Right, yeah.

Council meeting for July twenty-first, twenty twenty six.

Uh, we'll call this meeting to order and begin with a pledge of allegiance.

Clerk Peck, can we please get a roll call?

Mayor Tapia Vega?

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Barnes.

Councillor Bullier?

Here.

Councillor Friedland.

Councilor Gallegos.

Good evening.

Counselor Giannola.

Here.

And Councillor Jensen.

Here.

Mayor, we have a quaint.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh before any motion is made.

I believe the Mayor Proton will be joining us virtually.

I believe he's only running a few minutes behind, but we will have the Mayor Pro Ten on shortly.

However, if there is a motion for Councillor Fridland.

I'd move to excuse Councillor Friedland.

Second.

We have a motion to excuse Councillor Fridland.

Uh, we have a second.

Uh any discussion on this matter?

Seeing none.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed to say no?

No one opposed.

That passes.

Can I just tell the public that Councillor Fridland just had a baby?

Or his wife did, or his partner.

So I won't don't want you to think he didn't take this seriously, but it was imminently just a few days ago.

So we're all wishing the best.

Thank you all for being here.

We truly truly appreciate you taking time out of your schedule to be here with us tonight.

Um every council meeting is important.

Every decision we make on this dais is important.

Every vote we make is important.

But because we knew that today was going to be this specific topic, we wanted to change things just a little bit.

And we want to show the importance of this topic, not just for the city staff and for city council, but for our community as a whole.

And because of that, we're going to do things just ever so slightly different tonight.

At my well, actually, through decision of leadership here, including myself, the Mayor Pro Temp and City Council, we decided to remove all other agenda items from tonight.

So we won't be seeing anything except for the Lafayette Cemetery tonight.

The way we broke this down is actually relatively simple.

And for those of you who are experts and who know how city council meetings work, uh you know that at this time historically is when I open public input and we hear from you.

The reason that tonight is a little different, is because we wanted to make sure that you got all the information before you had the chance to address council.

Uh the recommendation from the subcommittee, and I'm not going to go back because I'm sure most people understand the background of this.

The recommendation for the subcommittee will be our first agenda item tonight.

And I promise, as being one of the two people on that screen and being one of the two people presenting, I will try to get through it as quickly as I can.

I will not hold you here for too long.

After that, we will move into public input.

And after that, we will come back and deliberate as a council over the resolution on the table.

Uh for those of you who kind of understand how city councils work, this is going to be similar to what a public hearing kind of feels like.

You get the information up front, you understand everything, and then public input happens, and then things come back to council.

So with that, I will just say, bear with us.

I promise it won't be long, but we'll begin tonight with our Lafayette Cemetery presentation uh and the subcommittee recommendation.

Great.

So with that, over to the subcommittee, of which I am one of the two members, and Councillor Bolier is one of is the other member.

Um where is my clicker?

I know I had someone.

Ah, here it is.

I am not as good as staff.

They are far more prepared in running through these presentations than I am, so bear with me.

Uh the objective tonight is to present the recommendation from the cemetery subcommittee and consider a resolution regarding the next steps for our cemetery.

And like I said, the agenda is relatively simple.

The recommendation from the subcommittee comes first.

We present to council, council will have the and the ability to ask any questions of the subcommittee and of staff, and then open it up to public input, and then we come back for the resolution.

With that, let's get started.

I will start us off with process and go over to you, counselor, if that's okay.

Um this process started actually a long time ago.

So we can talk about weeks, we can talk about months, we can talk about years, and then we're being honest with ourselves and with everybody involved.

We can talk about decades.

This has been a long process, and it's been a process that's kind of been kicked down the road for for many, many councils and many, many years.

Can you please?

Sorry.

Thank you.

But ultimately, this current process started on May 5th when a recommendation that was largely based on the recommendation from the States Archaeologists came before this council in a resolution.

And on that day on May 5th, you all showed up.

And because you showed up and because you spoke out, this council, this council listened.

And at that time, we postponed that resolution indefinitely.

We essentially said no.

And meetings started happening.

And what we did is we had a cemetery subcommittee formalized between myself and counselor Bolier, and we had two big community engagement meetings, uh dialogue and listening sessions.

The first one was on June 10th, the second one was on June 29th.

Uh additionally, there's been mailings, there's been one-on-one meetings happening between the city staff and individual plot owners, and there's been, and I think I can say this confidently, this is the most robust engagement process the city has ever had in a single issue.

Uh they've been working day and night to make sure that we reach as many people as we can on this issue.

I will let the counselor speak about the status.

Thank you, Mayor.

So currently we have about 450 reserve plots.

I'm gonna turn to staff in a moment to kind of break that number up.

Uh we've had approximately 60 family meetings.

If there's anyone in this room who has not yet had your one-on-one meeting, please make sure that we get your contact information uh so that we can schedule that.

But my understanding is that we've had multiple meetings with some families, 60 meetings told, uh, and we've received a number of decisions from some of the the plot owners and family members.

And so as you'll see in the slide, 35 buybacks.

Uh we'll talk about the buybacks later in the presentation.

Twenty-nine uh different families have indicated that they will opt for the cremains burial, and then 35 have indicated the preference for casket burials.

We'll talk about some of the permutations there.

And then five different exchanges for a Lafayette Cemetery uh in in Lewisville, the Coal Creek Memorial Cemetery.

You want to keep going?

Sure.

So uh many of you will recall uh this uh spectrum gradient that was discussed on June 29th, uh the suggested options.

So we got really excellent feedback contemporaneously from many of you on June 29th, and then heard further during these one-on-one meetings between city staff uh and plot owners and their family members.

And so the gradient, just in case uh colorblindness runs in your family as it does in mine.

On the left, you have green, simpler to implement, going through yellow, a bit more complicated.

All the way to the right, you have red, which is extremely difficult or potentially unlawful.

I don't know that I need to read each of these, maybe.

Yeah, why not?

Uh so in the top left, just in case it's hard to see, we have adjust the buyback amount.

So initially you will call on May 5th approximately the number in question to sell back a plot, uh, an individual plot was $1,500.

So we discussed with many of you uh adjusting that amount upwards to make that more competitive with uh regional cemeteries in the front range.

The next was the some folks noted that the Colt Creek Cemetery could use some improvements.

It could use some love and investment.

So we explored uh what sort uh of care and additional resources we could devote to that cemetery, as well as the fact that at least currently the Col Creek Cemetery only allows flat headstones, and so we uh explored what about upright headstones or other exchanges.

The next one was to waive the crema's burial fees.

So the the dollar figure for a crema's burial fee, which if you'll forgive me, is distinct from the cremation fee with the a funeral home.

But the cremaine's burial fee is approximately sixteen hundred and twenty dollars.

And so we explored waiv that.

Uh and then lastly on the green list uh to develop an individual plot planning process for casket burials if the conditions allow.

And this was uh a topic of significant interest from many of you in the community.

We heard about this on the 29th, on June 10th during our first meeting, and in many of the one-on-one sessions.

Um we'll go into further in the presentation that the challenge of that particular option, but we want to make sure that that was on the table and that we would investigate it fully.

Um, can I turn to you?

I'm getting a dry knock.

Please uh I'll run through these quickly because I know there's slides that will talk about them specifically.

Uh though that middle yellow section is invest in Col Creek 7 tier improvements.

So this kind of falls along the lines of the upright headstones and then decision that will ultimately come back to council about the funding and how we actually go about uh having those improvements.

And then develop a criteria to prioritize potentially available plots.

So you all saw the number earlier about there's some buybacks, there are some people who have decided uh to exchange plots.

So what we are bringing forward as a recommendation is really just coming back to the table at some point and reprioritizing some of those plots and seeing if we can use them for the purpose that they were meant to be used.

Um but I will jump forward the next slide where we can talk about the first recommendation, which I believe the counselor did uh did a good job uh explaining.

But just to be clear, we we heard a lot about this.

We heard that isn't necessarily you know benchmarked at what other cemeteries around our area.

The original benchmark at 1,000 and $1,500 was because we want to make our cemetery, the Col Creek Cemetery, relatively accessible and uh in terms of price, we want to make it as low as possible.

We don't want there to be a high barrier to entry for people who need those services.

So what we did is we looked around and we looked at Erie, we looked at Prunefield, we looked at comparable cemeteries around the area, and we believe $3,500 is the right number.

The other thing I will say here is if you have already sold back your plot for $1,000 or $1,500, we're gonna make you whole.

And that is the recommendation of the subcommittee.

We're not going to say, well, you bought it for $1,500, so you're out of luck.

You will receive the whole amount.

So if you bought it for $1,500, you will receive $2,000 and so forth, such and so forth.

So that is the first recommendation on the table.

Bless you.

Um second one, if you like to go.

Sure, thank you.

Um going a little further, uh, recommendation number two is to waive one crema's burial fee per plot.

Uh so we had a question from a couple residents in terms of what if I have one plot but potentially multiple cremains burials.

We want to be fair to everyone, so we'll waive one fee per plot.

