Good evening, everyone.

Thank you all so much for joining us.

Uh the city council meeting for July 7, 2026 will come to order and we will begin with a pledge of allegiance.

I pledge to say, could we please get a roll call?

Mayor Tapia Vega.

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Barnes.

Councilor Bolier.

Good evening.

Councillor Friedland.

Here.

Councillor Gallegos.

Good evening.

Councillor Gianola.

Here.

And Councilor Jensen.

Here.

Mayor, we have a quorum.

And Mayor Pro Tem just joined.

Amazing.

Are we going to see him on the screen?

Or we'll give him a second.

That's perfectly fine.

Thank you all for coming tonight again.

We'll begin tonight with public input as we do every week.

But being as the work continues with the subcommittee, I just want to ask Council if there was any objection to the subcommittee taking a few minutes up front.

Just kind of address and update the council as to what's been going on.

Great.

Seeing no objection, I'll go ahead and get us started.

First and foremost, I I think I I just have to start with a huge thank you for a few people.

Our community, of course, this has been a difficult project for a lot of people, and it's been a difficult process.

But the only way we really get through this is by working together.

So we truly appreciate for two reasons.

I appreciate the community greatly on this.

One, because again, it it's a difficult thing.

To give us feedback on what we've done so far.

So thank you for that.

And then for the second part, I really want to thank you just for being as patient as you have been.

Everyone wishes that, and so many people have told me that that I get it.

There's a certain sense of urgency.

Unfortunately, this is a process that's gonna take time, right?

I don't know how many times I've heard.

Don't do anything until you've looked at every possible option.

Don't make don't take action until everything has been looked at.

Don't leave anything on the table.

And I think we we have to look at both of those things, and we have to look at the sense of urgency and understand that we want an answer and our residents want an answer and plot owners want an answer.

While we also want to be thorough, we want to make sure that when we make when we take action, uh, we're doing the right thing for the future of our cemetery and the future of our city.

Uh so we certainly appreciate you being so patient and just sticking in there with us.

Um the other thank you is for our staff.

The the amount of work that I've seen done behind the scenes to try to get this across a finish line and try to really just find the proper answer, not just for this council, but for for the residents.

The one-on-one meetings that are happening, the the large uh dialogue sessions that are happening, just the ever the daily work that is happening by our staff, just a huge thank you to them.

Um just an update, right?

We had our first meeting on June 10th, and we had the second large community meeting on June 29th, and we thought both of those were very good by my estimation.

Um we we got a lot of feedback.

We we promised at the first meeting that we'd have we'd have options, we'd have uh possible scenarios by the second meeting, and we followed through on that promise and we had them.

And we got feedback on a lot of those, so we truly appreciate that.

We're looking now to ideally just kind of have the one-on-ones and get as much feedback as we can from the individual plot owners, and then hopefully bring something to you as soon as possible.

I don't have a date yet because there's still some things we have to really finish off, and of course we want to hear from everyone who's gotten a hold of us so far for those one-on-one meetings.

But eventually, very soon, uh, I know that something will come towards this council.

We will, as a subcommittee, bring a recommendation to this council and ideally uh do the right thing for our our residents for our plot owners, uh, and I'm very, very excited about that.

And I will hand it over to my uh co the other member of the session of the council.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um that was so comprehensive.

Uh not much to to to add.

You covered so many things.

I'd just share your gratitude and appreciation for how hard our city staff have been working.

Uh share your gratitude and appreciation for the members of the public who we've heard from uh extensively in the past couple months.

Um we owed feedback, we provided some answers on the 29th, and there will be more in the near future, as you noted, still trying to sort that out on the scheduling uh component.

But as we're in the home stretch, I think I would just ask for for continued bit of patience.

I know we want to get this on the calendar sooner than later.

Uh I think still an open question exactly what parameters that will entail, but very much want to present to the public to council, uh, the subcommittee recommendations.

I guess one thing that maybe you didn't touch on because I agree strong with it strongly with everything the mayor said, but the subcommittee construct uh is is new to me.

I think it's some ways new to us, and so one thing that we're looking forward to doing is kind of piloting its uh potential effectiveness.

And so the two of us have gotten to dig very deep into this particular issue set for the past couple months, and so looking forward to sharing out um some perspectives, some recommendations with fellow counselors for their consideration.

Um hopefully that will be a good test scenario for for you, Councilor Gianola and uh and the mayor pro tem for the other subcommittee on the docket.

So very excited for the path forward and understand it's been a very arduous path for many of our residents and neighbors.

Uh so appreciate your patience and understanding as we uh approach the home stretch.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

I'm gonna say one other thing because I forgot to say it and I meant to say it, uh, which is that when that does come before council, you will not be surprised.

Uh we will go out of our way to make sure that everyone who has engaged with us so far gets uh ample notice as to when it will go before this council.

You will have the documents ideally with enough time to review them, and you will absolutely have the chance to give us your input before any action is taken.

So uh don't feel as though this is happening behind closed doors because it's not.

We're gonna make sure that this happens, and this happens with everyone's opportunity to come and talk to us and tell us how they feel.

So truly, truly appreciate staff, appreciate the community, appreciate everyone.

And thank you, Councillor Bolier, for your work on this as well.

Thank you, Mr.

With that.

We will move on to public input tonight.

Uh, as you all know, if you wish to speak tonight, fill out one of these speaker press forms on the back and hand it over to our city clerk.

You will have five minutes to speak.

Um if you don't know what five minutes feels like, that's totally fine.

There's a little clock right in front of you that'll tell you when your time is up and it's counting down, so it's pretty easy.

Um if you aren't here tonight but still wish to address this council, you can do so.

That phone number is on our website, and you can call in.

And with that, we will move to our first speaker tonight.

Uh, we'll hear from Frank Archuletta.

Thank you, Council.

May I have your attention, please?

A lot of times I come up here and it seems like your heads are down.

I don't know if you're paying attention or not.

I just want to let you know that.

And people in the audience house also said that to me.

As I bring uh clarity to this complex issue and reflect history, as a historian, there is no greater challenge than convincing a city to remember what it would rather choose to forget.

As I have shared history for a long time, with so many, and how it is remembered and misremembered, and why it matters.

I have always spoke the truth with conviction and compassion as we explore the extremism and racism that has infected our politics from this beginning.

The United States has struggled to deliver on the promise of the Declaration of Independence to make our union a more perfect race has often been at the heart of these struggles.

And as we fight for true history to overcome the seemingly a tractable problem is here with us.

The long struggle with division in our immigrant nation and heroic efforts to heal the wounds.

We must understand the present moments in Lafayette history in life by looking back at critical times in our history when hope overcame division and fear.

I now call for a new path, kind of politics in Lafayette, a politics that builds upon those shared understanding that builds and pulls us together as Lafayette citizens.

We must remain steadfast, faithful, and true to the meaning of our struggle for democracy and justice.

We must still appreciate and believe in the Constitution, liberty, and the Bill of Rights and moral values.

Council has a role in playing and promoting opportunity, prosperities for all, to uphold justice, human rights, freedom, dignity, respect for all the citizens who own the 270 plots.

Council must think in a simple, common sense, sensible solution.

Do not pass resolution 2613 and abolish the moratorium.

As our senior citizens struggle with this cemetery issue, we must continue with our self-determination, optimism in the face of hardship.

I am tremendously grateful for all the senior citizens who stayed true and believe and recognize a successful outcome is possible as we stay united and continue perseverance.

Council, I hope we can't inspire you all to take positive action for all 270 plot owners.

We hope you recognize that all of us possess values that are worthy of respect.

Unity is our strongest tool.

Council, give the senior citizens justice.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, Council members and staff and citizens for standing and believing in the power of solidarity to do the right thing here.

I have a suggestion.

Basically, you talked about maybe perhaps in the road and all that, and that was kind of maybe not.

But we have on that northwest corner of the recreation center right there.

There's land right there.

If people cannot be buried, we can put them right there.

Northwest corner of the recreation center.

That's still part of all of Lafayette right there.

Cemetery, rec center.

Years ago, the fence was never there.

It was a ball field years ago, a football field, it was a park, it was a swing pool, another swinging pool now.

Those are no reason can't do that.

Or another suggestion, maybe perhaps right across the street on the uh north side right there, before you get into the ballfield area.

There's areas right there, maybe perhaps if people can't be buried in the cemetery for coffin burials, maybe you could use that also.

But uh I appreciate, I know this is a hard, very hard situation here, and basically this would never happen if the clerks in Lafayette would have given their jobs from 1901, when all this started.

And here you're all faced with the problems today, and then also archaeologists wouldn't have been here if three years ago when I asked the Human Rights Commission to write a letter to council, and I gave it to council and to staff to shut that part of field down, and they did not do it.

And this is where the problems happened here when the state archaeologists got involved, basically here.

Uh my voice does matter.

Our family has been resident here for over 100 years.

We do know the history of Lafayette, and we do understand as far as the different problems.

All we're trying to do is help make Lafayette a better place to live.

I could go on, but I'm going to clear while I've got 13 seconds left.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Alan Garcia.

Good afternoon.

This is for council and city manager and city attorney.

Municipal liability under Colorado state law regarding flaw historical timeline and disregard it, disregard of vested uh cemetery deeds.

I'm writing this formal letter to address a severe legal contradiction between the city of Lafayette current public assessments and my protective property rights under Colorado state law.

And three separate formal pieces of information distributed by the city, the formal owner correspondent dated twenty May 22nd, 2026, and the official uh presentation materials for both June 10th and June 29th, 2026 cemetery committee listening sessions.

The city explicitly states the city stops sales of plots in 1999 due to lack of uh capacity and no plots sold after 1999.

I hold three original deeds, legally binding cemetery deeds purchased from, signed by and executed by the City of Lafayette on August 1, 2000 by constantly uh putting forth uh inaccurate historical timelines to justify sweeping casket burial moratorium and override the rights of deed holders.

The city is exposing itself to direct legal accountability under Colorado state law.

Let's see, breach of contract, uh doctrine of uh promissionary.

Let's see.

Duty of municipal record keeping under constitutional takings.

A mean a municipality cannot use its own historical record keeping failures as a legal mechanism to erase the property rights of citizens.

If my plots were left out of your newly generated digital database because your software were set on an inaccurate 1999 threshold, those records must be corrected immediately.

I expect a prompt formal written response from the city administration confirming that the City of Lafayette recognizes the legal vitality of my August 1st 2,000 deeds, acknowledge that those plot sales actually continued past 1999 and will fully honor my vested property rights.

This is for the subcommittee.

Thank you for your time during the public comment period at the recent city council meeting.

As a dedicated stockholder in the future of the Lafayette Cemetery, I am writing to formally submit my comments in writing and reiterate my request for a direct written response via email.

As stated during the public testimony, I am deeply concerned that the current process being managed by the cemetery subcommittee and its higher facilitators, CDR associates, is active actively excluding community voices.

Important dialogues and strategy planning sessions are occurring behind closed doors.

Completely shutting out plot owners and historic families from providing input before these uh facilitator meetings take place, given that the city's current direction relies heavily on the SWCA ground penetrating radar survey, which community members have shown contains clear mapping discrepancies and false readings.

It is imperative that stockholders knowledge is integrated into the process before the final options are formulated rather than discussions have already been made.

Because I have excluded, because I have been excluded from participating in the subcommittee and facilitary planning structures, I formally request that the city provide written answers to the following three questions via email.

What is the legal and procedural justification for excluding impacting stockholders from the facility and subcommittee planning meetings?

What specific mechanism is the city establishing to ensure that community housed historical records deeds and mapping corrections are formally integrated into the SWCA radar data before a final vote is scheduled.

How can I immediately schedule it?

Well, I am right now trying to schedule one-on-one.

Please include in this correspondent in the official public records for the upcoming city council meeting packet.

I look forward to your prompt response.

And uh I handed it to the city clerk on email information.

Let's see if I'm out of time.

And I have uh some more that I presented to the county clerk for city council, city manager, and city attorneys.

Response.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Pete Salas.

Thank you.

Pete Salas, 1710 Zeus drive here in Lafayette.

Uh just wanted to before I I don't have a lot, I'm gonna take a lot of your time.

But I just want to thank you personally.

I uh many many years ago I served on a city council, and I know the difficult decisions you make.

And uh uh Sawell, I uh I empathize with the struggle that you've had relative to the to the issue of the cemetery south.

Uh the quick I just have a quick uh uh observation and question.

I wasn't able to find out exactly how many employees the city has.

Uh and uh and I was not able to also find out what the employee demographics of the city is, so that I could compare the employee demographics with the city demographics, uh and so if you could if someone could tell me where I can find that data, I would appreciate it.

Uh also I would like to know uh in the same vein, uh, and and Mr.

Artillada discussed the uh issues around race and the problems that we're having.

And I'm I'm curious about uh I know that the county has what they call a racial equity plan.

Uh I'm not sure if the city of Lafayette has one.

If you do, I'd like to see it.

And within uh hopefully within that plan, uh there's something that deals with how the city uh intends to or how you uh really uh provide cultural competency uh uh uh assurances uh for your employees so that I personally as a man of color can walk the streets and know that that when I'm being encountered when I'm encountering others, particularly officials, that those officials have a degree of cultural competency that allows me to not worry about whether or not I'm being profiled.

