay, thank you.

All right, that's all for me.

Um, because it is uh Mayor Potem's long meeting, it's only appropriate that we give you the final word uh for tonight.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um gosh.

Last meeting.

Um, all of us will face it one of these days.

So, first and foremost, I want to thank the residents of Lafayette um for electing me twice to be able to serve for the honor to serve you all.

Um for those that don't know, I have ran for election three times, lost my first time.

So if you didn't make it this time, those of you who ran last time, you're on again, you'll never know.

Um, but I do want to thank the residents.

It has been the honor of my lifetime to be able to serve the community that I live in and I call home.

Um while we I have done my best to try and represent the entire community.

I know at times um there are members of the community that we all end up on different sides of the issue, and it is just what happens unfortunately when you're trying to balance so many competing interests, and so I want to acknowledge them for their support and their um believing in me and representing them.

So thank you to the community.

Um, I also want to thank city staff.

Um, so many of you have changed over the last six years, and so many of you have stayed the same.

Um, but thank you for all of you for all the work you do for our community.

Um, it is amazing, amazing to see the work that you all do.

Um, and then I want to thank members of council.

It has been an honor and a pleasure to serve with each and every one of you.

Um, some of you, it's been a very long time, six years.

Um both of you.

Others, it's only been four years, Nicole.

And then um, some of you it's just been relatively new.

So, you know, for those of you who are continuing on this journey up here on this dais, I would encourage you to think about some of the issues that you're coming that are coming forward.

I think affordability is a huge issue that this council, the future councils will be having to deal with.

I am concerned that our sales tax rate is one of the highest now in the metro area, if not the state.

Um, that really concerns me, especially as a regressive tax um, as sales taxes are so really concerned about that, really concerned about affordability, and while we have to figure out how we balance um supply along with our our desire to have um open space and all those things that we love because unfortunately to drive costs down, it does deal with density, and that has to be figured out.

So I wish all of you luck in figuring that out.

Um lastly, I want to thank my family, my wife who has spent the last six years every Tuesday night at council watching at home, sending me a text now and then about calming down or getting a little bit more excited, um, whichever the case may be.

Um whichever the case may be, I appreciate that.

Um between city council and planning commission, 13 and a half years up here, many birthdays, anniversaries.

I have been in these chambers, and so I will miss that.

Um maybe not miss that part of it.

Um actually, and kind of excited to be home, but it's always kind of neat to acknowledge a spouse or a kiddo or a family member during a birthday, and it ends up in the minutes, so then it's a forever recognized.

Maybe I'm just a geek.

Um thank you for all that um you have made this experience.

I know everything that I've done, I have um I'm excited for the next chapter getting involved in the regional level.

And that's the other thing too.

I do want to just point out to um Councillor Barnes is that um Councillor Kearns, Judy Kearns from Lewisville, is actually on the air quality board now, representing Louisville.

And so certainly I would encourage you to connect with her.

That's why I asked about the RAC, because she had just shared some conversations that they had about that.

And I I encourage um this council to pull upon its regional neighbors um to really move things forward as a region.

I think that is so important.

So often we get stuck in the minutiae of um what's going on in Lafayette that we forget about what's going on around us.

And so that's a very important thing to do.

Um, so I encourage you to continue to build those bridges to the communities around us.

And um, yeah, and finally, I just want to thank um the mayor for um all that you've done and your service to the city.

Um, and I really do appreciate your friendship and um your counsel at times.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

And with that, thank you all.

Appreciate it.

Right.

Meeting adjourned, thank you.