Um this would be maintaining your current plot at the Lafayette Cemetery, but for the cremanes.

Remember that it's significantly easier to do a cremanes burial than it is a full casket.

We wish we had the geography in the space to do caskets in all of the plots.

Um so at the time of burial, the city will waive the burial costs for one of those cremains uh burials.

Um this would essentially plot holders would have to contact the city within the next 90 days.

We do want to be very clear because there's there's some misunderstanding and misinformation around the 90 days.

If you are already in contact with the city, box checked.

We're within the 90 days.

So we're right, we're really wanting to find those additional folks who are outside of of this room, frankly.

So we're going to be looking for them, posting it in the newspaper, et cetera.

But within the 90 days, if you're already in contact with the city, which most of you are, then that already that already counts there.

So we just want to make sure we have clarity uh on the 90 days figure.

You can go to the next one.

Yeah.

So this is about the Colbreak Cemetery and the recommendations that the subcommittee brings forward for that cemetery in particular.

Uh we want to make new areas to accommodate additional burials.

Additionally, we heard, you know, we don't want to go to Col Creek Cemetery for a myriad of reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is because they don't allow the upright headstones.

Uh we want to make sure that that is no longer the case.

So our recommendation is to bring forward in this resolution the ability for that DAO to be allowed within a certain portion of the Coal Creek Memorial Cemetery.

Additionally, the exchange is still on board, and earlier I said it's $3,500, but overnight we didn't want to change the amount of $1,500, which is what a plot cost at the Col Creek Cemetery, because we felt that was unfair.

We're going to continue at that price.

But you don't need to be a mathematician to know that 1,500 does not equal 3500.

There is a difference there.

So what ended up happening is through this recommendation, anybody who does exchange will receive that partial refund because we're giving you $3,500 for your plot at the Col Creek Cemetery.

Sorry, at the Lafayette Cemetery, and it is only $1,500.

So that is a very long-winded way of saying that there's a difference in price.

So if you make the exchange, the only recommendation that made sense for this is that you also receive that $2,000 refund.

And then your final recommendation.

If the conditions permit, right?

So if we've already found a utility line or if we know there's a huge rock there, that's off the table.

But for the conditions where where it permits, um, we would establish that individual plot planning process with a given family.

This would be in writing.

Um for again for families that are already in contact with the city, which is pretty much everyone in this room, the 90 days that's going to be in the next slide doesn't quite apply.

But this individual plot agreement would allow you to maintain your plot for casket burial with the exception being granted based on, and you'll see on the slide, ground penetrating radar findings, historical burial records, known ground conditions, and staff or cemetery operator experience.

So if those criteria suggest that it's that it's potentially clear, then we would move forward with that individual plot agreement.

However, and this is this is the important catch, everyone would be asked to confirm with the city what their preferred secondary option is.

Because as you all know, as we figured out in the in the past three few months in this process, many times where we have dug as a city where we believe it's clear, we have encountered human remains or caskets.

And so we want to be very upfront about that challenge.

And so if a family pursues recommendation four to establish that individual plot planning process, we would uh run the traps, so to speak, to make sure that the ground penetrating radar, uh utility lines what et cetera are clear.

And then we would confirm with you what your plan is if when we dig it's no longer usable.

So that's in writing, that's confirmed, so there's no need to worry about what happens if we would have that uh confirmed.

And again, the last bullet, all decisions and exceptions would be documented in that individual plot agreement per family.

Um so again, if a meeting has already occurred, most of you already had the meeting with the city, the city will capture those desires and present with you to you a draft agreement based on the city's understanding.

That draft agreement may not be correct, uh, it may not be perfect.

And so we'll meet have further meetings with y'all in order to ensure that the agreement reflects your wishes, your desires, exactly what you would like to see.

Um then and then if all parties uh concur, then a signature would happen.

Um this next bullet, if a meeting has not already occurred, again, likely does not apply to most folks in this room.

But plot holders must contact the city within 90 days if they wish to discuss the feasibility of this option.

So let's let's imagine someone lives in Australia, they're not aware of all of this.

According to this this recommendation, if 91 days pass, and then they contact the city and say, hey, I want to casket, we woke we would say, well, no, we've actually made the decision.

So we just want to be very clear, the 90 days does not apply to folks who have already had a meeting with the city.

Um last bullet there, nothing in this agreement with the city will require a time limit for said burial.

So there's you don't need to worry about when when God takes us, right?

We it's a commitment between you and the city with that secondary option uh or alternative.

Mayor, did I capture this important one correctly?

Yes.

Uh and I'm I'm really I'm really happy about this one, how this one worked out because I think the biggest piece of feedback that we got was not everyone's it they're not all the same.

Not everyone's situation is the same, and we have to look at this uh individualized.

So this is a really good way of doing that, I believe.

And the other part that I think you captured and is something that was incredibly important to me was that people were scared.

Folks were scared.

If we say this, and if we pass this, what happens when the next council arrives?

What happens with a mayor 10 years from now?

Because we won't be around.

I like the fact that this is in writing.

You will get an agreement signed by the city and signed by yourself that will be on paper and you can bring that forward uh and you can feel safe in the decision that you've made and understand that that agreement was made directly with the city.

Mayor, can I say one more thing on this?

Folks will recall that under the moratorium, which as of this moment is still under effect, the moratorium from last fall, we were using the term case by case.

We've decided to move away from case by case to individual plot planning process because we kind of felt case by case felt uh maybe random or capricious.

And so the individual process, this is going to be rigorous.

Uh and and as the mayor has noted numerous times, the city staff have put in heroic effort, nights, weekends, early mornings, in order to figure this out.

And so we're not putting on the table kind of a um a loose process that would be you know sort of on the whims of a future government.

This would be very rigorous, very orderly, and that draft agreement that would be presented with y'all that you would help shape would really commit both parties to that future course of action.

So just want to note that.

There are a few options for further council discussion, and honestly, for future council discussion is what I really see this as the first one is investing in the Colcreek Memorial Cemetery improvements.

This is something I talked about a little bit before.

Um I'll just read through these uh bullet points here.

In 2023, staff included planning effort, and I'll allow staff in a second to jump in if they would like to add anything.

Uh but the plans contemplate significant expansion for casket burials, cremate interments, another entrance, public space to shelter and interior roads, on top of the fact that our recommendation brings forth uh the ability for upright um Oh my god.

Uh headstone, sorry, I'm losing I'm my voice is so dry right now.

Um Costs were not identified.

So this is this is the issue for for council here that we really have to discuss is this would likely be annualized, and we would start this process slowly over the years and get to where we want to get.

Um I will let you do the second one while I drink.

Sure.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so the second one is to prioritize repurposing of sold-backed plots that appear to be clear.

We heard from a number of members of the public.

Well, hey, you know, could we potentially explore a spousal amendment?

So if if my spouse is already in Lafayette Cemetery, I really want to be next to them.

And so that's that's something we really want to explore and find a way to do uh right and do transparently.

Uh if if you have a child or or a parent.

So the challenge here is that most of us have family in the cemetery.

So we would want to figure out a way um, again, very transparently and open with y'all to prioritize uh future plots.

I think given the the urgency of resolving kind of the more pressing issue, we want to approach this one maybe uh a little bit down the line and figure that out through council input.

But we want to be very clear that that is something we're considering and we want to get right so that everyone understands how the city is making these decisions.

I know you like the last one, so I'll go ahead and let you do that.

Thank you.

So something that that's come up in a number of conversations with members of the community is that you know we have a lot of very invested uh historians, local experts.

There's deep, deep roots in this community and specifically in this cemetery.

This is something that we as a community, whether you're newer to Lafayette or have been here for a hundred plus years, should be very proud of.

But we don't have is a friends of the Lafayette Cemetery Group.

And many other communities in our region and around the country have a friends of the cemetery, where interested parties, historians, uh record keepers really try to serve it as a little bit of a go-between between the community and city staff, right?

Some of us will come and go, but that that friends of the Lafayette Cemetery Group may uh have significant long-term interest.

I have a few ideas of people to nominate for this group if this is something folks wish to support, but I just want to put this out there because one of the things that's really come full um fully apparent to us on council and city staff is just how rich the history is here, just how deep the connections are, some of which we were well aware of, and some of which we we we weren't.

And so that's something that maybe a friends of the Lafayette Cemetery Group could help surface and then share with future generations.

Now we will jump into the recommendations that were not advanced by the subcommittee.

Uh some of these you remember from that red from that array of options.

The first one is expanding the cemetery north.

This is into the ball fields.

This is something that we talked about and something that kind of became a topic of discussion through this process.

Uh but ultimately for a myriad of reasons, again, this is not something we move forward with.

Uh one of the biggest reasons that this would be a large undertaking.

This would be years and likely millions of dollars.

But on top of that, the way I see it, and I know that in the packet there was a dollar figure attributed to uh to these fields because there is some revenue that comes in.

But to me, and to the subcommittee, this didn't seem like we look at those fields as a revenue generating asset, we look at them as a community asset, right?