Uh I get enough of that uh fear at the uh the stuff that's happening at the national level.

So those are those are my real concerns.

Uh I haven't seen that data on the website.

Uh I I was looking, I'm not sure how many employees you have, but I'd like to find out the employee demographics uh uh by race and ethnicity.

Uh lastly, I just uh you know I use the trail a lot and and I'm I'm out and about in the community, and I know several communities are talking about this this whole e-bike thing, and I see the kids.

I'm sure you get other comments and and the and and the department tells you that uh that they're out there.

I don't encounter a lot of uh uh speeding on the trail.

There is enough.

Uh and uh surprisingly enough, uh not only on the e-bikes, but regular uh bicyclists who are in a hurry to get somewhere.

I'm not sure where they're going, but they're they're very fast.

They're uh more and more on the uh cultural trail, uh families and uh uh a lot of strollers, and I'm concerned.

I go out there with my dog, and I'm concerned for uh families and the people pushing strollers and the e-bikes that are racing along, uh, and they're not just young people.

Uh so uh but I I'm I'm just concerned on the street when I see uh especially the young people uh out there that they're not wearing helmets, they're riding uh uh a couple people on each bike, they're going very fast, and I think it might be time to consider uh some regulations around uh uh expectations with e-bytes.

Uh and I don't know if it's uh licensure requirements or what, but I think it's uh uh uh there have been a uh the other day in Boulder uh there was a serious accident, and I would hate uh to have something in our community like that.

Uh uh kids are in danger, and and uh all of you, I at least I was uh a young kid and I know that sometimes we we get a little reckless, but I think as an adults and as uh city leaders that we have responsibility to to do whatever we can to ensure that uh our streets are safe and that uh the uh uh there are enough regulations in place uh to kind of curve the uh what's going on with the e-bikes, they're just getting they're getting really fast, and there don't appear to be any regulations around uh how fast they can go and who's riding them, anything like that.

So that's my comments for now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Mike Watson.

Mike Watson, 708 South Carol Avenue.

Um I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, and I had a fantastic childhood.

I was out in the out in nature.

More of my I had more frog friends when I was a kid than I had human friends, which probably explains a lot of my personality today.

But my point is is that I'm kind of a Jane Goodall of frogs.

Um David, you bespurched their good name.

Because you're talking about you use the old adage of like boiling a frog in the discussion over the theater.

And that study, that quote comes from a um study in the 1850s, where a German scientist lobotomized frogs and stuck them in water and was like, yeah, they're they they boil alive.

But the key element in there is that the frogs were lobotomized.

A normal frog is gonna jump out of that um typically when it gets about 29 to 30 degrees Celsius.

So if a frog is capable, if a frog is capable of jumping out of water, jumping out of water as it slowly heats up, no matter how slowly you heat it up.

What's wrong with us?

Because there is a lot wrong with everything that is going on.

And I know we can talk about the national level, and there's a lot going on there, and happy 250 America.

Um we got a lot of work to do.

But there's also a lot going on in the city.

And I don't think like I I hear what you're saying, Sal, about everybody coming together and working, but I don't think things have been as awesome as you're presenting.

I think that there's been a lot of missteps from community members, from the council, from the city staff, from everybody.

And the key to this is coming together and actually sitting down at a table.

None of this is working how it should.

Like this is supposed to be open dialogue.

This is supposed to be democracy.

This is supposed to be people working together to solve problems, and you all are up there in order to be the voices of the people.

And I don't think that that's happening in the current situation.

I'm going to shut up about the cemetery for now because I think everybody we're going to have more meetings, so I'm going to reach out to you personally later this week and try to try to sit down and have a talk with you.

Or propose some ideas, rather.

In the in the workshop last week, um talked about finances.

And the finance director said that I mean, looking at the kind of spending habits of the of the citizens, um job market is bad, the economy is doing poorly, but spending keeps going up.

And sure, I think her comments.

Some of this I'm paraphrasing here, but like I don't understand what's going on there, but this is the data that we see.

And then two slides later, she's showing the same data from the city.

You know, the city's finances is not continuing to go up.

Like the city is not, but property values are kind of segment right now in Colorado.

There's not a clear path to balancing the budget, and the city continues to spend money on all sorts of projects.

And the one proposal that was put forward to save money directly impacts the people who actually make the city work.

The workers over in utilities, the people who fix the roads, who fix the pipes.

Um that proposed health care cuts.

If you look, if you understand kind of how the curve of the salary works.

You've got people over here making like 200, 300,000 a year, and you got people making 60,000 a year.

The health care costs is a set amount for everybody.

And so that's nothing to the people at the top, but that's a lifeline to the people at the bottom.

And we do health care so poorly in this country.

But don't balance your budget by cutting the benefits of the people who are who are out there every single day making the city work.

That's not the way to do this.

Um, I'll shut up there.

But um there's got to be another way to make the finances balance out.

You could start by by stopping some of the consultants by taking a little bit more.

I mean, the the boiling of frog metaphor, um, is perfect.

Like a simple project like a theater that is rarely used should not soak up millions of dollars of taxpayer revenue, in my personal opinion.

Um, and when we need to save money, that money should come from the people who have the most, not the people who have the least.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Roy Johnson.

Good evening.

Mayor, Council, City staff.

No one's happy tonight.

Time about death and taxes.

Death and taxes council.

Uh I'm Roy Johnson, 2547 Sweetwater Circle.

Thank you for the recent appointment.

Yeah, surprise.

Um I'm here representing only my individual viewpoint this evening and talk about taxes.

Uh later in this evening, the city manager's office will ask you to comply with their request to have then prepare a resolution to put a tax issue on the ballot for more property tax for the LaMato Great Outdoors Water Park and facilities.

Talking fast is the clouds are in here.

I urge you later this evening to direct the city manager's office to fund the ethic maintenance updates with effective and efficient management and budgeting instead of a new tax ballot question.

I urge you to end their efforts to get this in the ballot tonight so taxpayer money can be saved that would other by otherwise be used as bent to try to convince taxpayers to pass this tax and convince CASO, you folks to place this on the ballot.

In uh 2014, voters approved a new property tax for the design, acquiring, constructing, remodeling, and furnishing of the Motto Park.

And that tax to end at the end of Sierra City Manager's office argues that a new ballot issue for more tax is required for maintenance upkeep and updates.

I argue that current city taxpayer money sources should be effectively and efficiently managed and budgeted for these purposes.

City manager's office represents this represents that this tax is a small amount, a maximum of about $37 a year on the average home.

Again, funds for the state of purposes should be budgeted from general funds and not another added tax burden.

Staff previously advised that there are other possible sources for money, of money to augment the budget in this uh regard.

The amount is relatively small, which we'll hear, it's a very small amount.

City manager's office wants this tax to be a tax in a perpetuity, a forever tax, as evidenced in the proposed ballot language you have in your packet.

Well, $37 a year may deceptably be referred to as a small amount tax in perpetuity.

A bigger amount.

So please consider asking those questions, those two questions.

I agree that water park is a great facility for Lafayette residents and used by appreciated many.

It is being implied that sort of this additional property tax burden that we will somehow that somehow we can't keep these facilities.

Of course, that that is false.

The facilities can be funded by the by current budgeting and proper management.

The most affected by the stacks do not have the money to fairly present the counterarguments on such a widespread and expensive scale.

If you direct the staff to drop the strike this evening, then C can save money on brochures, mailings, bond council, surveys, push balling and staff time to try to influence taxpayers to get more tax money, and that money could be applied towards the water park as well.

30 seconds.

And two, for every dollar more property taxes, one less dollar for people to afford to buy a house.

If you're paying for more tax, you pay for that sounds.

So it's a direct correlation there.

My time is up.

If we're if we're a few seconds late, later this evening, you blame me for that.

So thank you.

Cheer up.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Ron Spaulding.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

Ron Spauding 1326, Eldorado Way Lafayette.

I just want to say every appreciate your comments at the beginning of the meeting, the mayor and call on everything.

Very tall situation all the way around.

You uh, the council, city staff, unbelievable work on and the citizens too.

Uh a lot of hot button issues just from one who had tons, a lot of stuff and all.

I know everyone in the deepness of their heart is trying the best to do everything they can to resolve it.

I'm glad to be in America.

We can come up here and talk about it.

So thank you all very much for that.

Uh I just want to follow up with Mr.

Johnson on the tax exemption ballot language.

A little bit different take.

I do understand the need for capital improvements and operation maintenance costs for Lamont's parking right outdoors water park.

However, I do not support having an extension of the existing bond debt which expires this year in a perpetuity state.

There should be an absolute term limit for fiscal responsibility and accountability purposes.

The consultant is suggesting, or at least in the letter, speaking about a 30-year term, which in reality I would consider it to be in perpetuity.

I do support a much lesser term.

Could be such as 10 years, which would be like our original debt existing bond term limit.

In the memo that we've seen, it references a multipurpose synthetic athletic field.

I don't think that this is needed.

We have an existing grass turf surface.

Synthetic fields have a number of disadvantages.

One, a high cost of insulation, heat retention.

Do you know in the summertime?

And I'm an old soccer player.

It can get up to 140 and 180 degrees heat on the field.

40 to 70 degrees hotter than the outside ambient temperature.

What this means is this injury risk.

Friction burns when you fall, slippage, and the your cleats get stuck in there, which, you know, bad ankles, hard impact compared to the existing surface.

Environmental disposal is an issue.

And there has been some concerns about cancer causing, but it hasn't been proven statistically yet.

Recent survey by the NFL players, 92% of them prefer grass fields over synthetic fields.

And if you would ask Lon O'Melsi, Leonel Messi and Ronaldo, they prefer to.

So I personally don't think it's worth the cost of synthetic fields.

And the other comment about uh a complete playground equipment, perhaps a change.

I'm over there all the time with my grandkids to serve this afternoon.

I know things wear out.

I don't see anything wrong with it today, but you know, if we're looking out to the future.

So a comment, I hope you take the comments constructively, not negatively, but in this and and uh other projects that we've looked at.

Has the city valued engineers the recommended facility improvements?

And by value engineering, I mean that is what does the recommended improvement need to do?

What's it need to do?

And the goal of value engineering is to provide the required function at the lowest total cost without sacrificing safety, quality, or reliability.

So you look at the playground, you know, check it out, maybe it needs a new one.

Maybe we don't need everything there.

The soccer fields, you know, over there today, wide expanse, maybe we don't need it.

But anyway, and I think value engineering can be done in all the projects.

Maybe have been, you know, I don't know, you know, the city hall and you know, everything.

And that probably it's being enacted in the review of all the costs.

But that's and Ray talking about trying to look at costs.

I know the stats look at all the costs.

You look at the budget of comes for you.

Uh you can't nickel and dime everything, you know, but uh you know, maybe a deeper look.

Maybe not.

So I know the city council will give serious deliberation to this bond extension proposal in light of the ONA, the recently improved $76 million capital bond uh for the new three city facilities, and increases 20% of water bill increases, you know, and that'll be going up over the next couple of years because we need it.

Property tax increases, not under your control, and as councilman Jensen said, and we're all looking forward to the state and county proposed bond initiatives, and I know it's been spoken of to look at everything.

So with all that going on, a whole ball of wax, I know you'll do a good job looking at it, and please take these as a constructive comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Not seeing any more public input or speaker request forms, I'll ask just once.

Is there anyone who hasn't had the chance to address counsel that would like to speak tonight?

Not seeing anyone, I will turn to our city clerk to see if we have any calls.

We do have one caller online, Mayor.

A caller ending in phone number 855.

Talking is now available.

And then speak when you're ready.

Phone number ending in 855.

Press star six to unmute.

Hi.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hi, my name is Josh Johnson.

Um, I and my family recently moved to Lockheed with our 13 month old who's currently resisting dinner right now.

Um we've gone to the uh water parking number of times.

Uh it's a great amenity.

We love it.

Uh in the you know, when I was reading about this issue, I started to consider like what's the what's the total cost to resident um on this on the property tax and you know $36 per year is really not that great of a thing to pay for such a great amenity that you know I think I read that a thousand um uh residents go to that per day or something like that.

Anyways, you know, it's a great facility.

We recently moved from um superior, which has two pools.

Um in this summer and next summer they're currently renovating those pools to continue to make sure that they are uh great facilities available for all users.

Um and really, you know, as a young family who plans to be in Lafayette for quite some time.

We're really excited to take advantage of the pool and we hope that to hop that the uh pool continues to be well kept, uh well ran and well updated, you know, as we continue to go to it for many, many years.

Um so yeah, that's that is our um feedback on this proposal.

Uh this is my first time uh making public comment at council.

I don't believe I need to take the full five minutes.

Um so that that concludes my comments, but please let me know if I need to fill the full five minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was the only call.

Clerk Beck.

Great.

Uh thank you so much.

But that we will close public input for tonight and move on to tonight's consent agenda.

We have a few items, including um agenda item A, June 2nd, 2026, City Council meeting minutes, agenda item B, June 16th, 2026, City Council meeting minutes.

Item C, June 23rd, 2026, City Council Workshop Summary.

Item D, which is a second reading for ordinance number 13 series 2026, amending chapter 4, fees of the code of ordinances changing certain fees related to sidewalk and street improvements and setting forth related details and item E, which is a motion for consideration of updates to the City of Lafayette investment policy.