And I personally grew up on those fields, playing on those fields, so did my brother.

I mean, last year we did a proclamation for Francisco Hansen, who we all know as Coach Bancho, and he spent the last decades working on those fields with our community's youth.

So expanding the cemetery north just didn't necessarily fix the immediate problem on top of being a very large undertaking that we didn't necessarily believe was the right option at the moment.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh the next one on this list that we we will not be advancing is to disinter unmarked burials.

So this this question came up uh in some of the one-on-one meetings and some of the the community dialogue conversations that we had.

But first and foremost, state laws clearly prohibit disinterment under these specific conditions.

Um we'll talk about can you disinter a family member in a moment?

We're not talking about that.

This is talking about disinterring an unmarked unknown burial.

We will leave the folks in the ground where they are resting, regardless of whether the plot was properly assigned or not.

They are at rest.

We're going to respect them and leave them there.

Um so I just want to be very clear on that.

Uh in the packet, uh, our excellent city attorneys put together some of the specific state laws and statutes that that govern this specific one.

We can talk about that later if of interest, but this one will not be being advanced.

Thank you, Mayor.

The third one is reconfiguring the cemetery, and I'll go back to the first one.

Um we as a subcommittee just didn't necessarily feel this was the right option for a few reasons, but mainly because through the GPR data, it showed us that there's very likely bodies under those roads as well.

And what we didn't want to do is completely eliminate those rows uh to try to make more space and we didn't necessarily understand what was under there.

This would be a large undertaking, and we would have to again begin the process on top of the fact that we need those roads.

Those roads are necessary for the continued maintenance and the continued burials that happen in our cemetery.

Again, if this resolution passes, we're not closing it to potential burials.

We're working with you to try to continue working this cemetery, and we need those roads to do that.

So that's that's one of the reasons that this one did not come forward.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, the next one on the list is construct a mausoleum, which for anyone who is not familiar, this would be a a raised stone or concrete structure in which one or multiple crypts uh or deceased remains would reside.

That is not feasible in our cemetery for a number of reasons.

Um the foundation depth you would have to dig in order to establish the footers means we would hit caskets, so that's off the table.

Also, the freezing and cracking and climate in Colorado is significantly different and New Orleans, where mausoleums are very common.

Uh so this is unfortunately uh unworkable.

And the final one is stacking burials.

Uh and there was a few reasons for this, but mainly it's a historic cemetery.

It's a cemetery that's over a hundred years old, and we heard from uh the people who work it and from the uh from Chris that a lot of these are very shallow graves, right?

In the eight eighteen hundreds, they likely didn't have the same uh standards that we have today.

So it's a depth issue going back to constructing a mausoleum.

It's just very, very difficult to do something like that without pre-planning and knowing that you were going to do that beforehand.

Additionally, the equipment needed to dig this is not maneuverable within the Lafayette Cemetery, so that is why this recommendation did not come forward.

We'll move on to the resolution and uh counsel, would you like to run through these?

Certainly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh so the resolution that we are considering this evening um first prohibits casket burials outside of the specific exceptions and implements the recommendations as presented.

So remember we discussed the exceptions.

So this prohibits casket burials except for those exceptions through the individual plot agreement.

Second, this authorizes our city manager to execute those individual plot agreements with family members with plot holders.

Uh third, this authorizes city staff to update the Col Creek Memorial Cemetery and Lafayette Cemetery rules and regulations to implement this resolution.

Uh and the packet online uh articulates some of the specific changes within uh uh that language.

And then lastly, it would repeal resolution number 2025-77.

This was the initial moratorium resolution last October, Mayor.

I believe so.

Um that's what this resolution would do.

And then to our final slide, which we'll talk about next steps.

The first one is communication.

So we want to make sure to still reach as many people as we want.

This has been priority number one since the beginning of this process.

We want to reach as many people as we can reach.

And what we have recommended as a subcommittee is to use the newspaper.

Uh in the same way that you hear about meetings happening in the community, public hearings happening in this room, uh, we will use any and all newspapers that we can to try to reach as many people as we can.

We will, of course, use our social media platforms across the board to try to reach as many people as we can.

We will use our website, which has been updated with as much information.

It's a great source of information if you're looking for anything in particular.

And then finally, mailed letters with reminders.

We're looking at a 90 days, right?

So we want to send that reminder, maybe at the 45-day mark, just to make sure everyone has the opportunity to hear from us through one of those avenues.

We want to make sure that you hear from us.

Additionally, we would begin improvements on the Col Creeks Memorial Cemetery.

We'll contact all plot holders for city initiated activities, including drafting those agreements, uh, updating the buyback amounts.

As I said, there's some that have already sold back, and if we increase that amount, we want to make sure to make them whole.

And then routing remains burial fee waivers.

And then this last uh budget, this last one is for council.

It's it's just tracking expenditures against appropriations and then returning to council with a budget supplemental.

And with that, I tried to get through that as quick as I could.

Uh but council, is there any questions you all have for the subcommittee or for staff?

I do have a few, Mayor.

Council Jan Owl.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um can you go back two slides for one one slide?

You know, you list yeah, this one here.

Um Website updates with information in the list of plots needing contact info.

Uh has this been done already?

Have we have we published the list of plots that we need contact information for?

No, I do not believe we have.

I I'm a little bit concerned why we haven't done that up to this point, and it's only just now that we're getting that information out there to the public.

The public has been asking for this information kind of for a long time and offering to help track some of these things down.

And so I just I pull my hair out a little bit, uh, understanding why this hasn't been done yet.

Um this has been the um the list of um plot owners has been a really dynamic process.

And so um we have sent out letters, a couple of different letters iteratively.

We've had the meetings, and we've had people coming and showing up throughout the whole process.

Most recently, staff have been calling every single person that is on our list of over 400 people.

And so is we are actually getting you know numbers that no longer exist.

So the list that we're working to get to now, um, which we are at is that sort of final list of of really no deeds, no actual records at all of anything in our database, and that's what we intend to post in the newspaper.

That is we have absolutely zero way of corresponding or communicating, and we haven't had any response or interaction.

And so that's the list that we'll be posting on the website that is sort of like this is a list of people who we have never heard anything, any response or anything from, and it's sort of that final call out of here's your sort of chance to respond and know that um you know if you are don't respond back, this action is being taken.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Um I also wanted to ask about the 90-day time frame.

I'm still confused about where what that number is and where it came from.

What's confusing?

Um where did 90 days come from?

Like why why is 90 days the magic number here?

Sure.

Um thank you, Councilor Giannola.

I I would say I wouldn't say 90 days is a magic number.

I would say one of the things that we've collectively grappled with is that for decades, as the mayor noted, uh, this can was kicked down the road without decisions being made and without sort of any plan for what to do about a net old problem, which as folks who attended the June 29th community dialogue session, you saw on the screen, the city government was aware of this issue in the 1980s, and yet no plan was made to to kind of execute this and terminate.

I think that that uh the mayor and I would certainly be very interested in hearing other numbers, but we don't want to have kind of the open-ended uh lack of a plan for how to resolve this issue.

I think we all thought like a month was much too short, but a year is maybe too long.

And again, I think coming back to your earlier question.

I think there's a question of urgency.

Um we want to make sure that all the folks in this room, their family members, the folks in our community have have their their issue addressed, and given the urgency with which we've heard from the community of addressing and resolving this issue and having a clear path forward.

Um we figured 90 days was enough time to find folks who are not kind of in this sphere.

Whether it's a hundred days, 180 days, uh, I'm certainly open to being persuaded, but I I would push back against kind of an open-ended uh time frame simply because that's what got us into this mess that there was no sense of urgency or decision making.

Mayor Alternative.

I think that's the perfect answer.

Okay.

Um and I guess the other thing that I'm just getting confused about is it's 90 days.

If we move forward with this resolution, it's 90 days from today.

That's correct, yes.

That's right.

And then, you know, it in looking over the the sort of uh recommendations, you know, I think each of them had a 90-day aspect to them, or most of them did.

Um the way I understand it now is maybe the one that's the most significant is for the individual um plot uh plot agreement process, and really the idea is that within 90 days, you we want to have plot owners reach out to us to begin that discussion.

They don't have to agree to something by the 90 days, it's initiate that that process within 90 days from today.

That's correct.

Yes.

Okay.

And um maybe we could go back real briefly to the a second recommendation number four slide, just to um thank you, Councillor GNL.

Just again on this one for the the reason we did the 90 days was just discussed, but for folks who are already in contact with the city, box checked.

The 90 days does not apply to you.

Uh we're already in communications.

And I guess my understanding and my sense from the community is that most of the folks here and the folks who we know who maybe were not able to make it tonight are eager to to resolve this issue, eager to have that conversation with with the city and and understand a path forward.

So if there are folks in the community who are not in contact with the city and are not here tonight, like we want them to come forward.

But again coming back to we have to set some sort of a time limit so that we can we can resolve this and and be clear with our community what our path is.

Understand.

And I guess for the individual plot agreement process that that can be a longer time while folks wrestle with you know the that decision whether to make that or not how does that impact the decision to make a sell back the plot which you know when I look at the the resolution it says sell back their plot initiating the release of interest within 90 days.

That to me seems like a fixed timeframe outside of the if they're discussing with the plot agreement and then you know it's day 91 and then they decide they sell back that's not available to them.

It's just a little bit confusing the way the language is in the resolution.

Are you asking a question or are you recommending a change in the language I'm I'm asking if that is correctly.

And the same goes with the exchange of a plot for the Cole Creek Cemetery.

Must initiate a written exchange agreement within 90 days of the resolution's adoption.

I mean I I guess what I'm what I'm wondering is is there flexibility to you know someone who's engaged in that individual plot agreement you know to have the flexibility of those options if you know during the discussion they you know the the conditions don't permit I I just want to make sure that folks who are engaging in that discussion have those options still on the table for them.

I will let the deputy city manager jump in but I believe the idea is they start that dialogue with us before that 90 days and then they have the time to make their decision but I'll turn to you.

Yeah so I think the the you know the intent is for the the buyback at the increased amount to be available through that 90 day period um you know if something were happening in those conversations with the um one on you know kind of the one-on-one discussions for example part of those individual plot agreements part of those discussions are looking at doing a little bit more of a deeper dive into the data the GPR data for some specific plots to see exactly what's going on and if for some reason a family is looking at their plots and what we end up seeing is that there is no way that there will be able to be a casket burial and then their mind they change you know they change their mind and say you know what I think we do want to go to Cole Creek.

I think we would be able to have some flexibility to say we could do you know a plot exchange with that same you know that same increased kind of refund.

So I think we could be flexible through that and that's actually part of the language that we included in is in the resolution is that we can have some flexibility with the rules in those agreements to be able to do that.

Okay and that that that's very helpful and that kind of leads me to my next question which is what is in an individual plot agreement.

I think the community probably says I have no idea what that is can we explain to them kind of the the list of things that might be in this agreement so that they can understand I mean I've heard the community some community members say can we have a a draft document of what that looks like I don't know that that's you know the right answer but understanding kind of some of the check boxes that might be in there and it seems that you know the individual agreement might have an option for uh a later sale after the 90 days if that you know were the case so I understand the flexibility that's there that makes sense to me that that could could be part of it.

Yeah so I can talk a little bit and then I don't I don't know if the city attorney wants to give a little bit more because she's working on the framework for that right now but I think you know what we are really looking at is sort of what what we're observing in what the plots look like if there is some type of um encroachment or infringement what that might mean in terms of their burial or their casket plan and what the attempt to burial would bury would look like there so that we would make an attempt to burial if there's a partial partial infringement and here's what it's going to look like and here's where it would be or if there is no if it's a if it's a clear plot without an obstruction that we have observed that there's no obstruction and we believe the burial could occur and so that they're you know agreeing that um we it looks like the burial can occur however if anything if we do go to dig if it's say a you know false negative if it looks clear and then there is something in that they have and that they know that we've had false negatives before and in the cemetery that we have had that happen where we've gone to dig that they are aware that there might be a need for kind of an alternate alternate arrangement and that their family is aware of that.

However, if anything, if we do go to dig, if it's say a uh you know, false negative, if it looks clear and then there is something in that they have um uh and that they know that we've had false negatives before, and in the cemetery that we have had that happen where we've gone to dig, that they are aware that there might be a need for kind of an alternate alternate arrangement and that their family is aware of that.

And then also a part of that is what people are asking for, which is that agreement that this is in place really for the long term.

The city isn't able to sort of you know change their minds in 10 years, and that we're allowing for this.

Um, you know, people want this agreement to be in place for their children if their plot is not necessarily just for them, but it's for their son or daughter to use the plot in whenever they might need to use it.

Understood.

Thank you.

Anything else that you would add?

No, that actually covered what is in there.

Yep.

Okay.

I have a few more questions if you'll bear with me.

Um looking at that individual plot agreement clause in the in the resolution.

You know, there's a discussion of hiring a professional to observe uh the burial.

Can you just talk a little bit about what that is, what that means?

I have a follow-up question, but I want to have an answer to that.

Yeah, so um we are looking into the necessity of hiring a professional and the circumstances under which we would require hiring a professional.

I I think there are some circumstances that that would be required, but I'm I don't know under every circumstances if circumstance if that would be required.

And we we are seeing if it would be possible to train our staff to be able to observe the burial and be on site to observe a burial and be able to look for indications of anything that they might encounter during that.

And we've talked to the state archaeologist about that possibility.

And so these would be folks who are kind of standing in the role of the state archaeologist to look look for remains as things are excavated, things like that.

And then you know, asking to stop the burial to see, take a closer look, and then we would call in a professional archaeologist to come and take a closer look at what anything that's been observed.

Okay.

Uh in the in the resolution it says cost to be paid by the plot holder.

And I I you know, maybe this is a question for later, but I want to explore you know, options for that, um, given that you know, as far as I'm aware, none of these plot holders this are responsible for needing to hire a professional to observe the burial.

So you know, I'm kind of want to put out there, you know, we've we've had some flexibility on you know fees and on uh exchanges, and you know, maybe there's flexibility around this as well.

Do you have any comments on that?

Do you have comments on that?

Yeah.

Can I follow up that I just want to make sure he finishes?

I think I have just uh one more question.

Um that's just on the top of my mind.

This friends of the Lafayette Cemetery group.

Um, do we envision this like a city board, or is it a you know uh a community group?

You know, is it something that the city is sanctioning and saying we want to have these experts, you know, kind of bring us, bring recommendations to council uh for you know how to maintain or improve or uh you know I just want to understand a little bit more about what that friends of the Lafayette Cemetery group might be and look like.

Yeah, so um similar if you think about like the Friends of the Library Foundation, where it's a very grassroots kind of community organization that the city would agree to partner with and to have a relationship with, recognizing that there would be benefit to that.

So we have you know, conceptually this is an idea that could be pursued, but we haven't gone any further.

We're looking for some direction.

Okay.

I think some of the logic for that last one, Consul Gianola really flows from the excellent historical work, research work, contact work that's gone among many of the folks in this room.

And so hopefully, you know, hopefully we pass the resolution, we have a clear path forward, but we don't want that to fizzle or fade away.

We want to really capture that and ensure that that for many years to come, there's that that coherence and that um valuing of this particular cultural landmark.

And if I might add, there's another element of the friends of the cemetery groups, particular to historic cemeteries where there are the very old headstones and monuments where no one is living anymore to maintain those, and it's the plot holders' responsibility to maintain those.

So that's something that folks, you know, fundraiser, work together and restore and and take care of kind of over time.

Yeah, great.

Counselor Jones.

I I wanted to follow up counselor Giannola's uh raising the issue of the resolution does say the written agreement will also require all plot holders to commit to hiring a professional, and I know our staff are working on alternatives to that, and therefore I'm not sure it should be in the resolution at this time or with this specific language, or maybe a caveat that staff is working in alternatives to that, but I don't want to pass this resolution creating this obligation for the plot holders to pay for that when we're exploring other options at this time.

So I I don't know whether it's best to just strike that language or to put a caveat uh uh about that language at some point.

We can talk about that when we get to the exact language, but I I know I think I I guess I feel positively like there are other alternatives that we could do.

Any other questions or thoughts from council before we turn to public input?

Seeing none, we will uh turn to public input now.

As I I would assume most people are here to speak about the cemetery because that is the one agenda item tonight, but I do want to remind everyone this is a regular council meeting.

This is not a special council meeting, and this is not a public hearing specific to one topic.

So if you are here speaking of another issue or another thing, or you want to bring up an entirely different topic, you are more than welcome uh to do so.

In the interest of equity and fairness, as I try to do in every meeting, I want to treat everybody equally, regardless of who you are.

You will get the same exact amount of time because I fear that is I I find that is the most equitable way to move forward.

So if you wish to speak tonight, just fill out one of these speaker forms there in the back through the glass doors and hand that over to our city clerk.

When you come up, you will have five minutes to speak at the five-minute mark.

I will tell you your time is up.

If you are thinking I don't know what five minutes feels like, you don't have to worry about that when you're standing at that podium.

If you look to your left and down, you will see a little clock.

It's a little countdown clock that tells you exactly how much time you have left.

If you are not here tonight but still wish to address counsel, you can do that by the phone number that is posted on our website.

Counselor Johnson.

So this room has bad acoustics.

I know some of you are having a hard time hearing from the very beginning, but I also hear there's some murmuring and conversations going on in the background.

And I know it's hard for me to hear when that is happening, and I assume it's hard for others to hear.

So if you are one of those people having those conversations, maybe if you wouldn't mind going through the glass door and having them on the other side of the door so everyone could hear because I'm struggling a little bit to hear everything.

I'll also mention, you know, if you are having a diff really difficult time hearing in the back in the behind the glass doors, the amplification is very loud and clear.

So you actually have an easier time to hear on the other side of the glass than you may have uh inside the room.