Are there any items council would like to poll tonight?

Not seeing any.

I will take a motion.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

We have the motion to approve the consent agenda in a second.

Uh any discussion on this?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone who say no?

Oh, we have to do a roll call.

Very sorry about that, council.

Uh could we please have a roll call?

All right, we'll start with Mayor Pro Tem Barnes.

Yes.

Councilor Bolier?

Yes.

Councilor Friedland?

Yes.

Counselor Gallegos?

Yes.

Counselor Gianola?

Yes.

Counselor Jensen?

Yes.

And Mayor Tapia Vega.

Yes.

That passes unanimously.

Thank you so much.

Great.

With that, we'll move on to proclamations.

One proclamation tonight.

And for that, I will hand it over to Councillor Gianola.

Thank you, Mayor.

Tonight I have a proclamation for park and recreation professionals day, July 17, 2026.

Whereas the City of Lafayette recognizes that parks and recreation field is that the parks and recreation field is a diverse comprehensive system that improves personal, social, environmental, and economic health.

And whereas the City of Lafayette recognizes the importance and benefits of parks and recreation services that enrich the lives of its residents, help make this a community, help make this community a desirable place to live, work, and visit.

And whereas the City of Lafayette supports the skilled work of park and recreation professionals to strengthen community cohesion and resiliency, connect people with nature and each other, and provide and promote affordable opportunities for healthful living, social equity, and environmental sustainability.

And whereas the City of Lafayette values the essential services that park and recreation professionals and volunteers perform to provide recreational and development enrichment for our children, youth, adults, and older adults, and to ensure our parks and recreational spaces are clean, safe, inclusive, welcoming, and ready to use.

Now therefore, the mayor and city council of the city of Lafayette, Colorado, to hereby proclaim July 17th as park and recreation professionals day in the City of Lafayette and encourage all residents to explore the park and recreation offerings in Lafayette.

So moved.

Second.

Any discussion on this proclamation?

Councilor Gianola.

Yeah, just uh thank you to our park and recreation professionals.

We have a couple here tonight.

Appreciate all the work that you do and uh the rest of the staff uh on your teams.

Any other counselors?

Nothing further.

Can we please get a roll call vote?

Clerk back.

Counselor Bolyer?

Yes.

Friedland?

Yes.

Gallegos?

Yes.

Gianola?

Yes.

Jensen?

Yes.

Mayor Tapia Vega?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Barnes.

Yes.

That motion passes unanimously.

Fantastic.

Thank you all so much.

That concludes our proclamations for tonight, and we move on to regular business.

One agenda item under regular business, and uh this is the public hearing and second reading on ordinance number 12 series 2026, repealing and reenacting Chapter 30 and repealing Article 3 of Chapter 45 of the Code of Ordinances, adopting by reference codes regarding building, residential fire, existing building, plumbing, fuel, gas, mechanical, swimming pool, and spa property maintenance, energy conservation, electrical and wildfire resiliency.

This public hearing was noticed in the daily camera on June 21st and June 28th, 2026.

Before we do open the public hearing, we'll have a presentation from staff.

Good evening, Mayor and Councilors.

Uh my name is Kevin Shulman.

I'm the chief building official.

So we'll start with the objective, which is to present an update on the building code regulation challenges and request city council approval of the ordinance.

We'll start with a staff presentation, followed by a council questions, public testimony, council discussion, and then the proposed motion language.

So the building codes, which are known as the ICOD package, are produced by the International Code Council and they update once every three years.

The intention of those updates is to allow for new technology as well as clarifying previous uh language that's either vague or not relevant anymore.

Uh the updates are approved through a consensus process by specific committees on a national level.

The latest version that the Lafayette uh that Lafayette adopted was the 2021 code package, which was adopted August of 2023.

Uh as I said before, the code version is published every three years.

Uh and Lafayette uh just by consistency adopts about two years after that.

So the 2021 codes were adopted in 2023.

This year we'll uh present the 2024 codes for adoption.

These codes also include local amendments based on local conditions uh and processes, including work with the Boulder County cohort, which is now led by uh Dr.

Cog.

So in the area, we've got several neighbors that are going through the same uh process as we are.

Uh Lewisville recently adopted the 2024 back in December.

Uh Broomfield adopted the 2024 back in April.

Uh Boulder adopted the 2024 a little over a year ago.

And we're proposing with the energy code, so the state has a minimum uh code that we have to adopt for the energy code, which is called the low energy and carbon code.

Uh the code that we're proposing to adopt has been deemed an equivalent by the uh CEO.

Uh it's the Metro Cohort Model Code, which we've created with that Dr.

Cog group.

Um, and we have a few neighbors in the area that are considering or have already adopted uh similar amendments or the same code, um, including North Glenn, Golden, and Longmont and Superior.

So for the amendments, uh, we've consolidated the administration and scope of each of the codes into uh one code which will be housed in the Lafayette Colorado Building Code.

And the purpose of that is to clarify processes from uh vague language that appears in the vague code or then in the base code.

Um we'll also clarify our processes so they're a little more streamlined for uh the public to understand and be able to work with the city on uh and hopefully not feel surprised by requirements.

Uh we'll adopt the 2026 NEC to align with the state.

We'll begin requiring window replacement permits, uh, which was something that the city uh building division stopped doing uh in 2028 and 2020 nineteen uh when we were inundated with uh roof replacement permits after hail events.

We'll begin requiring permits for radon systems uh for new and majority remodels, and we'll eliminate an exception for existing developments uh for fire sprinklers.

So now fire sprinklers will be required in all new uh residential, single family, two family and town homes.

Energy code amendments.

The 2024 base energy code will reduce cost by 5.5% and reduce energy use by 7.25% uh over the 2021 code that's currently adopted.

Uh as I said before, the Metro Cohort Model Code will align with the state low energy and carbon code in a simplified manner.

Electrification requirements will continue.

Uh PV and EV requirements will continue, except the EV requirements will be changed slightly to align with the state.

And then we do have plans, but are not quite ready to implement uh waste diversion requirements.

More on that in a little bit.

So engagement efforts.

Uh we have a Lafayette listens page up, which includes uh code change summary, uh draft code language, and then a schedule of events and important dates.

Uh we have what uh information on the main building page on the website uh with that same information along with the schedule and of events and important dates.

And engagement efforts that we've uh completed in the past include a May 18th regular meeting with SRAB, uh which that board indicated support for the reduction in energy use, uh desire for the city to do more to outline uh the benefits of energy improvements, and uh voice no concerns related to proposed EV ready uh requirements.

Uh I also presented to City Council at the May 26th workshop.

Um at that time, council indicated support for the energy code and sustainability improvements, uh and then questions about compatibility of the energy requirements with the other codes and concern about the cost of new requirements on existing building upgrades.

I engaged with planning commission the day after.

Planning commission voted six to zero to recommend approval of the building code as drafted, and also had uh questions, comments around the following subject uh staff resources, cost and affordability, code complexity, and future waste diversion requirements.

Notable dates going forward.

Uh assuming we're uh this uh ordinance is approved tonight.

Uh staff will spend July preparing the website and public guides for changes, and then the effective dates for the new code requirements will be August 1st.

And this date will apply to all permits that are submitted on or after this date.

Uh future plans.

Staff is in the process of hiring an energy code compliance specialist, which is funded by a Dr.

Cog grant that the city received last year.

That position will aid existing staff with energy code plan review and inspections.

We'll also research strengthening code energy or energy code amendments and policies, uh, aid staff with diversion requirements and future implementation, and we'll help to create the 2029 code adoption package, which will be based on the 2027 uh ICode package.

Staff's also working with a regional group to create the requirements for the construction and demolition waste diversion, and these requirements are expected to be adopted or uh brought to the council for adoption sometime between the 2026 and 2029 code cycle.

Questions?

Great questions from council.

Councilor Gianova.

Thank you, Mayor.

I know you said it that these go into effect on August 1st.

Help me understand how this applies to or when this applies to someone.

Is it when they get a building permit or when they call for a permit?

I I just want to get a little more clarity on that.

Sure.

Uh it's when the application is submitted and formally accepted by the city.

So when an application can be accepted by the city, it includes the application and then any relevant documents.

Um so if it's not complete, then it's returned to the applicant for revision.

Um and then when it is complete and ready for review.

Now it doesn't mean it's ready for the permit to be issued, but it just means that all the documents are there so that staff can review uh the application package.

Um that anything submitted on or after August 1st will need to be submitted to comply with the 2024 ICODE package requirements.

Yeah, and the reason I'm confused is we have a lot of developments that are sort of in process and entitled in some way to have developments.

I'm just want to make sure I understand you know when those are being built, which code applies to them.

Sure.

So if it if there's a development that's submitted for a building permit and it's under review uh on or before August 1st, then it'll be under the 2021 code package.

Um that that doesn't apply to the development or entitlement process.

It it's all about when the building permit itself is permitted.

Thank you so much.

Sure.

Councilor Judson.

I'm very excited about the demolition and waste diversion and construction.

Uh but it seems like you have a long gap between 2026 and 29 cycle.

Why the uncertainty in the large amount of time in that?

Uh the reason for that is so that we can uh properly research and come up with the requirements that are going to work.

Uh one that we have staff resources to uh manage, and two that uh promote uh waste diversion rather than uh being punitive requirements for folks that may not uh and obviously the requirements are gonna apply, but the the goal is that the requirements would not be punitive.

Uh there's a couple other cities in the area that have requirements that do have um some fairly punitive measures, and our goal is to avoid that and and really encourage that.

And is there some infrastructure that we as a city would have to have in place for helping people that say dispose of concrete or things that you can't just you know put in your recycle barrel.

How would do we have something we would have to do to help make that work?

That's part of our research.

We understand that there's end users in the area, uh not necessarily in Lafayette, um, but part of our research is to figure out, you know, so that we're we're not just creating the requirements and and then telling an applicant, go figure it out, uh being able to tell people, okay, here's you know one or two different places that you can take um this recyclable waste to.

Right.

Thank you.

And then and I had one other question.

Um, following up on councillor Giannola.

So any project that's already in the works is gonna be using the older code.

Um but if it is an annexation, right?

We as council could encourage or ask for the applicant to meet newer codes that I mean, isn't it possible we could do that?

Uh that's more of a legal question, but um it as I said, it it all comes down to when the building permit itself.

Um I'm not aware of anything that we're annexing right now that is going to be ready for a building permit submittal in the next month.

Um anything that is going before council between uh now and August 1st uh could be in the running, or anything that has gone to council before could be submitted under the 2021 codes.

Um but generally uh applicants are not approved to submit for a building permit until the project has gone before council.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions from council?

Councilor Bullier.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, too quick, I can't wait to vote in favor of this.

This is very exciting.

Um in another life, uh, I worked at USAID, and one of the things we did was disaster response and just looking at the catastrophe in Venezuela as a result of insufficient building code.

So just thinking this is truly important, and I think oftentimes we give it short shrift.

So just tremendous appreciation to you and the team for your work on this.

And uh the question I have is what are you excited that's coming down the pike for us to adopt in the future in terms of innovation or the every three-year cycle for the I codes.

So most of the language that's in the new code uh doesn't move the needle too much.

Uh there's a lot of clarifications that make things easier for architects.

Uh a lot of that's highly technical.

Um I'm gonna have to bone up on it along with my staff as well.

Um there's exciting energy stuff at the state level.

Um I think the low energy and carbon code, which obviously influenced the Metro cohort code that I'm proposing.

Um I think that moves the needle a bit.

Um and it's gonna move the needle a bit more than the uh 5.5% or 7 and a third percent that that I put there because that that information comes from PNNL, and that is on that's based on the base code.

We don't have the data available to be able to actually uh quantify what the uh metro cohort model code is going to do over the base 2021 or the base 2024.

Um 2029 I know is gonna move the needle a little bit more.

Um the electrical code is gonna be completely reorganized for the first time in 80 years.

Um so that's a little exciting.

Uh a little bit scary after 25 years of reading the electrical code a certain way.

Cool.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Certainly.

Any other questions from council?

Seeing no more questions, I will now open the public hearing, and it is 6.30 p.m.

At this time we'll hear from any interested members of the public who wish to address the city council about this ordinance, which would adopt various building codes by reference.

I only have one uh speaker request form for this, so uh first we'll hear from Pete Salas.

Pete Salas.

Uh I apologize to council.

I I thought the public hearing was going to be on the uh the parked uh issue, and uh so I I I didn't realize I could have I could have talked about that earlier.

But that uh so I have nothing to say about this ordinance other than I know it sounds like it's something that really needs to be done.

And uh the work that uh uh needs to go on to uh uh uh is it related infrastructure?

Uh so I don't have um uh uh if you'll indulge me for one about 20 seconds though.

I just want to echo what has been said relative to the Great Outdoor Park and all of that.

Uh I I personally uh uh have an issue uh because I am retired on a fixed income, and it was alluded to earlier.

Some of us uh uh uh are I'm tired of being nickel and dime to death with taxes.

You passed this last one, and uh my property taxes went up.

The county's considering some other stuff.