Great.

We'll begin tonight with Frank Archuletta.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, Council members.

And Adam Marie, thank you for that last statement that you made.

That's very important, which you were talking about.

Adam, and I thank you also.

I know this is a struggle for you all, and I know you're here to help out all the citizens here.

And I would like to thank all you citizens for standing in unity and solidarity.

This issue here would have never happened if basically you would have followed the rules 1906, 1907, 1914, 1921.

State law statutes said and stated you have to include all burials within your records.

Okay.

I know this is in the past, but this is the reason we're here.

Secondly, what I don't agree with basically is the rules of 90-day gate line for casket burials outside individual agreement would be prohibited.

What if people from out of state didn't even know about this meeting?

And they wanted to have a casket burial for one of their families, and they weren't here in the 90-gate process.

Well, if this went into law, they could not have a casket burial.

That is not social justice at all.

Lawyer, is that a right law?

Are we going to be the only city in the United States to implicate a 90-day on something like that?

For people on the outside that don't have no clue what's even going on right now.

Would that be against the law?

Would be the only city in the United States doing a 90-day like that.

I do appreciate all the efforts that was made and all the different recommendations.

There's a lot of good ones in here to help out the people.

And that's what this is all about.

As far as you all here being involved.

I would like to go on to another issue right here.

Basically, what happened here in 2022?

You're digging up babies in Potter's Field.

And all these bones are across the street at the fire department.

I don't have to mention the name because I walked every one of you through the cemetery and I showed you all, including staff, basically, what the city was doing wrong.

They should have never done that in that Potter's field.

Three years ago, I asked for that part of the field to be shut down.

I went to the human rights commission.

And there was some council members and some staff was here, and they did not recommend to do it.

And that's why we're here, folks.

Because of Potter's Field.

I would like all remains that are at the fire station to be brought back down after you sniff through all that dirt pile there in this bury them in that northeast corner, basically.

We're going to have that plaque language.

Now that plaque language, you voted on it basically in March.

I would like to ask when is that plaque going to be put up at that northeast corner right there?

That's what I'd like to know.

There's so many other questions I could ask here, but uh I do appreciate all the hard effort that you all put into it.

But all these seniors right here, they're the ones suffering.

They have to go through this entire process, which was not their faults.

Some of these people own plots for 50 years or more.

They shouldn't be punished.

Kyle, you did a good job.

So you did a good job.

Staff.

Staff.

You did a good job to a certain extent.

Not that 90 days, Melissa, as we had that conversation at the Human Right Commission meeting last night.

I know this isn't easy.

Ms.

Jensen, I know this isn't easy.

I know sometimes you disagree.

I disagree.

I haven't disagreed with too many of you all through my times.

I have 40 seconds here.

I would like to thank Katie, basically, for allowing Doug Conrose, myself, to go down to meet with them for two hours with staff, but yet we discussed white supremacy, the Kluk Cooks plan, the cemetery issues, and why we're at this point right now.

But I want to share more information that wasn't included.

Mary Miller started all this basically with the white supremacists, basically her groups and all that.

The blacks weren't allowed to be in Lafayette, the Latinos were run out of town, they were being shot.

We had the sundown rule in town here.

People tarved and feathered here, the Lafayette Fire Department.

You know what happened to the cemetery, but what they also stated was fire department.

You could not be a fire department.

Unfortunately, it wasn't your five minutes.

Thank you so much.

Next we will hear from James Ortega.

This is a sixth meeting that I've attended on this issue.

And I can tell you I'm really disappointed in the false promise and the lack of information that we have privated and provided to provide a rational decision to make a rational decision on the process of whether we should take any of the options that you have presented.

You talk about having expert here with Chris Cowanette about Greg Sides to the ground penetration radar.

Yet my mother was buried, they said she her grave is vacant, and yet 45 of us watch to be buried next to my father.

That is bullshit.

I need to we need to verify that.

You say there's encroachment on my wife's grace right behind them.

I need proof that that is, but you won't provide that.

I wanted to see the ground pen and radar and a GPS that mapstood I could see the degree of encroachment.

If I know the degree of encroaching, then an all casket won't fit, and I can make a decision to move elsewhere.

I do that.

I am a Catholic, am I not interested in uh being burnt in hell?

So I wish you would take that in consideration.

The 90-day rule seems to be something that's driven by a lawyer to force us into making a decision without this proper information.

I disagree with that.

Oh hardly.

You you offered money.

Money doesn't give us peace of mind.

Money doesn't give us peace of mind.

I have to awake at night worried about this process.

I planned 40 years ago where I wanted to be buried.

And I made those arrangements.

We bought our plots, and yet you tell me I can't be buried there.

That's really disappointing to me.

You're trying to use money to drive us to make a decision.

You say we make a decision 90 days on this process, we're gonna have to pay somebody to come come over and uh verify there's uh a body there or not.

You want me to pick up that cost?

That's wrong.

You know, you said he made the mistake, city should take care of those processes for that, not me.

I think you need to hire another organization and come and burst some of these false possible false negatives, ensure that we have the right decisions are being made so that we can make a rational decisions on the way when we move forward, because I do want to buried in law, I will be buried in Lafayette.

I appreciate your time today, and hopefully you uh make a wise decision.

So I'm speaking in opposition to this resolution until you fix some of the things that's wrong with it.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Kathy Erickson.

Thank you, Council, Mayor, employees.

Oh, good, thank you, Jack.

Thank you.

The first thing that I want to ask about is when you're talking about this interned unmarked graves, okay.

Are you gonna put a marker?

Are you guys gonna put a marker on that grave?

Because years ago, all of the unborn, I mean, all of the people that were in a grave and there wasn't a I told you, a casket, they had a little silver cross with a little thing on it.

Well, there's none left, none, none, none.

Are you gonna leave it that way where that person can never be honored?

I mean, you could go by and stand by their grave and say, wow, you know what?

There's a person there.

They don't have a stone, they don't have anything, but there is a human being.

And it seems to me that the only time that you guys are really concerned about a human being is that when it comes toward you and your issues, like the 90 days.

That's that's not doable.

I don't think that's right.

To give us 90 days, that's not right.

I think six months would be the best.

And I also want to tell you what you're not thinking about, people, is how the people that want to be buried in a casket by their loved one.

You're not thinking about what this whole thing has done to them.

Next month, it'll be ten years that my husband died, and all through that ten years, it has just torn me apart that he's not here.

And now I'm being torn apart because I may not be able to be buried next to him.

I can be buried in a casket, but there's seven in my plot.

And so I might have to go to the next plot.

Fine and dandy for everybody else.

It really isn't for me.

It really isn't.

Even though I accepted that, I don't want to do that.

I you know, I'm like Jim said, wake up in the middle of the night with problems, wake up in the morning with problems.

I mean, I had to work hard to get over my husband's death.

And I know everybody in here has worked very hard to get over their loved one's death.

And here we are, right back where we were, with you guys opening up all of these cans of worms.

No, we can't do this, no, we can't do that, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Think about who you're talking about and to human beings.

We have been in this city all of our lives.

This is our city, whether believe it or not, that cemetery is our cemetery, because our loved ones are buried up there.

That is very, very important.

You guys aren't important.

The people that are buried in that cemetery, and the people that are waiting to be buried in that cemetery are the ones that are important.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Mike Watson.

Don't leave the people's play away then.

People, like everybody's having to work around us as they come up here.

Be respectful of the people start here to talk.

First off, I want to say thank you specifically to two of you up there.

Because the May 5th meeting, when this all started, a lot of you were there.

There were many people up there who were prepared to vote on that night, who said so up on the podium.

And there's two of you, Kyle and Adam.

You turned the wheel on this.

You started this process.

You listened to the people who came up and poured their hearts out to you again and again and again.

And I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for doing that.

Crystal, you all you spoke as well.

You mentioned kind of the the how you touch born you were on there.

And thank you for that.

That was really incredible.

It I'm just honored to know you.

Thank you.

I sent you an email over the weekend.

I've worked with a lot of the people here to try to try to organize their frustration with the resolution as it's being presented.

We have eight amendments that I think fix it, I hope fixes a lot of the stuff for people.

You have it in your emails.

It was also been passed out in front of you.

I just want to go over, give a just a brief overview to everybody here.

These are amendments that the council has that they're able to act on.

The first one is that the city pays for the burial observer or handles the observer.

And thank you, Adam, for bringing that up for one.

Thank you for that's making families bear the brunt.

The financial burden of this is wrong.

They didn't do anything wrong.

They wanted to be buried next to their loved ones.

That is a human right.

That is human dignity.

Please listen to them on that.

I think it also makes a little bit of sense to do all of that digging work.

If you're going to have to dig up and we don't know what's there, um, let's do it all together.

Let's give the let these people, so we get all the the names of the people.

Um all the people who want to be buried, who want casket burials, we identify the plots, and we do an exploratory dig with an observer present.

So we have the observer covered, we have the equipment all there.

Now, if the city's gonna cover the observer status, I guess that's not that big of a deal.