So uh hopefully this this uh ordinance won't uh that you're considering now won't be another burden in terms of uh costing some of us who've been here a long time additional taxes.

So but I know that that work is important, and I wholly support uh efforts to improve our infrastructure and and the ordinance per se, but uh again uh I'm not sure if I'm gonna get another opportunity to address uh relative to the ballot language that on the other thing that you're uh that you're proposing.

So thank you for indulging me.

Thank you.

Uh seeing no other speaker request forms.

I'll just ask to make sure is there anyone else who would wish to address council uh on this ordinance that would adopt various building codes by reference.

Seeing none, uh I will just check if there's any calls.

No calls.

Okay.

We will close the public hearing at 6:33 p.m.

And bring it back to council discussion.

Um I think it would actually be easy as we're gonna discuss, but if you wouldn't mind moving forward to the to the motion slide, just so that's on the screen for us.

So just for council.

Uh there are any final questions.

Is there anything we we feel we need to discuss or kind of go through at depth?

Councilor Fridland.

I just wanted to say, you know, um I think when we when we have uh these presentations, we get to see our staff in action.

And um I'm always impressed.

And this is a good example.

Um really impressive.

Great presentation, great presentation before.

And I know a lot of the work that went on with Dr.

Cog to get the model code um in place.

Um I'm sure that took a lot of time as well, and I'm glad that um our staff was able to be a part of that because I think probably provided a lot of value in in that exercise.

So I'm really impressed by this.

I think it takes us a good step.

I probably wish we would go a little more aggressive with the energy efficiency and with waste diversion, but of course I would feel that way.

Um but I do think this is a great step, and it sounds like it was well thought out.

Um so I I'm really impressed by this, and I um planning to be very supportive.

Great, thank you.

Anyone else from council?

Yeah, I would just second everything, Councilor Fridland said, and I'm just very excited for the uh the 80-year electricity update.

So uh I don't know if I'll be here for that one, but I'm looking forward to it.

Great.

Uh is anyone willing to read the motion?

It's a long one.

I move to approve on second meeting, ordinance number 12, series 2026, repealing and reenacting chapter 30 and repealing Article 3 of Chapter 45 of the Code of Ordinances, adopting by reference codes regarding building, residential fire, existing building, plumbing, fuel, gas, mechanical swimming pool and spa, property maintenance, energy conservation, electrical, wildfire resiliency regulations, and the 2026 Lafayette Colorado building code and setting forth related details.

Second.

We have the motion.

We have a second.

Any discussion on this seeing none, can we please have a roll call vote?

Seeing none, can we please have a roll call vote?

Councillor Friedland.

Aye.

Gallegos?

Yes.

Gianola?

Yes.

Jensen?

Yes.

Mayor Tapia Vega?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Barnes?

Yes.

Counselor Bolier.

Yes.

That motion passes unanimously.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

That closes regular business for tonight.

We will move on to our single presentation tonight, which is the Lamont Does and Great Outdoors Water Park Tax Extension Ballot Language.

I will give them a second to set up and then hand it over to our CFO.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

Can you see?

Can you see that?

Okay.

So this evening I'm here to talk about the Lamont Does and Great Outdoors Water Park Tax Extension Ballot Language.

So the objective is to present the draft ballot language to you all and receive direction about whether to draft a resolution referring the ballot issue.

We're going to talk about a little bit of background and then potential ballot language and discussion and next steps.

So just some background.

There's a lot more detail in your packet around this, but in 2014, voters authorized 5.5 million in general obligation debt funded through property taxes to design, acquire, constructory model, furnish, and equip facilities at Lamont Does Park.

The work was funded by the bonds that was completed in 2018 and debt services anticipated to be paid off this year.

The current tax will expire at the end of 2026.

So there's an opportunity to ask the question without increasing taxes to fund ongoing capital and operations.

The facility averages about 35,000 visits a season.

The tax impact from that mill levy, the current mill levy that voters are currently paying, was around is around $34 per year for the average household over the life of the bonds.

This extension would be a dedicated source of funds to maintain and operate this critical community facility, which is currently funded through the general fund, conservation trust fund, and fees.

Capital enhancements could include improvements to the lab pool, the filtration and mechanical systems, water quality systems, and building enhancements.

So I'm going to turn it over to Melissa Heisel, the community service director, to talk about the facility itself.

Yeah.

So there she is, the original Lamontos pool, 50 years old, built in 1975.

So this park has uh long been part of the community's history, and that is the original pool that we do have today.

That corrugated metal bathhouse is no longer here.

Um here you can see the site from the construction of the water park.

Um it is a beautiful site.

The original lap pool is uh untouched, and we did expand and add parking and added a lot of really fun features that are really really popular in the community today.

And there's a more finished look at it.

You can see some of that large turf area that we would like to explore, being able to remove.

Um overall, water parks are just an expensive amenity to run.

They take a lot of ongoing repair.

Um we strive to create a safe and affordable site for community members to visit and enjoy at an affordable price.

Um, and we're able to provide that with the subsidy and investment from the community.

So additional funds would help us support those costs of this facility and at many others.

You can see in that aerial view, the um playground equipment at Lamont Doe's, which is still currently functional.

It was replaced in the early 2000s.

We do have to replace component parts of that regularly, and some of those are becoming unavailable and just out of stock just due to the age.

So just the nature of facilities of this site.

There are um pretty extensive um costs.

Uh Justin Perdue, our deputy director of recreation is also here, and we're happy to answer questions about the facility specifically.

And this is the draft ballot language uh in consultation with bond council and the city attorney as well.

Um so this is to again um in an amount not to exceed 713,000, which was in the previous 2014 ballot language.

Um for capital improvements and the continued operation and maintenance of Lamont Does Parks and related facilities.

So happy to answer any questions.

We have um parks of rec staff here as well, and um happy to answer any questions.

Can we just do the next slide and just go through next steps because I know that's that's actually my first question?

Absolutely.

Next steps.

So we're looking for direction tonight.

Uh if you'd like staff to return uh with a resolution to take this to the voters uh to refer again to refer a ballot question to Lafayette voters to extend the existing tax for the capital needs operations and maintenance of Lamont Does Park and its related facilities.

We need to bring that back to you before September when the ballot needs to be certified.

Thank you.

Great questions from council.

Councilor Jensen.

The language and related facilities in the ballot proposed ballot measure makes me a little uncomfortable because I think right now the public is like don't don't do anything unless you ask us first.

Sure.

And when you have such broad general language, um, you know, there may be some distrust about what we are going to do with that.

So I'd love to have you go on record about what that actually means and consider either refining it to be more specific to the park or um getting rid of it altogether so that if we do propose this, it can't be used for you know a bike lot that somebody might use to get here or other things that are related but aren't specifically this park.

Yeah, let me I'll respond to that and Mary Wynn can um jump in here too, because we specifically talked about it.

The actual language is um city purposes related there too, and actually what that is attempting to do is to be clear that this is about about Lamont Does Park, so that that because this is truly the only place where these funds can be spent.

So we're trying to tie it back to the original ballot language.

So we are trying to limit it to be very clear that we're using it at the law at Doe's Park.

So I don't know if the city attorney wants to weigh in on that anymore.

When when we look at these types of Tabor questions, um, first of all, we're constrained slightly by Tabor.

There's some required language that's already in there at the beginning of the question, but um as uh our CFO said we do try to read it in a way that some other city attorney or CFO or other staff in the future will read it the same way that it's intended for the voters.

And so we did craft and this this should have the latest language, so we did try to craft the language to make sure that there would be no doubt that this has to be used, these revenues would have to be used related to Lamont Does Park, not beyond it, or specifically for facilities in Lamont Does Park, um which could include a butting facilities like a parking lot.

So I mean it could be interpreted that way, but it would have to be something that's directly supporting Lamont Does Park or part of the facilities at Lamontos Park.

So I appreciate that.

I don't actually think that this language does that.

However, and we can wordsmith it too.

However, the fact that you are on record uh in this meeting as saying that gives me some confidence in that, and I hope that that is enough to clarify that it is only for this park and like abutments like a parking lot or whatever, but not for things more I don't remember, you know, yeah.

Unrelated or or not supporting the facility, right?

Right, right.

So um I feel okay that you have clarified that, even though I don't think the word in here is precisely that.

Okay.

Council Genoa.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um thank you, Councillor Jetson.

I I also had some confused confusion by the language, and so I think it could be improved.

Um I want to ask about the synthetic turf.

I didn't I haven't heard anything about synthetic turf in all the discussions that we've had on this um I realize now as I look at in the in the packet, there was the previous ballot language, which mentioned synthetic turf.

And so I appreciate the public for you know raising this and kind of giving a little bit higher profile.

I think when this ballot language originally passed, and today we've learned a lot about synthetic turf that we didn't know.

And I it sounds like to me it's going out of favor, and so I I do support that idea that we won't be looking at synthetic turf.

That's my my preference.

I I think the language is probably broad enough that we could still do that if that was that right?

Yeah, this is more broad language, so we just again it's related to that facility and what we intend to do with that based on what our needs are at that point.

Yeah, and and uh I don't know if this is more of a discussion point.

So maybe I'll hold that thought.

Yeah and and uh I don't know if this is more of a discussion point and so maybe I'll hold that thought Council Friday thank you so much for the presentation um so the way I'm reading this we would put um put a question on the ballot that would be a tax that would support one park in our community right is that do we have other taxes that support just one park in our community no we have you know designated taxes that support open space and parks and those kinds of things but not one specifically and again this is based on the previous question in 2014 so um we're that's the conversation we're having because this was done previously as related to Momontos park so it's related to that previous tax.

So yeah trying to keep it in the same vein.

Are there other um communities around us that have a tax like this that is just one park one location I I couldn't I I would just say I couldn't speak to like a a measure supporting a specific park but definitely specific facilities specific buildings um new fire station those types of things that's quite common to have a specific building or site supported by a tax um and so but we do have the post that is in perpetuity right and it's currently supports maintenance for Lamontos through the general fund it's the conservation trust fund fees and oh and post does yes does through the general fund okay um so is I guess I'm still a little confused like is the post revenue not sufficient for all of our park assets is that what we're saying and so we need additional funding for this specific park that has some failing assets.

Yeah and you know it's a it's it's a long-term important infrastructure and amenity for our community and uh so you know these facilities over time you know costs go up yeah um unexpected things and then just a wear and tear over the a 50 year old pool so you know what that looks like um and long term and as as staffing goes up as needs go up to address a more complex facility and all of those things as well um so it's an ongoing dedicated source of funding for that facility for that specific facility and so when we when we look at our operating costs do we put in you know replacement costs over time so we have a capital improvement plan where we look at that um and that's where we we um projected some of those significant costs that we have out there so we are thinking about that continually um but again uh also looking at other needs in the city so we're also competing against those needs as well and so again it's a question question of uh what you want to do now and what your priorities are understood and but so in terms of expenses I understand that there right like we're looking at capital outlay what do we need to spend in terms of revenue though right when we're looking at what rate payers that use the amenity and this is just specifically the Great Outdoors water park I know we don't charge for the park at the Lamontows Park right but when people are using the high cost right I mean it it costs to maintain water going through the summer in a location don't we put in the fees that we're assessing some thinking around replacement costs, maintenance and replacement costs?

We do, right?

We we we do but it we we use conservation trust fund and post I mean we use others other than just fees to cover that fees don't fully cover those costs.

We make a conscious decision to subsidize that's right yeah do we know how many residents are in that thousand a day what's the percentage of residents versus folks outside do we know that uh it's roughly 40 or 40 percent non-residents okay uh utilizing the the great outdoors water park got it okay but I'll until you to expand on uh kind of that cost recovery modeling that we do uh pretty much everything in in the parks and recreation world has some level of uh additional city investments beyond charges for services yeah so uh we are continuing to plan for normal operations uh that facility as a whole if we're talking about just operating dollars uh year over year uh we're recovering about 70 percent of the costs on average these last few years that does not include any of the capital infrastructure that has been replaced or any depreciation items uh that we're repairing so and there those have been substantive and will continue to be so boiler replacements any kind of painting slide refurbishment drain replacements shoring of uh the pool shell anything like that okay um and so this we heard a lot from the public about this is in perpetuity as currently written is that correct yep it is okay um did we think about that you know why did we choose that path so you know this is we're including operations the

So boiler replacements, any kind of painting, slide refurbishment, drain replacements, shoring of uh the pool shell, anything like that.

Okay.

And so this we heard a lot from the public about this is in perpetuity as currently written.

Is that correct?

Yep.

It is okay.

Did we think about that?

You know, why did we choose that path?

So you know this is we're including operations.

The previous tax was for just capital only so operations and and maintenance as well as capital.

Again aging infrastructure and so recognizing that if you have an ongoing source of funding that you're using you you you like to make that on ongoing you want to know it's there.

So you know it's there because that's staff, that's people, that's personnel that's the biggest cost there.

So yeah.

And we paid that off pretty quickly.

I mean 2018 10 years.

Yeah 10 years we paid off really quickly which is great.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Counselor Justin So I was at the water park recently and uh it was so crowded that I in some ways I was with my granddaughter I was worried about safety just because people are like running on top of each other and in the lazy river they're swimming on top of each other and I wondered is there any capacity limit when it gets to a certain space could you tell me about that please absolutely based on just the the pool design itself the number of bodies of water that are that are flowing the slides all of those amenities and place structures we certainly have a capacity I can't recall off the top of my head exactly but it's around 250 and so when we hit that maximum we're really kind of operating at a at a one out one in.