But I think that Kathy Eriksson deserves to know exactly where she's gonna be planted.

I think she deserves to sleep good at night.

Knowing what's knowing that this is taken care of.

I'm not wondering.

These people, I mean you you have an agreement in all of that, but these people are gonna be wondering for the next 30, 40, 50 years, God willing, um, whether it'll actually work out after they pass.

Um denials denial should be in writing.

The council should be able to like the people should be able to have a review.

And and I think this is important, the GPR data.

We need to get the actual data, not just the little orange rectangles.

If you read actual scientific papers, which I have done a lot of about GPR, GPR is not the gold standards of jack shit.

GPR is nothing.

GPR is about 50 to 80% accurate under ideal circumstances.

As a casket degrades past 50 to 75 years, very, very inaccurate.

We don't know what's there.

If there's all sorts of false positives, there's all sorts of false negatives.

The only way we can have make any use out of that data is with the actual data.

I have written a program that will actually translate that data into pictures, like snapshot images underground.

Everything that they showed you, we can get that for the entire that they showed you in the in the original um presentation from SWCA.

We can show that we can we can generate those images ourselves.

We can look or use our own eyes and figure this out as a community, and not just trust a bunch of consultants who want to get paid.

By the way, the state archaeologists used to work for SWCA.

Right.

So that's the whole revolving door of government and corporations.

I was asking if this could be moved.

I'll bring us back and say something.

Thank you, folks, for sticking with us.

I apologize for that.

That is something I never really want to do as mayor.

But my job is to maintain the quorum of these chambers and make sure that the council conducts their business as well as we can.

Aye.

Anyone oppose say no.

None opposed.

That passes unanimously.

We will continue with public inputs.

Uh next speaker is C Neo.

Um, all right.

So good evening, everyone.

And I'm Neo from Seven O East South Carolina Avenue.

And first and foremost, thank you everyone for all the effort point with this.

I've been to a council meeting a lot with Mike, and this is by far one of the most interactive meetings I've ever seen in council meetings.

So good job.

I know it's very difficult to break through the system.

Nico, I mean, I'm so sorry, could you speak a little louder?

I think there's some folks who can't hear you.

Oh, yes, of course.

So is this my fault?

All right.

So um building on all the amendments that Mike mentioned just now, especially on amendment second, which is basically the consolidated field operation.

Um I'm here to actually talk about the liability the city might be concerned about on uh exploratory digging.

Sorry, still hard work for me.

So it's basically I've heard a bunch of folks talking about the liability that the uh city might have if we do that kind of digging.

So um I'm a lawyer in Southeast Asia.

I'm not here to give any legal advice.

Disclaimer, a lawyer thing to do.

I'm not admitted in Colorado.

So, but I mean law school taught me to read law.

So I'm here to read the law just so that I can repair the fees that law school make me pay.

So from what I read, Colorado law does not prohibit opening an unmarked grave.

It prohibits doing it outside the required process.

So you have a paper right here with the two main sections that um I've been reading through a couple of times with the main point being highlighted.

So one of the sections says anyone who discovers or disturb suspected human remains shall be immediately notified, uh notifying a list of people mentioned in uh a statute.

So if we have them in the field or in the cemetery from the very beginning, basically it's legal.

Like it's totally fine because if we encounter any remains, those people will already be there to make sure everything is being done properly.

And the other one, which is the interesting thing, it draws a line with what's actually illegal.

And the main word being used there is anyone who knowingly disturb any unmarked human barrier.

So knowingly is the main thing.

But two things here.

First one, the crime is skipping the process of modifying the list of people mentioned.

It's not disturbing or opening the grave itself.

And secondly, we are digging with the best data we have.

We have the GPR data.

I know we have some problems with the accuracy, and building on what Mike said about um raw data.

Um we are not actually there to dig knowingly that someone is underneath there.

Like the data is unsure.

So I'm playing around with words there, but that's what lawyers do.

So until something is actually uncovered, there's nothing to confirm that there's unknowingly it's unknowingly disturbed.

So and the moment we do see something, we start, we will not disturb anyone, we pull back, that's it.

So this is how it's localized in practice.

The city gets the raw GPR data and invites plot holders who want to keep casket barrier rights to one coordinated day, with the qualified observer present from the beginning to the end.

If no one is found, nothing is found, the plot holder gets an answer on the spot.

And if anyone does sue you for disturbance of grave, here is how you make the argument.

Like first thing first, we exercise reasonable care by trying to ensure accuracy.

Relying on all the actual GPR data we get instead of just looking into the GPR report, which only have 60 to 70% accuracy.

And yeah, by explain the technical stuff.

I'm not going to talk about that anymore.

And secondly, we have a trend observer on standby if anything is uncovered.

The police station is right across the street.

The moment anything was filed, you stop exactly at the statute required, and you do not push anything further.

And third thing, the third thing is of course nothing is being moved without any authorization required by the law.

So this is a professional document, statute compliant care.

Again, this is not a law.

This is just an argument that I'm framing if you want to convince yourself that it's okay to do so.

Now I understand as a lawyer, we advise clients to not get any litigations because it's time consuming and it's cost consuming and lawyers need to go overnight for that.

We do not like it.

But I want to add on on that, saying that do not be afraid of litigations.

Do not let the word liability to talk you out on the step that will actually resolve people's issues.

In America, especially, everything you do risks being sued.

Unless you do not do anything or you can still be sued for omission.

So there's a society really nowadays and I do not think many people like it and I do not like it because it high our hands on doing a lot of things we know that is right.

But if you do not like it, the way to find it is to keep your hands tied.

Just try to do it anyway and do not do the right do not do don't do avoid from doing the right thing if because you are afraid I'm trying to make it fancy by thank you so much unfortunately if I'm interrupting thank you.

Next we'll hear from Sharon Stetson.

Can I ask you a question my brother trying to listen to it on YouTube and he said it's not coming through.

So I will make sure our IT staff looks at that thank you.

Thank you.

Oh you got it back you just texted me.

Good evening.

My name is Sharon Stetson you have in your council packets some amendments that were presented to you and I am here to speak about um citizen amendment number five the amendment requires the city to publish the draft agreement and the guidelines for how these decisions get made before any family signs.

And it says no agreement can take away a family's right a family's right under the state law it's simple publish the paper paperwork and process before anyone signs it.

Under the resolution each family will sign an individual plot agreement it's on a city form that right now it had people haven't seen it.

And the new city rules say that these private agreements override the public rules so with amendment five everyone sees the same deal then it can be customized for each family and that's how you build trust please move and adopt a citizen amendment number five and I I thank you for all that you have done being on your side of the fence I really understand how tough a job you have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Christy Erickson good evening I just wanted to say that going through this it hasn't very difficult but not just for us me personally you guys all of us but I feel like my blood pressure is not as high as it has been before so and I think some of that did come with it's not the best scenario for my mom with my dad but there is maybe that she can have a casket burial one person over.

So that is promising.

Because my aunt doesn't have that extra plot like my mom and dad did my mom and dad bought one just in case my brother or I passed away if we were younger and so my aunt doesn't have that.

So personally I think the only way to be able to know that there is nothing in her plot is to dig it because there is a big huge pine tree there and there's lots of roots so you really can't say is it a false positive false negative what is it when she doesn't have that alternative my aunt and my uncle do meet with you guys on Thursday and so I pray theirs goes well also um I am wanting to talk about amendment one the city pays for the burial observer which Anne Marie already talked about and talked about a caveat so if there is a caveat I'm not quite sure why this would be passed tonight.

The resolution before you requires a professional to reach over every to watch over every casket burial we understand having an observer makes sense to many of the plots but as written the grieving family pays for it.

These families bought their plots in good faith some more than 50 years ago the problems in the cemetery came from a century of poor management and lost records not from anything these families have done if the city requires a safeguard the city should provide it amendment one keeps the observer at every burial it just says the city arranges it and pays for it.

Amendment one keeps the observer at every burial.

It just says the city arranges it and pays for it.

It's one sentence changed and it makes things more fair for families.

Please move and adopt citizen amendment one to saying that the city will pay for it.

Or like some of us have said, let's do a mass.

You know, my mom could pass in 15 years, we won't know what's there.

I would like my mom to be very next to my father, but without having it dug, I won't know for sure if there really is even something there or not.

I did talk to Megan and Melissa since there is two plots about kind of shifting if there was somebody over, um, shifting them to the other plot, and respectfully I understand that we can't do that.

So then my mom is the one who has to be shifted over, which is unfortunate.

But then we also did talk about maybe doing a little bit more looking into the grave site, confirming what is right here, because then it's my understanding the GPR went like maybe for instance three feet this way, three feet this way, and then made this orange magical rectangle.

So maybe it's further down, we don't know.

So it'd be nice to have it a little bit more investigated because then maybe my dad could go say east-west and my mom could go north south, and they could headbutt each other in a sense.

Um I just understand this has been very difficult.

I don't think any of us are gonna be happy unless it's what we all want, and I think that's really hard to meet, but um I think probably talking to the mayor in the parking lot one night, the three of us, including the mayor, there was two community people and the mayor.

I feel like you you're in a very hard place, and I do feel like our discussion was very good, and talking to you just one-on-one really helped.

So thank you guys for everything you've done.

Thank you.

Next, we'll hear from Jill Ortega.

Good evening.

Um, I'm Jill Ortega, and I want to thank you all for the hard work that you have done.

And I know, like we've all stated, you know, nobody's gonna be happy either way.

However, I do want to state that I'm still confused that you have the GPR going on, and we know, and these lovely ladies had stated, no, it's not accurate.

You don't have accurate records, the GPRs aren't accurate.

I just have a question as to a you know, can't we talk to the person that gave you that data?

Like if Jody and my mom and I went and you showed us that, can't that human come in and say this little hump is this and this isn't, but we think there's a rock there.

So I know I don't have a lot of time, but the thing of it is if we were to do a dig and say, God forbid, my mother passes.

I really think we need to move the digging and the observation to give people who are grieving, not that day, because you have so much going on buying tombstones, meeting with people, doing their financials, finding records.

I think we need to do that sooner than later, so that people can live their lives and go, okay, I know there's a body there, but you're gonna give me this option.

Or I'm digging here, and I know my mom can be there, and we verify it and we do a massive probe.

Like when Mr.

Nebone met with them, he has six plots, there's people in there, but he went out there, and then they said, he goes, Jill, it's open, it's totally open, there's no markers, no nothing.

I know in my heart there's no bodies there.

You guys told him he could go ahead and do a probe.

And I think if we do it smarter, not harder, and then the people like we talked, there were 30.

I don't know what that number is of people who want to casket, have a room of those people to sit down and go, okay, we're gonna all go out there, we'll do a little probe again.

The school of minds, I reached out to them, I reached out to the other people in the audience that are 70 to 95 to give them this hard copy.

So when they came here, they can answer those questions.

So we are a community, and if we work together, we want to work with you guys.

And I think you did good.

And some of the amendments that you had, I'm running out of time, like amendment seven.

Um, don't charge a family to move the headstone.

So the head stone, um I'm here to speak for citizens' amendment number seven.

It fixes a small thing that would feel very large to families, it touches the resolution offers families an exchange, give up your Lafayette plot, receive one at Cole Creek, where upright headstones will now be allowed.

That's a genuine offer.

And some families will take it, but some of those families already bought headstones for Lafayette.

Some are already standing, as written, a family who takes the exchange, pays out of its own pocket to move their monument.

So what are we going to do with that?

How are we going to change that?

If the city wants families to say yes to Cole Creek, saying yes, should shouldn't come with a moving bill in the middle of their grief.

So we got to look at the grief of the people.

How are we going to deal with that?

That's the headstone.

The other thing for the clock time.

Umendment 8 starts each family clock when the city mails our publisher the notice and gives them 180 days instead of 90 days.

So if you look at 90 days, like my mom, she's 86, she just lost her dad.

No, she's lucky she has my sister and I to be here to represent.

My mom can't deal with this.

Some of these people can't deal with this and go, okay, I gotta make a decision in 90 days.

Am I going to be cremated?

Am I going to be buried?

I got to call these people.

A lot of these people, no.

I just don't see that happening.

But I do believe that 180 days is reasonable for a person to gather themselves and come and go, okay, I gotta deal with this.

Because you're dealing with grief.

You know what I'm saying?

And so now you got to revisit that grief.

One day we'll all go to grief, but it's coming to us.

So thank you so much.

Unfortunately, your five minutes are up.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next we'll hear from Myra Overdorf.

Myra?

I thought they said we have cats.

Myra Overdorf.

Okay.

Hello, my name is Myra Overdorf.

And I do think that the 90 days needs to be extended.

There is a lot of people that don't know anything even about this.

And I also, like I said, I have original deeds that date back to 1931.

The incompetence does not lay with me.

They're original deeds.

It lays with you.

And your prior administrations, too.

We need to work through this slowly and not be, you know, in a hurry about this.

Because there's a lot of still unanswered questions.

I had a private meeting.

I still am unclear about everything.

I need kind of a walkthrough up there to determine, you know, they say that somebody else is in there.

I don't understand how somebody else really can be in there.

But my ancestors, like I said, put this in place 95 years ago, so we could all be together.

You're messing up people's genealogy.

Because a lot of genealogy studies are through cemeteries.

And if you've got this group here, and then one person over there.

That's what I'm opposed to because our ancestors planned for us to be together.

And I want to see that happen.

And I think it can if we take our time with it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Beverly Smith.

Hi, I'm Beverly Smith.

I lived here 84.

Oh, it's 84 years in March, so a few months later.

Anyhow, uh, my sister Carol and I, Carol's here too, uh, we decided to put something in writing.

We decided to put something in writing.

I believe it was given to you tonight.

Anyhow, we questioned the GPR.

We don't know how accurate we've heard, not very accurate.

We each bought two lots, and our brother, who passed in 21, he bought four lots.

Now, in 22, 23, right at the it was after he died, his wife wanted to sell those four lots, and people wanted to buy them.

And City told her she couldn't sell them.

She could only sell them back to the city of Lafayette.

So when we had our meeting, we asked where those lots were.

They couldn't tell.

They said they didn't know.

Said, well, the city, and I don't know, maybe there's some empty lots that under this GPR thing.

Maybe not.

We were told ours were full.

We really don't want to be buried even cremated on top of somebody we don't know.

So and after living here that long, we'd like to be buried where our parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles are.

Do you know the GPR didn't show any?

Can we get a copy of like say where our parents and grandparents are and where my brothers were?

I mean, if his were empty, we'd like to have them.

Carol bought two, we bought two.

So that's it.

And I know that you have a committee, which was a council.

Um years ago when they did a committee, they always had a citizen at large to put things in foot.

Did you ever consider that either?

And another question I we had is why did they call the Colorado archaeologist in?

They were human remains.

We get no answers for that either.

Anyhow, um those were our questions.

I think you got a copy.

Um I can give you my numbers, 720-899-0070.

Give me a call if you can answer those questions and let me know.

Or Carol too.

So we'd appreciate it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Carol Sadler.

I'm Beverly's sister.

And uh been here not as long as her, but almost as long.

First thing don't believe the GPR.

I just don't, because I've heard of two cases where they said there was nothing there, and the people know somebody was buried there.

So if two out of, I don't know, we don't know how many, there's probably a lot of error there.

So I never believed that.

Don't know why they got a state archaeologist to come in.

For what reason, I don't know.

Our parents' lots, and grandparents' lots and aunts and uncles' lots, are close to where our lots are.

When we buried them all, there was no problem.

So why is there a problem now?

This is what I received from the city when I went to my meeting.

These two, this green one and this one, are mine.

And they said, well, you could put cremains there.

Who wants to be buried on top of people if there are actually people there?

You know?

So there was no decision.

Also we asked, where are our brothers' lots?

Don't know.

You should have had answers for us when we got there.

Uh I don't think the forefathers who did burials back in 1810 or 1910, 1920, just buried them haphazardly.

I I really don't think they did.

Is Lafayette the only cemetery that this GPR company has done?

I've never heard if the of another one that has had a GPR for their entire cemetery.

I mean, you have the old cemetery in Boulder that over off of 9th Street or 10th Street.

You've had, I mean, cemeteries all over.

Yet all over Colorado, Southern Colorado.

There have not been problems.

People respected where other people were buried.

So I really don't believe your GPR.

I would like information on how accurate that they've been, and if there has been other cemeteries in Colorado that this has been done.

Or if there have been cemeteries in the US that this has been done.

I know back east where Jay's from, cemeteries are still there and they're still digging the holes and putting the people in.

But why it's Lafayette this bad?

I mean, I know that you messed up with the Potter's field, but that's fixable.

I mean, all of this stuff is fixable.

But for council to just go ahead and believe what GPR says when you know there are errors.

James Ortega, he he knows where his mother was buried.

I know where my parents were buried, which is not too far away from here.

It was my mom, my dad, my uh Uncle Jimmy, Uncle AB, my grandma, and my grandpa Aveda, and then my mom and dad, and then my aunt and uncle are up there.

And they aren't that far.

And when they buried them, there were no problems.

So I don't know what you guys are gonna do.

I recommend that you don't sign this resolution tonight and you extend that 90 days, which is ridiculous.

I mean, that's three months.

You know, people should have more than three months to decide what they're going to do.

And how in the world can they tell me?

Yes, you can be buried with cremains on top of these graves of people you don't even know who they are.

And there's no record.

I mean, they didn't tell me, oh, John Smith is buried here, or you know, Andrew Gonzalez is buried here, and I'm just making up those names.

But that's just the way I feel.

And this was what I was given.

Didn't know what the green meant, don't know what the gray means, and I'd like to know where the empty lots are, so that if I have to move, my husband and I will be together.

I'm not like some of the others, both my husband and I, we're still around, but we want to be together because we've been married for 58 years.