Okay and the reason I'm asking that is it costs $35 for our family with two kids to go to the right outdoors water park which I think is really hard for some families you know to go.

And I know when we had the presentation last time we talked about doing more financial aid and improving our financial aid process.

But if we get more people who go when we already have a very crowded facility I just wanted to make sure there was a mechanism to ensure safety because if we expand it by 25% and it's already overcrowded I I was just concerned about that.

But um I I did two events in Lafayette in the last week one is I went to well a little bit more than a week I went to the fireworks and the fireworks was a very diverse crowd.

I would say white people were only about 20% of the crowd and I was very excited to see so much diversity in Lafayette in our park.

Then when I went to the water park that was not true very little diversity at the park and and I worried and wondered was the cost you know a factor in that in some way so I'm if this goes forward I would like to see something that actually expands the number of people who can access all of our you know I know the program that we're talking about expanding isn't just for the great outdoors water park it's for all of our parks and recreation programming but I would like to see that expanded because I fear that we have priced some people out of being able to use our services so for me that's a kind of a uh a bar if we if we are not going to make commitments to that I don't know that I would want to support this because I feel like it it's for you know people who can maybe afford to go somewhere else but if we are doing it in such a way that we are creating help for those who can't afford it then I'd be much more supportive so that's just sort of my comment on that can I respond counselor we are working on kind of redesigning that financial assistance program.

It's been called a reduced rate program.

It's not something we've fully figured out exactly what it's going to look like but I can tell you currently it's an administrative burden to try and bet that economic need and the the income that and we want to be very careful in managing that personally identifiable information.

So we are working on a partnership with Sister Carmen to help vet that but also really looking at you know give you the the ballpark figure that we have in our minds right now but $200 annually to someone who would qualify to use at their leisure and that's for every single individual in that household.

So if it's a family of four, uh you're talking about a significant sum of money, uh $800, where that would essentially be gifted by the city, uh us as an organization.

We're also in conversations with uh the Play Boulder Foundation.

Uh they have programs set up uh with Boulder, with Longmont and some other uh nearby agencies to also gift and reimburse us at the tune of up to 250 dollars.

Uh so we're trying to work with them to identify programs and services that we could provide uh on a reimbursement basis that would also enhance that that level of equity that we would provide throughout the community.

Uh and they would be able to choose at their leisure and own discretion what they tap into with a few exceptions, something like personal training that's a little more privatized one-on-one, um, not really for the benefit of the community as much.

It's more for the individual.

Those services would be excluded, but generally speaking, a lot would be included.

And what is the timing of getting that all wrapped up and implemented in the community?

We're hoping to wrap it up this fall and really roll it out uh January one.

Counselor Bully.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um and thanks, y'all.

I I really appreciate the presentation.

I'm struggling with this, so I have a couple comments and a couple questions.

Because this is a lot of Sturm and Drang about uh dollar figure 713K that is less than the average cost of one home in Lafayette.

Um just sitting with that for a moment.

Second, $36, $37 a month per house.

A year annually.

$36 annually.

Yeah, sorry, what did I say?

You said a month.

I apologize.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um that is less than the cost of a tank of gas.

So while I fully stipulate and respect the folks who are talking about taxes and perpetuity, I think that's a very fair point.

The amount of money under consideration, I'm kind of struggling with.

And the other piece of that I'm struggling with, and I'll build to my question, is in 2014, I just looked this up to make sure I had it right in my head.

Um, ballot initiative 2B passed with 6,102 votes for and 5,755 against.

A discrepancy of 347 votes.

Now we've heard from a number of members of the community.

Uh their opposition to this draft ballot language.

Um we heard on the phone this evening from a member of the community in in favor of the park.

I I'm I guess I'm reticent to go too far down the road for something that is potentially likely to fail, um, spend a lot of time and money trying to get it over the finish line and then it's coming up short because we just passed the 76 million bond last year.

So there's I guess my first question for you all is kind of the politics of this, your read of our community, what do you think is likely to happen?

And then the second part of that, um, and I please spitball and an opinion is as much as well, is that if either we decide not to move forward with this or it fails in November, what do we do with the park?

How do we how do we cover the discrepancy, which again is an infinitesimal amount of money?

Great questions.

Uh I can't speak for the community.

Uh I would not venture to do so.

Uh I think you know, you as policymakers and our legislative body have to decide what you want to put forward.

Um as staff, we certainly have uh our insight into operations and and what we would put before you and recommend, and I think that's what we're doing now and having that dialogue with you all.

Um so uh you know, I I really can't put that completely forward.

Um then you know, if something doesn't go forward, uh we certainly will do our best to figure out.

Uh but I can tell you uh, you know, that we passed a large bond issue to uh spend $34 million dollars on the Bob Berger Recreation Center, and I I really hesitate to not fund our infrastructure appropriately.

There are nearby communities who are struggling with this to fund uh their infrastructure because uh of let's just say the lack of foresight to plan for depreciation and value and for some of those projects.

Uh and and so we would do our best with the funding that we have.

Uh but that could impact the level of service.

Thank you.

And just to so sort of build on that, I I appreciate that.

Um, in my conversations with community members, and again, we've heard from some this evening, and there's a fair bit of chatter online.

I am I'm just gonna kind of point out what I'm seeing.

Um there's a real discrepancy between younger folks in Lafayette, and by that I'll term under 50, uh, and particularly folks with families and kids who are broadly extremely in favor of this.

It's a community amenity, as counselor Jensen noted, there's a great many kids there have having a blast, and then I think a very fair concern among older Lafayette residents in terms of the tax burden uh in addition to property taxes and other things.

I would feel much more comfortable if this was a substantially larger sum of money, but I understand for because of the Malevi, it it can't be.

So I'm I'm kind of wondering for particularly for our CFO, is the juice worth the squeeze here?

Yeah.

I mean 713,000 dollars annually to support the great outdoors water park is absolutely a significant revenue stream.

Absolutely.

Okay.

I'm in favor of this.

I want this to go forward.

I'm very concerned that it will not.

And that folks who've just passed a gigantic bond issue last year will fairly say that's too much.

And the the dollar figure we've heard, even though it is less than a take of gas, we've heard opposition for an additional tax burden.

So I I guess I'm I'm sharing my concern, but I appreciate your answers.

Yeah, and I would I just just to emphasize so um you say additional tax burden taxpayers are currently paying this.

So all in how you interpret that, but just to be this would is an extension of a tax, which is why again we're bringing this forward in 2026 prior to the extension of the tax, because otherwise in the future this would be a new tax.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Counselor Gene, I'll let us see your hands.

Yeah, thank you.

Um $713,000 annually is is it a lot?

Is it a little?

What is the current operating expenses of the of the let's say the Lamontos Park?

Do we have a rough sense of where this what this covers?

I can't speak to Lamato's park, but uh operating expenses for the water park uh are uh I want to say around 450,000 dollars annually.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh and and then our capital over the last couple of years have been have been in the three to six hundred thousand range, I would say.

Yes.

And that's capital for things that were not covered by the previous bond or right.

Okay, right.

Okay, so so we're talking about an amount of money that we we have a plan for, essentially.

Yes, and one that could potentially be leveraged when we you know, in in your packet, it's 2.8 million dollars approximately or more to replace that that lap pool, that entire shell, the decking around it, all the plumbing, the mechanical uh filtration systems.

Uh so that there's I mean, it's it's certainly expensive to operate pools, but we continue to have infrastructure needs, replacement needs, uh, a boiler, uh quite literally lit on fire this year.

Uh just just before we were looking to have folks in in the water uh at uh the water park, and that's 50,000.

Yeah.

I I guess when you say you know, leverage this, can you help me understand the limits to what makes that possible?

You know, this is perpetuity.

We previously leveraged a bond measure, which this would be replacing to fund that great outdoors water park.

Sure.

But that was a 10-year.

Now we're looking at perpetuity.

How is that different?

Do we get different leverage because of that?

I can't speak to the accounting principles and those that are generally accepted practices.

Maybe the CFO can however I can I can speak to uh grant funding sources that are uh uh a little more narrow in scope that are available, some something like Great Outdoors Colorado, you know, that utilize lottery proceeds, and we have our conservation trust fund that we have been historically funding a lot of these projects through.

But we can apply for those competitive grants uh and potentially roll over funds year to year to have a greater leverage because there are matching requirements associated with those.

Okay.

Any comment about the the perpetuity versus like a 10-year period?

Well, I you know, I I I guess I would say, I mean, we have some significant capital needs, and so I mean, 713,000 to other question about is it too little too much?

I mean, it is a significant amount of money, recognizing that you're also gonna want to save some of that and then over time be able to support your capital needs.

So I mean, I guess that so we we need the we need that long-term stream of funding and recognizing that it is just an aging, it's aging infrastructure.

So you're gonna continue to have these expenses, these costs.

Um, and so that's on that's ongoing.

That's that's why you really look at um the in perpetuity.

Yeah, and I guess I'm just trying to understand or get some clarity on this to whether I can support an in perpetuity or uh a 10-year, 15-year, 20-year something that's that you know, I think there was uh a member of the public who said, you know, being financially responsible.

Like we don't just have you know an infinite stream of money coming in necessarily, and you know, uh rightly so.

We may not want to plan for that.

We may we may want to think about that.

Yeah.

And if you did want to limit it, I would say um, you know, 20 to 30 years, maybe.

I the the is if you can uh have some financing stream a little bit longer term so that you you could pay for some improvements up front and be able to pay that debt over time so that um you can you don't have to pay the costs later as they they rise over time.

So um that's the benefit of having a you know not just the 10 years is so that you can you know you can finance against that and potentially do some of those longer term capital projects.

Thank you.

Uh just maybe one other question, I think for the city attorney.

What is the process?

Let's say in 10 years we have this perpetuity.

What is the process for removing such a tax from the burden of the city of Lafayette residents?

Uh the city council could pass an ordinance to remove the tax.

It would not require another election to to end the tax.

Okay.

That is helpful.

Thank you so much.

Great.

We'll get into discussion at some point, but I just want to make sure there are no questions.

Counselor Gallegos.

Um no question.

I'm just personally struggling with this.

I love our water park.

I bring my kids all the time.

I love that mommy bloggers also love our water park.

So they're coming and filming and posting reels and sharing about it.

And they're bringing in some members as well.

Um the thing I'm struggling with is that original ballot question back in 2014 said 10 years.

And I'm wondering if that 10-year expiration date may have swayed people's decision on our most recent capital improvement question.

And I just wanted to share that.

No real questions.

Okay.

I think we're ready for the discussion around this.

Um, Counselor Jensen, do you have some?

No, not a question.

Discussion.

Go for it.

Why don't you start us off?

Um I really generally object to in perpetuity tax increases.

And I I think the voters in 20 years may not want this, and they may be different than the people today.

That maybe we become so expensive in Lafayette that nobody with kids can afford to live here, and the park is no longer valuable to our community.

So I in general, I think it's just sort of undemocratic to uh do things in perpetuity.

So I would be in favor of looking at some other time frame if we are going to do this.

And I do think it is a well-used community asset.

And it's clear that people love this part just by how many people go there.

And I think it would be um a shame to have that asset not be in good shape and to be you know deferred maintenance where it's gonna cost us more money in the long run.

And I think putting it before voters gives them a chance to agree or disagree with us, and you know, we are not deciding, we're just allowing the voters to decide.

I think this ballot year is gonna be really tough uh to get voters to focus on anything because there's gonna be so much on the ballot, and that will be challenging.

And also, as I understand it, we as council can individual members can have an opinion about this, but we can't really campaign for it.

I mean, what are the rules about that, uh, city attorney?

Can we, like if I'm out in the community talking to people and I really want to to draw this to their attention, what can and uh can't I do when I'm talking to people?

Well, prior to the ballot title being set, which if you decide to move forward would be um at one of your meetings in August, I think the first meeting.

No, second meeting.

Okay.

Um, prior to that, you can talk to the community and anyone as much as you would like about um this uh proposal um in your individual capacity.

You could and then even after the ballot title is set, there are some restrictions on you being able to discuss it in a council meeting or using council resources, you're not able to do that with one exception.

You can have a meeting and pass a resolution in support of the ballot measure.

Um outside of council meetings and outside of utilizing city resources, you can continue to talk to residents about the ballot measure and your individual capacity.

You just have to be clear that you're doing it on your own time and doing it with your own resources.

Um but until we set that ballot title, you're there are no restrictions on speaking to the community about this.

So if someone comes up to one of us at Art Night Out after we've set it for the ballot, what can we say?

I I would recommend you step away from a council booth if you happen to be in one and um or that you ask them to maybe talk to you when you're not manning that booth or supposed to be there, but that you could talk to them in your personal time when you're not conducting city business.

Okay.

All right.

That's all I have.

Great.

Before we move on from you, Councillor Jensen, I just want to confirm.

You are leaning towards a yes, but you want a certain set amount.

You don't want this in perpetuity.

Is that what I'm hearing?

Great.

Thank you.

Any other members of council want to jump in?

Councillor Gianolo?

Thank you, Mayor.

I I have had mixed feelings about this since it's been brought to us.

And those feelings are still there.

Some of the concerns that I've had in the past, you know, I think Councilor Burlinger, thank you so much for your comments earlier to talk about the dichotomy in who this impacts and how this impacts potentially impacts, I should say, our residents, right?

Um some of those comments have have helped me feel better about this.

Some of the answers to the questions that I've heard tonight helped me feel better about this.

Um like Councilor Jensen, I don't love the idea of an in-perpetuity uh tax increase.

Um I think there might be things that the community can support in perpetuity.

Open space seems to be one of those ones that we can get it in perpetuity tax, and it allows us to leverage you know the ability to purchase open space in in a different way than we could uh without that.

Um potentially could let us do things here that we couldn't do without that as well.

So I I do see the benefits that could come from it.

Um because the original ballot language was not in perpetuity, I struggle with the is it a tax increase?

I think that's one of the questions that I've I've asked in the past.

Um I know it's an annual tax amount, and therefore it's not a tax increase by the letter of the law, but by the spirit of the uh what that means to the public, I think the answer might be different uh in perpetuity.

And so I I would say I would be stronger in support of this if it were limited to 10 years makes sense to me based on the original ballot language, but I could be flexible on that.

Um thank you, Councillor Gianola.

Councilor Bullier?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um thank you, Councillor Giannolo, for your for your comments and counselor Jensen as well.

I I also really greatly appreciate staff's presentation.

The the struggle I feel with this is I think adjacent, but a little bit different than Councillor Ginell's because I I want us to continue to invest in this specific amenity.

And I genuinely struggle with um the $36 per year, not month.

I genuinely struggle because that is such a small amount of money.

And in Candor, uh I am confused by some of the the pushback as if we're talking about a much larger bond issue, in which case I would be maybe more comfortable with some of uh the of the pushback.

I think for me, um I am gelling towards this not in perpetuity that I'm hearing.

Uh, and I would be curious for staff's recommendation on because you know we could pick a nice round number 10, 15, 20, but I'd be curious for staff's recommendation on all right, we need X dollar figure to invest, do the capital improvements, protect the resource, but beyond a certain date, you know, we we can't really foresee in order for us to be fiscally responsible for for the long term.

So I'd be curious for what that recommendation might be.

Um I think probably at least eight years at the top of my head, but I would I would defer to staff's recommendation on that.

Um, the next thing I think uh the the gentleman on the phone, I'm kind of over-indexing on these comments because uh the crying baby in the background.

And I I truly I think this dichotomy between um you know young children, young families who are coming up in in our city, and Councillor Jensen rightly pointed out, like we don't want Lafayette to become so unaffordable that people can't raise their families here.

And I completely agree.

But as we've heard from Councillor Gallegos and the gentleman on the phone and others, uh folks are currently raising their families here, and we do hear broad support for investment in this specific amenity among others from those people uh who are raising children and have, in addition to the housing costs that we all bear, also have child care costs, which is Councillor Jensen authentic notes is approximately $2,000 a month per child in Bulwark County, just astonishing and insane.

So I I guess I'm broadly in favor.

I I would flag, I'm very worried that this would not pass.

Um I'm I'm happy to uh it endorse it and support.

But given the stuff ballot, Councillor Jensen says noted the very large bond we passed last year.

Um I'm I'm worried about that path.

And so then I would be concerned about going far down a path that ultimately is going to get some pushback, but but we don't know.

And I think you know, considering again, $36 per year per house is such a small amount of money that I think that is uh uh acceptable.

Um but I really appreciate your point as well on the imperpetity piece.

And there was one final thing I want to hit.

Um it's escaped my brain.

But those are my initial pieces of.

Can I ask a question?

Please I mean, is there a change to this that you could foresee if you're worried about it passing that could be better to achieve that?

Help to achieve that.

It's a great question.

I don't know, and I would defer to our city attorney in terms of like what the realm of possible is ballot language until we get that other ballot issue through ballot language is indecisorable and decipherable to most people.

But you know, I I think we have one water park.

We've heard that it's overcrowded.

I would love it if we had it.

I just said crowded.

Okay.

I said overcrowded.

Um we've heard that it's crowded.

I I would love if there were other water parks, other places, something that we've heard a lot from uh Lafayette's young people, not uh necessarily little kids or kids in college, but like teenagers.

Because there's not that many places to hang out in town, and so they go to neighboring municipalities and spend their money and hang out there, and so other investments that that we could do to provide places, safe places for them to spend time.

I'd be really interested in, but I don't want to derail us from the topic at hand.

I'm rambling, but I guess I'm broadly in favor.

I'm worried about its success, and I find the uh extremely low figure not threatening, and I agree that in perpetuity is probably not the right call, and I would welcome staff guidance on what the potential uh length of it could be.

Thank you.

Correct, Councillor Jensen.

Yeah, I wanted to respond to your question about what might make it more palatable.

And and I wonder to the extent that we are already working on a more equitable sort of financial aid package for folks in our community who can't afford things, if there's some language that sort of says concurrent with this financial aid package being developed along with this tax, so that those people who m might feel like $36 is a burden will understand that we're also working on trying to find a way around the burden of these kinds of facilities for them and just general language, not real concrete, but but letting people know that we're also working on that.

And I'd I'd love to have our city attorney's opinion about whether we could stick that in here because if we're not they're not really appropriate proving that because it's already happening.

So I'm just curious if we can put some language in there about that.

Um there's a couple of places you could put it.

Um whether we could put it in the ballot measure.

I mean, we can we can be that specific in the ballot measure.

Um another place where that might be appropriate would be in educational materials about the ballot measure that uh the city staff are able to, or the city is able to put out after the title is set.

Um we are allowed under Tabor to have uh to put informational materials out about the ballot measure, as long as they don't advocate for or against the measure.

In like resolutions that we pass where we have the whereas clauses, and then we have the therefore be it resolved clause.

Oh, we could definitely put it in.

Actually, that's a great idea.

We could put it in the resolution setting the ballot title.

You could put it in your resolution if you choose to pass one that supports and urges voters to vote one way or another on it uh after you set the title.

Those are absolutely places we could make that um known as well.

That's a that's a great idea.

Council Friend.

Um I think I'm probably the most out of step with this council on this.

Um which is probably not surprising, but interesting.

Um I have a lot to say about like our philosophy around running a water park as a public entity, a water park that is losing needs to be subsidized, and whether or not we are charging the right rate to uh you know, clearly it's popular, clearly there's folks from outside of our community, and yet our community is having to subsidize it.

I don't know.

It just uh it's a choice.

And you know, uh we want it to be equitable to our folks, and I think we can figure out ways to do that.

But um that just seems like an odd decision for us to make.

Um, I also wonder if you know the decision to build a water park was made back in you know 2014, 2015.

Would we make that decision today?

Are we putting money against an asset that um is has water outdoors when it's ridiculously hot, you know, right now in the summer, 90 degree day.

I don't know.

I mean, like maybe we should, maybe we should.

Anyway, I'm gonna set that aside because I just want to read the language directly and think about what's ahead of us.

Um to me, um having there's two challenges here.

Um, actually, there's three challenges.

The first one's the perpetuity concern.

I definitely share that concern.

I think there are certain taxes open space that I think it makes sense for.

There's other things like mental health that I don't think it makes sense for.

Um, and this is one of those things that I'm not sure it makes sense for.

The other challenge I have is I think banking operations costs and maintenance on uh ballot language that the people can say no to a bad revenue assurance.

Maybe we'll get it, but maybe we won't.

Then what do we do?

We continue to subsidize it.

Um the third piece is it says Lamont Dose Park and related facilities, right?

So again, I'm gonna think about this in terms of like Lamont Dose Park, which I love, um, and I think is a fantastic asset in a fantastic part of our community that really greenspace is valuable in that area.

Um I have a little bit of an issue with us having one dedicated to my question before, a dedicated for a specific park that's paid for by the whole community.

Um I just think that seems weird to me.

Like, should we also then next year do one for the park that's on the southwest side?

That's specific for that one, and then we're starting to get locked into like 700,000 for this one annually, 500,000 for this one annually only.

It just seems like a weird way to do business to me.

Um we have the right solution to do business, it's what we've already passed.

And if we need to expand that, because we have increased costs, then let's have that conversation.

Um I don't know, it just it just strikes me as an odd way to do it.

And I think at the end of the day, to me, this is the bottom line.

We have an opportunity to continue a tax without saying, you know, without imposing a new tax.

We have that opportunity.

And we're now looking for a solution to fill that opportunity.

And that's fine, but I don't feel like we've really said it in that way.

And to me, that feels a little bit odd, um, a little bit misleading to me, quite frankly.

And I think the people as they see this conversation, if we do direct this vote eventually to for this to go on the ballot, I think they'll see the same issue.

And to me, that's just not I don't love that.

If we have a need and we have increased costs, and our existing tax base does not support what we need, we should talk about that need and we should put it on the ballot, and we should ask the people to support it.

Um, but this one I just those are my issues.

But um, I will say certainly specifically perpetuity seems like a challenge for this one.

Um, so I'm in agreement there.

Mic dropped.

So can I can I just poke on that a little?

Please.

Because I I do think that this discussion about the specific tax for a specific park is is interesting.

And I guess what what I'm wondering, are you thinking, you know, is could there be an opportunity to broaden this and say to support parks in Lafayette generally?

Or are you saying I mean, is that a way that could address that?

I mean, what if there's a time when we don't need any maintenance operations, maintenance or capital improvements at the Lamont DOE's, we just don't take the money, I guess.

Um then it's a challenge because if we have another need and we go to the voters, they're gonna say, Oh, you guys haven't been taking the money that you've been you know allocated that you're able to take, but you've decided not to.

But I will approve this other one that you'll take.

But there's nothing that the voters can do to keep us from taking this spot again.

So they're not gonna want to support us if they think that rationally.

Support us on this one because you're not taking this one, but we could just say support us on this one, and then in a year, oh, we're gonna take this other one too, because we yeah, yeah.

You know what I mean?

So I think yes, that like I just don't view this as a wise way to have our tax base structured.

Um we need flexibility.

We need the ability to say this opportunity comes up, we have money around parks and open space, and it allows us to go and pursue the needs as they come and not just so specific.

Um, capital, right?

Um but so anyway, I'm getting back to great outdoors.

I I don't want to.

Does that answer your question?

It it does, but I just wonder do we need a broader discussion on that?

Um around this opportunity for not imposing a new tax.

Yeah.

And I one of your pieces though is also right, like the specific, right, which is a concern to me.

I don't know if we can do that.

It has to be a similar topic.

So we can't there's the reason why it says Lamont Doz and related facilities specifically, because that's what allows us to say without imposing a new tax.

So we can't broaden this one.

Yeah, yeah.

We could broad another another one, it can be bigger, but we can't broaden this one because to keep it under Taver rules, it has to be the same amount or less and the same topic.

Yeah.

Council Bullier, and then I'm gonna reach out to the two folks I haven't heard from yet.

So prepare, if you will.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh counselor Ferland, I'm gonna come at you.

Come on.

Um a few thoughts.

One, you've really helped me uh cohere in my head what I was struggling with.

So thank you.

Um on is this kind of like too clever by half in a way.

Um the thing I will respond to though, in terms of it loses money and we subsidize it.

I'm struggling with that one because like we we subsidize the library, right?

The library's not a money.

But but this is such unique amenity to the community, and I I wonder if I and maybe others have been distracted in this particular topic by the fact that like we all are broadly in favor of this excellent amenity want to invest in it.

So I think you've helped me kind of focus on on the Tatzache, the um the key item uh that that really we need to dig into, and that is is it a weird way to do business and the budget through kind of like ad hoc budget issues?

And that's kind of where I was trying to get earlier, where I would feel more comfortable if this was like a five million bond we were putting for the voters to address a huge panopoly of Lafayette challenges and invest across the city than in what is such a small extraordinarily reasonable uh per household dollar figure, which then it's like kind of like are we just is this juice worth the squeeze?

So I I really appreciate that.

I guess um maybe my question for for the table is are we broadly in favor of of this um uh dollar figure, if not approach?

I'm curious about that, like I'm trying to wrap my mind around that.

Thank you, Mayor.

Great.

Um can I just quickly place a library is very different than a water park.

I just want to say that out loud that like these are very different pursuits, and in my opinion, we should be subsidizing certain things, but like if we can capture our costs on something that people will pay for, and it's I mean a water park, right?

Like there are certain places where we should be charging the cost that it costs.

And there's places where we should be subsidizing.

And I guess I'm in the minority here of opinions, but to me a water park doesn't pass that test where like we have to be subsidizing the water park, right?

I it's very those are very different things.

And um I would love to give everything to everybody, of course, right?

But like we have to make these priority decisions.

And to me, water park, I'm willing to let that one go and say that needs to be the market needs to decide.

People, if they can't afford to go to the water park, then that's so be it.

But the that way we can then make the decision, we are gonna subsidize a library.

We are gonna subsidize X, Y, and Z.

And so anyway, I just wanted to respond to that.

I don't view those two things as equivalent.

Yeah.

Great.

That's it.

Uh two counselors haven't heard of counselor Igos.

Something that would be helpful to me is maybe a timeline.

Should this pass in year one, we are gonna resurface the original pool or bring it back to life in some way, or um, you know, you had mentioned something about expanding the season when the rec center is down foreclosure.

What does that look like?

Are we putting a dome on that?

Is that something we're anticipating to happen the first year?

So that's something that would be helpful, I think to me and to the voters as well.

And just generally, uh, I'd love to get your thoughts on where you're leaning on this, more of a yes or no, and then of course the one that's been brought up, which is that timeline 10, 20, 30 years or just in perpetuity.

So I'm leaning towards yes because I love the water park and it's bringing in people from all over the state, and anyone I bring to the water park, they want to come and enjoy it on future visits.

I don't know if I am in favor of in perpetuity, I think a shorter timeline.

Great, thank you.

And uh Mayor Pro Tem, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this particular issue.

Thank you, Mayor.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

So I love all of the points made, and I I really appreciate it.

And uh I I hear the dissonance between this being a low cost for some and negligible for others and the different populations and the need to provide a space for all.

Uh I'm I'm gonna paint that across.

That's our reality is that some people aren't gonna be able to afford this, and others are.

And it's a very low amount.

Um relative to the other funds that we collect.

Uh I'm gonna leave that as this is a good opportunity, I think, to take care of those who can't get over this financial burden.

And also welcome those who can uh continue to going to go to the park.

And I'm pretty sure I heard our treasurer say that we can leverage against this this revenue source for the park.

Uh and I I see that as a way to hold steady with something that is not just an amenity for people to be cool.

I mean to cool off.

Um but I I feel like it's a community asset.

It has a long history.

It's a piece of what Lafayette is.

I I agree with you all.

Uh and no one said this, but I'm gonna say it that maybe this wasn't the best way to arrange the financing for this initially and the way to manage it.

Uh it is what we have, and it's a significant piece of this community.

It's a known it's a known location.

And it is in my view as a resilience area for for the community.

It's easily accessible to members of the community that um might need to get to it.

And I was uh I I know everyone here it sounds like everybody's in support of having it.

Uh how it's supportive though is a question.

So I would say I'm for leaving their in perpetuity there with what our treasurer said is that we'd leverage that source of revenue or income to support it to get other funding so we didn't have to continually use those funds over time, and let's work on moving it off so we don't use these funds.

And this can be overridden.

I think our attorney said it pretty clearly that if we decide this is not something um that works, then we can overturn it.

But I really want this to get to the residents to vote on it and let us know if they um how they feel about this is one of those.

I I feel I feel pretty strongly we need to get this into the hands of the residents.

If they smack it down, then you know they've they've spoken.

Uh it is a tax of them, so I would like to get this uh in front of them.

And a question about doing this for other parts, I don't think we'd ever I guess the sense that we would never do this.

This is not some some practice that we would continue, and I would hope that even you know not this council or future councils would decide that this is a great way to set up um for one specific park.

So I'm I'm for it, keeping it in perpetuity.

Uh and uh the last piece I guess is that I I remember pretty clearly that there were people who didn't really understand council advocating for um the capital funding projects and I I think person individually, yes, we can express our opinions as as our attorney mentioned, like not on the not on taxpayers' dollars.

Are we going to advocate for something that we've just put forward uh that we think is important?

So uh I'm for it in perpetuity, and I want to let the voters um decide.

And if they choose against it, then uh that's when we find from them, get feedback from them, what they'd like to like us to do now.

And uh I'm since I haven't said anything yet.

If anybody has any questions to clarify, please let me know.

Thank you, Mayor Proton.

Uh so here's where I'm at, just from my notes.

It sounds like there's support to to push this uh to a resolution that comes before us.

And with that, I will say we're not voting tonight, right?

Uh we can still very much vote against the resolution if that is what happens.

Uh the one thing I am hearing overwhelmingly is that timeline.

Um not in perpetuity is what I'm hearing.

I'm not hearing any specific numbers being thrown out.

Uh I'll kind of throw this back to council.

Is there a specific number anyone now wants to throw out?

I think if I had to do this, I would ask our staff to kind of look at this and come back with some sort of recommendation and base that recommendation on just what they know and what could actually be leveraged and how we can actually use these funds properly and what timeline that looks like.

Um but I'm open to thoughts from other members of council.

Yeah, I I mean I'll agree with that.

And Counselor Gay goes, I think your your points I appreciate those to say here are the projects, here are the timelines.

I mean, we've seen that with you know the other bond initiatives and you know, this isn't exactly the same in the in perpetuity version.

I don't know if the specific timeline do we have to put a dollar amount.

I don't know the answer to that.

If we say, you know, we in this version we say no more than $113,000 annually.

In the bond one, we say some amount funded by, you know, uh the the annual amount.

Um and so I don't know if those you know, will that scare people off if we say let's say it's a 10-year and now it's supporting a five million dollar bond.

Does that scare the the public from supporting it?

Because we just had this I don't even remember how big the number was last year.

Um and just just a question or a thought.

Um, but I I do like the idea of a little less squishiness.

Is that something our CFI wanted to address?

So just so again, this is all the way the question is structured is based on Tabor.

And so that 713 is a number that was in the previous tax question.

And so that's why that question is structured that way, and that's when in talking with our bond council as well as our city attorney, that that's the necessary language.

Yes, and and in the previous bond question it said shall office debt be increased 520 five million five hundred and twenty thousand dollars with a maximum repayment of seven point four million dollars with the taxes increased by seven hundred and thirteen thousand dollars annually.

So that was all in the bond question right, because it was for debt and construction, and so this is for operations and maintenance.

So the number that's the critical number is the maximum number that you can raise through this revenue.

Yep, and and I guess I'm wondering if we're using it for our capital improvement, could we put numbers on that?

Yeah, we we could.

We have the ability to do that.

We did it before.

We could have basically the same ballot language come back and say, for the Shall the City of Lafayette debt be increased 5.52 million.

But are we?

Are we necessarily bonding on this?

Yeah, this does not assume bonding.

And when I say financing, I don't necessarily mean bonding, it could be other potential financing.

Okay.

So it depends on, you know, there's phase projects, they're not they're not 74 million dollars, they're smaller amounts.

So um yeah, this is this doesn't assume um again, I don't know what the financing structure would look like at this point, recognizing that you'd have a funding stream longer term potentially.

So um but this does, yeah, that's why it's structured different, because it's not based on a specific debt amount in construction.

Thank you.

And and uh Mayor, if I may, um one thing that we can do is consult with our bond council to see if we if there is any intent to potentially use this revenue for um bonding if if we do need to add specific language about debt to the question B.

Because that's what Tabor would require.

So um and to so I would like to see if our bond council can advise us on that, and we'll be sure to be prepared to either have that language in here or have that as an option when this comes back to you if it is needed based on what how council wants to proceed.

Um so we'll we'll definitely consult with our bond council on whether we need to mention debt um and an amount based on uh how the city intends to use the revenues.

Great.

Uh it sounds like that resolution will come to us, Councilor Jensen.

Do you have something?

I just wanted to say I think having it not be in perpetuity will help its chances of passing.

I think some additional language about the corresponding uh financial aid will help its ability to pass, so I want to make sure we we get those right.

And I think your point, Mr.

Mayor, uh about having staff look at exactly what should be the time frame and having it based on some something concrete that we could say to the voters, this is why we pick 15 years or whatever it is we picked, I think would be helpful.

And I wanted to say to David, I think you're absolutely right.

This is not the best way to build uh an automobile.

But TABER is is not the best way to run a government.

And so I I think there are there are many reasons why if we could do something in a better way, we would.

But I I think this you know, taking advantage of without imposing a new tax language for an asset that the community clearly dearly loves is an opportunity that we just can't, you know.

If we could do it better, I would love to do it better, but I don't think we can right now.

And so I appreciate what you're saying about this is no way to run railroad.

You know, I get it.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

I think that's it.

All right.

Thank you all so much.

We'll close presentations with that and move on to two council appointments.

The first one is I don't think there's a presentation project.

So I'm just gonna lead us through these.

Uh hopefully I do a decent enough job.

The first one is for our downtown development authority.

Um so just how I'll start.

Okay.

So this is different from our this is separate from our regular board and commissions recruitment.

And that's because it's governed by state statute, so it's a completely different structure.

Um the DDA board consists of one member of City Council, and I believe that is our mayor pro tem.

And I'll give you a second to speak in a second, Mayor Pro Tem.

I'd love just to hear about the DDA and about this before we uh uh we make these uh appointments.

Um but to establish continuity of the board, the statute at the state requires that the initial appointments be staggered before transitioning to standard four-year terms.

So going back to 2025 when we originally uh had members of the DDA.

Um the city conducted a recruitment process for the inaugural DDA board following interviews with applicants, then Mayor Mangett appointed the initial board members and city council subsequently reappointed the two members whose terms expired on January and June 30th, 2025.

Uh the next initial terms are those of Tom Hardy and Ian Munding, which expire on June 30th, 2026, uh and both have expressed interest in continuing to serve and have been active contributors to the board.

Um with that, I will turn it over to our mayor pro temp.

I don't uh I hate to put you on the spot, but you are our member of the DDA, and I'd just love to hear from you about your work with these two members of our DDA over the last year or so.

Yeah, put me on the spot.

Uh yeah, I would like to say that the DDA has been a really welcomed infusion of really for good great forethought as to how to um fortify our downtown area, not just old town, but the whole DDA area.

And I think a lot a lot is coming out of what the structure that the DDA has put in place.

And Tom Hardy and Ian Munding are very significant members.

Everyone on the DDA has a very strong interest in ensuring that what old town and the DDA were continues, and we support small businesses and improve the wayfinding infrastructure, uh small business concerns, and they are all everyone on the DDA is is uh business owners right now.

We don't have any residents on there, which I see coming in the future, but we're not quite at the point where we have a clear understanding of all the nuts and bolts of what the DDAR uh is.

So I really look forward to continuing with Ian and Tom until we and you will see in uh August with a wayfinding the way we'll approach wayfinding finding is announced.

We've got networking uh meetings that are happening for residents who need it, really need that and are supporting it.

We have a culture grant that is also supporting the small businesses and the some of the pillar uh values that Lafayette upholds, and it will lay over the South Area plan.

So I I think the DDA is in a great place, and um I think the more that you interact with the DDA, you'll understand how it's forming and have input to to move it forward.

So I think we're in a great place, and uh I look forward to getting all the uh loose ends in the question of how do you transition from a lura to to a DDA uh in place, and then we're off and running it, and there's even a second Friday, which will extend art night out uh through the year.

So I think that the DDA is doing great work.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Time, and thank you for all your work on the DDA.

Um because via state statute they're technically the mayor's appointments.

I'll go ahead and just read the the motion if that's okay with everyone.

I move to approve the following appointments or reappointments to the Lafayette Downtown Development Authority Board.

Uh Tom Hardy with the term expiring June 30th, 2030, and Ian Munding with the term expiring June 30th, 2030.

Second.

There we go.

We have a motion, we have a second.

Uh any discussion on this?

Councilor Gianola.

Um just in full disclosure, I wanted to mention, you know, Tom Hardy runs the confluence co-working.

And I rent a space at Confluence.

I don't believe there's any conflict due to this, but I just wanted to put that out there for full disclosure.

That um that said, you know, I I have no Tom.

I've attended a handful of the DDA meetings uh when it was kind of going.

I had you know thought about applying for it before I had run for council.

Love everything they're doing.

Uh Director Keating is doing a great job with them and and the DDA board members themselves are all doing great things, glad to have them as part of our community.

Um thankful for their work.

Great.

Thank you, Councilor Gianola.

Any other thoughts, discussion on this one?

Councillor Bullier.

Just one quick one.

Um I have noticed that recently in the press uh regarding a potential DDA in Boulder.

Uh there's credit given to DDAs in Fort Collins, uh, I think in Longmont and elsewhere.

And uh I just want to sing our DDA's praises and I want us to uh engage and talk to the Daily Camera because we've been a leader in this space for a while, and I want us to get our due credit.

Um and I I think your conflict of interest is acceptable.

So thank you, Mayor.

Great.

We have a motion, we have a second.

Clerk Beck, could we please get a roll call vote?

Councillor Gallegos?

Yes.

Gianola?

Yes.

Jensen?

Yes.

Mayor Tapia Vega?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Barnes?

Yes.

Councilor Bollier?

Yes.

And Friedlin.

Yes.

That motion passes unanimously.

Great.

Thank you so much.

And we are to our second uh council appointment, which is a confirmation of the council working norb subcommittee.

A second subcommittee.

I'm excited about this.

Um this is kind of a I think a longer history now, right?

This is this is what it came to.

We we started as a council in last December, and we got right to work and there's a lot to work on.

So of course those meetings are going to be long, and of course, there's uh there's a lot of work to get done.

Uh, but that kind of sparked interest to see how we could be more efficient with our time and how we could be better about the amount of time that we spend here in this room and how how we go about doing that in maybe a shorter time frame.

And then that's sparked interest of really building uh the norms around how we work with each other and maybe something that could stand the test of time for future councils.

Uh just understanding, you know, these are the working norms, and this is what we agreed to.

And at our last workshop, I think it the idea of a subcommittee is where it came.

So I'm very excited about the work that could be done here and what that could translate to in our in our every Tuesdays.

Um I believe the two members are counselor Gianola and uh Mayor Pro Tem Barnes, from my understanding.

That's right.

I just wanted to give them a chance to kind of address council and tell us a little bit about it, or if any other counselors want to want to jump in, this is also the time.

I could start and say I'm I'm happy to be part of this subcommittee and and figure out what we can do to make the the council run more efficiently.

You know, we've started slow.

I mean, I think nothing is really taking shape, although Deputy City Attorney Poe has uh sent us some materials to help us kind of get kick-started.

And um the Mayor Pro Tem and I have exchanged some emails about scheduling.

Um and so we're we're I think we're excited to to get this discussion going.

And Mayor, I'll just say I'm really honored to be part of this as Councillor Gianola said, we do have uh a starting point, and I think we all have had a a lot of uh how should I say reflection upon what we what we'd like to see.

And uh I think there's there's already some elements we can put in place.

So uh I think we're in a good place and uh look forward to coming up with a starting point and then of course we'll iterate on that uh over time to improve upon it.

And I I look forward to being able to share this with future councils and see what they would like to use.

Great, thank you.

I'm excited and thank you both for taking this on uh and doing this work for the rest of council.

Uh with that, just to formalize things, I would love the motion.

I I move that we form a subcommittee with Mayor Pro Tem Barnes and Councillor Gianola to look at council norms.

Second.

We have motion, we have a second.

Any discussion on this?

Seeing none, we'll take a roll call vote, please, Clerk Beck.

Councilor Giannola?

Yes.

Jensen?

Yes.

Mayor Pro I'm sorry, Mayor Tabia Vega.

Yes.

Mayor Portem Barnes.

Yes.

Counselor Bolier.

Yes.

Friedland?

Yes.

And Gallegos.

Yes.

That passes unanimously.

Great.

Thank you.

That concludes our two council appointments tonight.

We'll move on to staff reports, beginning with our city attorney's report.

Thank you, Mayor.

I don't have anything to report for council this evening.

Thank you.

Now on to our city manager's report.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

So just one item tonight for some updates.

We have several surveys in the work, as you have seen recently.

Six, I believe, uh to be the case.

But I wanted to point out for the benefit of the community, two that are more timely and have a um closing date here in the next few weeks.

The first one is our Bob Berger Rec Center Services and Amenity Survey.

This closes July 2nd.

We will also have staff at Art Night out with um mobile kind of iPads for residents to be able to fill that out.

But if uh they want to do it on their own time, the link is provided right there.

We also are um conducting kind of a design team for options around the intersection of uh Colorado 42 or Empire and Baseline Road.

And so the short survey will um help with the design team kind of leading to different priorities of those traveling around the um CO42 uh inner way.

And then um finally just want to announce for the benefit of the community our annual public safety day is Wednesday, July 15th from 10 a.m.

to 2 p.m.

Um it is at our park that we just discussed.

So please park at the Great Outdoors Water Park.

The actual event is within the Lamontos Park, and there'll be hot dogs and fun and drones and all sorts of things.

So please please join that and send your kids.

Well, could you just say a little bit more about what happens at that?

I certainly cannot, but our chief loves to speak in public and would enjoy responding.

I certainly do.

Thank you for having me.

Um it's an annual event we've done for I think 18 to 20 years.

Um so we will have different events going on.

We'll have the fire department there, we'll have cars that they'll be cutting up to show their tools that they have.

We'll have Flight for Life come and have a helicopter land, depending on if they're available.

Um then we have all of our tools out there also.

We have our police bikes, our motorcycles, all of our equipment so that the kids can interact with us.

So it's an event we love to do.

We love to be around the children, um, be able to show the kids what we do, who we are, and that we're just normal people like everybody else.

So thank you.

Great.

And then I did not, um, as uh the community heard at the beginning of the meeting.

We are currently working on kind of the scheduling of cemetery discussions and kind of rearranging and looking at that.

So I did not provide um a look ahead just for that reason.

The council you'll be fully informed of what um agenda items are coming up in the next couple weeks.

Can I ask you?

Counselor Jensen question.

Um related to that, as you've been doing these community meetings.

Um maybe it's too soon about people who may have decided on cremation or accepted you know cash or where we are with the number of people who have plots who still want it.

Yep.

And the subcommittee will be providing that information as we are currently meeting this week still.

Yes, and for my understanding, there's still one-on-one happening, so we don't have all the information yet, but we hope to have it soon.

Yep.

Great.

Okay, that concludes staff reports.

So moving on to council reports and uh councilor Gallegos.

Sure.

The only update from me comes from our library.

So the next Friends of the Library Foundation book sale is starting July 10th, and we'll run through July 19th.

And because of all of the generous donations that have come in, they're actually offering buy one get one on adult fiction and nonfiction titles.

So please come support the book sale.

It supports programs like summer reading and our makerspace and mini con and even author visits.

And that's it for me.

Great, thank you.

Counselor Jensen.

Um tomorrow, uh Councillor Barnes and I have been invited to a regional meeting to talk about capping wells.

Um that's come up before, so I have no idea.

I think the thinking is there's more power in many local governments maybe going to the regulatory bodies.

Um, and it may actually even require legislation.

So we're going to be talking about that.

And that's all I have.

Okay.

Thank you.

Counselor Bullier.

Thank you, Mayor.

A few quick items from me.

First, it was great to see several of my fellow counselors and you, mayor, at the Colorado Municipal League annual conference a couple weeks ago.

Really enjoyed the experience.

Learned a lot.

Got to hang out with our city manager during a conversation on mediation, which was a lot of fun.

And I did not bring up the subcommittee in that, so uh I kept my mouth shut.

Um on the subcommittee, uh, Councillor Jensen.

Um, so further to what the mayor and city manager said, um, we'll be coming out with some of those recommendations in the near future.

And uh, as the mayor said, still those one-on-one meetings are underway.

I did just want to note there was a member of the public who noted that some of the subcommittee meetings uh are behind closed doors, and and I respect that perspective, and we'd be glad to have a one-on-one conversation with anyone concerning how we're approaching things without getting into personal information.

But I think um, you know, one thing that has made working on the subcommittee with you, Mayor, uh, really fun uh with with our city staff as we get to really dig into an issue and roll up our sleeves and you know have meetings at all odd hours and on the weekend.

And I think there's a real benefit that I'm excited for Councillor Giannola and the Mayor Pro Tem to navigate to not being kind of constrained by by the notification process.

You can send an email, you can have a meeting, you can jump on the phone, so we can mute move pretty swiftly and to dig into an issue.

So I think that flexibility of the subcommittee is really fun.

So I'm excited for for them to experience that, and then looking forward to putting a series of recommendations for council and the public's consideration in the near future.

Um next, uh someone from the public talked about e-bikes earlier.

I think that was Mr.

Salas.

Uh, and I think there was a real tragic accident, I believe, in Denver in the past couple days.

Um and I just want to fly thank you, Chief and the Lafayette Police Department for having a cop talks uh on e-bikes, I think in late May it was.

But I I do wonder, given kind of some of the recent um injuries and and uh tragic accidents, if maybe that's something that we as council uh should consider, whether it's a policy shift or whether that's um renewed signage or something, it'd certainly be to open that, but I know that this kind of keeps bubbling.

Um so I just wanted to flag that one.

Um next, uh Mistress Balding, I wish you were on the pitch yesterday when the USA lost to Belgium.

I think you probably would have done better than a number of the folks out there.

But uh on the World Cup in Lafayette, it has been so much fun to go to breweries and bars and just see so many residents out celebrating soccer, cheering on our team, cheering on so many other teams.

Um just it's been a really wonderful experience in just seeing kind of the city come alive.

Um I did want to know uh we heard about the capped uh wells.

I know with Erie's recent decision, uh there's been some chatter and conversation in the community here in Lafayette about are there implications for us with Erie's decision in terms of uh of drilling.

Um so I just wonder if there's something that we could put out to sort of clarify what the implications are or are not for our community.

You have the question on your face.

Yeah, it it wasn't a decision to drill, it was to sell the mineral rights and you're making my point for me.

I think something to sort of put out like this is what it means for us.

And it's my understanding there is going to be uh a citizen initiative to overturn it at like within the next 30 days.

Interesting.

Okay, I I hadn't been tracking that, but just would put on the table, since there is some interest, it has been in the press, if there's something that we could more concretely put out to the public.

This is what you know, we're watching it, these are the implications, there's no issue for us, et cetera, et cetera.

Just to address some of those concerns.

Um and then uh I apologize to end on a sad note, but uh my oldest friend is a firefighter, and and so I care very much for that community.

And when um Miss Emily Barker and Nick Hutchison and Sidney Watson lost their lives uh fighting the firefighter, fighting the fires in in Western Colorado and Utah.

It really struck me how tremendously dangerous that profession is and how heroic many of our public servants are.

So just uh wanted to honor them, and I'm glad my buddies okay and just kind of broken hearted families.

Sorry.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Counselor Genoma.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um just a couple things for me.

Uh, you know, that e-bike safety discussion.

I was at the um cop talk uh back in May, and I thought it was really useful.

I've had a number of members of the public who have kids who have e-bikes come and ask me about it and how was it and what did you learn?

And you know, giving them kind of some of the tips and information that I heard.

Um happy to discuss with you know anybody who who's interested in that topic, some of the things that I learned.

But um I I think that presentation was put online, and so that might be available for the public to take a look at.

Um there were some you know very clear uh questions about you know what is an e-bike, what's an e-moto, what's an e-scooter, um that was really helpful uh for me to understand that and to be able to share that uh with some of the members of the public and kind of what some of the rules around those are.

Um so I I would love to have continued discussions about that topic.

I'm sensitive to the betrayal issues.

I was on uh 95th Street, Highway 42 yesterday, and I saw a young woman who was probably I believe she was a freshman at Centaurus based on the information relayed by my daughter, and she was, I believe, going about 45 or 50 miles an hour on an e-bike in traffic, and I was terrified.

So I hope that young woman is safe and continues to operate her bike safely.

Um other topic from me.

Um just real quick, I wanted to address something that come up at public comment about the plot sales uh at the cemetery continuing after 1999.

I thought that was a very interesting piece of information that brought up, so maybe the subcommittee and and staff can kind of evaluate that a little more to understand what that August 1st, 2000 date um that was brought forward, because I can't imagine um Mr.

Garcia fabricating that date for a point and just want to understand what that actually means and why we've been saying 1999.

If that's not factually correct, uh we should make the record correct.

And then finally, I um attended the planning commission, the last planning commission meeting as they were discussing the land use code that's coming, and I believe they have a meeting tomorrow uh to continue their discussion on the land use code.

Um I would encourage all the counselors and all the public, in fact, to go and watch the recording of that meeting to hear what the planning commission had to say about the draft code, what their concerns are, uh their recommendations, you know, potential recommendations that they'll propose, hopefully tomorrow um at their meeting.

Uh, I'm not sure if I'll be able to attend to continue to see what happens, but it's a very interesting discussion, just some of the the concerns they have with the code.

Um there was discussion of potentially recommending a moratorium on uh data centers.

Data centers, thank you.

And I thought that was an interesting idea to potentially come from the planning commission.

Uh I might also raise that uh on my own at this time is that that you know would be something I think the council should consider.

Um, and I think we'll learn a little bit more about what the staff's recommendations are for data centers when the land use code comes to us, because I think there's some things that make sense and some things that we could do further, and um, but I think there's some plans in place.

So I'd like to let that play out um with the land use code adoption process.

Um but you know a lot a lot of good discussion happened at the planning commission meeting.

I expect a lot of good more discussion.

I recognize one of our new planning commissioners uh in the audience.

Uh thanks for uh your attendance.

Look forward to seeing your uh your inaction again tomorrow.

Councilor Friland.

Nothing from me tonight, thank you.

Mayor Pro Temporary Thank you, Mayor.

Um and thank you, Councillor Jensen, for bringing up the meeting.

I am not in town and I will not be attending, but I've been in contact with counselor uh Bayer, and uh we'll catch up with you on all of what's discussed in that meeting.

I think there is some potential, but um we'll wait until after that, and I'll check in with you then.

Because I'm out of town and won't be back.

I also will not be at Art Night Out.

So uh the chat with council cable.

So I do hope some of my colleagues will be there to uh uh interface with the public.

Um and I will catch up with you on the August start night out.

And I would also like to add just about data centers two more things, data centers and uh bikes.

So there it data centers do not have to be as bad as the ones that are being proposed.

So uh if we do put something in our land use code regarding data centers, I I fully believe it's not a hardship.

It's something that we should expect that any data centers that come towards us would be able to comply with what we expect in Lafayette.

And uh Counselor Gianola, I was I was I was there at the top talk with Councilor Giannola, and I do respect the challenge that our um officers are trying to deal with.

Some people on e-bikes might not understand if they don't understand how the traffic systems system works.

For people who are using e-bikes, if you're riding at 45 miles an hour in traffic on something that shouldn't be in traffic, then there's maybe an opportunity there to have a discussion with what actually that that means.

Thank you, Mayor Burton.

Uh and thank you all for this meeting.

Meeting adjourned.

Oh my god, look what I'm doing.