So, you know, please help us with this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Janet Shriva.

Hi, my name is Janet Sherba, and I'm here with my sister Kathy tonight, and we're part of the Rogers family plot.

Okay, um, we did have a meeting with city staff, and we were told that there's two people in my sister's plot, and then another plot, there's a full burial, and is that what we were told?

But with the um with that data, there it's you know, we've had no other issues with the rest of our burials.

Um there was an encroachment under like right below my brother's plot on the plot below his, and I addressed it with the city.

This was in about 2019, and I even I went around and around with city staff at that point saying they're encroaching on our plot, and one of the guys from the parks and whoever digs the graves came out and said, Oh, well, it's just it's just creamings anyways, it's not a problem.

So, I mean, it's been years and years of problems building.

And my mother bought those plots in 1995 to keep us all together.

Now we have to figure out what are you know who's gonna be excluded now.

Everybody, there's just there's four of us left, and now there's two plots you're saying we can't can't use.

My sister wanted to be buried by her first husband, and that's heartbreaking.

It's it's truly heartbreaking.

We were never asked if we wanted a casket burial at the city meeting.

Um we were told that information was going to be emailed to us, and it never was.

Um this is just my personal opinion.

When we do run across remains, one of the people keep saying unidentified, unidentified.

And I know that especially in like Hispanic culture, the longer you keep that person's name alive, you know, they're still alive.

We have got to use DNA to identify any remains found so that we can give those people a name for our history.

There's too many deep roots in this town.

There's too many fam founding families still around.

We've got to find a way to honor those people.

And I'm also up here addressing another citizen's amendment, amend it two.

Um review, one operation, and an answer for everyone.

Um right now the res of resolution reviews plots one at a time with no deadline.

That means a family could find out whether their plot is usable at the worst possible possible moment at the graveside when it's too late to plan.

Most of the plot holders are in their 70s, 80s, and 90s.

All summer they've asked one simple question just let us know whether our plot can be used.

Amendment amendment two answers them.

After families sign up, the city study the city studies every requested plot at once.

Any digging or field work happens as one scheduled operation, not stretched out over years, and every family gets a written answer within 120 days.

One operation is cheaper than dozens, and every family gets to plan and sleep at night.

Please move and adopt citizen amendment number two.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Doug Conaro.

Mayor Counselors, the the air conditioning work is better out there too, in addition to we've come a long way in six months, and I applaud you for that.

Um there's been a lot of progress.

I think you're on the right track.

I think this is solid what you've proposed.

I do think we need longer 180 days versus 90 days for most of these provisions.

The concept of um ascertaining who was there and who wasn't there in a specific burial plot, it's kind of uh hindsight 2020, but the archaeologist came in and did some research, and then SWCA did some research, and neither one of them relied on local knowledge to be able to make to ascertain their findings and to consult with uh and frankly, I would have been happy to help offered my services previously, but uh that was a mistake, and some of these anomalies that Carol talks about.

I know who's in your graveside, I know who's in there.

It's one of the Simpsons, it's probably John H.

Simpson because they were a prominent family.

The plot next year's the prominent families were like, hey, we need a little more room, let's just start pushing everybody in the family over in other people's uh areas.

But I it's John H.

Simpson that's in your that's taking up your spot.

Um yeah, topics.

No, I don't blame it.

I don't blame it.

It's a he died a penniless man, so there's a he was the richest man in town, and he died penniless in 1909.

So he's who Simpson Street's named after.

Um so the other part is the quality of the excavation has to do it's 90% of what we're talking about.

Chris Keller's crew that he had in there, I witnessed Fred Smith's excavation, the state archaeologist's office was there.

That crew was phenomenal.

The excavator, excellent, with a machine with a shovel, they tag teamed, and I think that's the opportunity that you are talking about.

Put those guys on retainer, train them to do what they did, and they could show you how they did it, and let them let them do the work, hire them to do the work, let them be trained to do whatever you need them to do because they were they were very good.

Um I think they do it.

I don't yeah, I don't know that you have to Chris to talk to him, but they were they were very good.

Um I don't know.

The other the other part is you know, we're we're finding out who some of these people are in Pottersfield and through the the henning burial records, the hen the limited handing maps that we have, and I don't know that we're approaching being able to do DNA with most of them, but we we you know we can narrow them down to two or three people and that'll help.

Uh some of them are related uh to everybody in this room, but um that'll continue.

That work will continue, particularly in Pottersfield.

The sign I understand is we added two names to it, so it's gonna be delayed another week, so next month, right?

Next month sometime is when the sign's gonna go up.

Uh we leaving room with uh four more.

Um there's a family that came forward this week and said, Hey, my grandmother's there, and sure enough, that's where she is uh near her husband.

So anyway, still still a lot to go.

You have a lot of decisions still to make, but I I appreciate the work you put into this.

So thank you.

Next we'll hear from Auntie Calvo.

Andy Calvin.

Yeah.

Damn Andy Cowell, I'm here to represent my mom.

Um we burned my dad a year ago.

And I understand the problems that you had because we had a plot on one corner of the uh the cemetery, and they said it was unusual.

So we went to found us another place, and I think they've hit a grave or something there.

So they moved towards buried now.

And uh I kind of dragged my feet on the uh headstone.

That's uh I don't know if that's eight thousand dollars for my mom and dad.

So I only have really one option for my mom.

I'll test the brother.

Um this um it's the first time error.

I'm getting a lot of information.

Uh like I said, that that 90 days I do not agree with.

Because like I said, I'm just finding out about it.

Uh I'm not gonna use the whole five minutes.

I just uh want to let you know that uh I'm working with uh Christy, and uh and uh they send over uh a permit for the headstone and she didn't approve it.

And I guess because of all this is what's going on.

So I I do have a meeting set up.

Um I put game my name to have a meeting and to see what my options are gonna be.

But I appreciate your time and effort.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Julie Blund.

Hi.

Um I'm here to speak for the citizen amendment number three.

Uh decisions in writing.

Um it's about fairness and transparent transparency.

If the answer is no, under the resolution, one official, the city manager, decides which families get a casket burial.

Nothing requires the decision to be in writing, no reasons need to be given, and no appeal is allowed.

These are decisions about families resting next to loved ones, decisions about eternity.

They deserve more process than a parking ticket.

Parking ticket takes at least you can contest a parking ticket.

The amendment says that uh denial must come in writing with the reasons and the data behind it, and the family has 30 days to ask you, the elected council to take a second look in public at the same information in front of everyone.

Uh that's where the last word should live is with us.

You guys represent us, and please move to adopt the citizen amendment number three.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Tony Munoz.

Hello, City Council.

I'd like to start by saying thank you very, very much.

The resolution is starting to really come together.

I'm super excited, and I actually um I I feel a ton of hope.

Uh the uh the one thing that um I really hope we don't sign it today.

It's so close, but the 90 days.

Um I know everybody spoke on that, but the the real gotcha is uh I work with the shut-ins, and when people are going through these long-term illnesses, they're not calling you know Lafayette, they live in North Carolina.

One family lives um in in Alabama, you know, they just live in different places, they're in different phases in life right now.

I've reached out to uh somebody that lives up north.

She's like, I think my brother's gonna take it, but we're not really talking.

I'm like, I don't want to hear that you gotta address this issue.

Well, you know, I'm afraid that people are going to continue to kind of drag their feet a little bit if there's not a deadline.

So I get that, but also the 90 days, I think that that's kind of that's like a oops, that that's not a good idea for something uh regarding a deed.

Uh remember, I'm I'm very much into the leak the fact that this is the legal aspect.

This is a deed we're talking about.

And so we really need to make certain that we keep our our you know everything in order.

Uh the other reason why the 90 days is just not a good solution at all, is because um we don't even have a list.

I think I have a list of all the people I've been reaching out to, and I've asked them, has the city contacted you?

Have you called them?

Did you look, you know, online, they're like, I don't want to get online.

So I'll take pictures and I text it to them.

Trying to get their attention to this extremely important matter.

Um and some of them are, you know, they're senior me.

And so I I think they're just like, well, maybe somebody else is gonna do it, and I'm like, oh, I I can't do it.

I I don't own the deed.

Um, I'm not a party to the deed.

Uh and and because some of them are senior me, they don't really think like that.

I'm dealing with some people, they have Alzheimer's.

And and so I I hate to even say it.

Um so please let's let's think about that part of it.

It's so close.

But the really big reason why we cannot do a 90-day today.

We didn't get our list together, guys.

We're supposed to have a list and notice to the public.

Just like when somebody passes and I go to sell their home, they want to sell it right away.

It's like, no, you need to open an estate.

We need to send a note to debtors.

We've there's certain things that need to transpire to make certain everything's in the clear.

And so uh we need to do that right now to to finish that up.

And last but not least, I know it's really late.

Um, the radar, the the sonic radar, whatever that thing is.

I was at Jim's mother's funeral.

I'd go to mass with her after her her husband died.

Um I I just think it's um really um either something wasn't laid down right, uh something's not correct here, uh, and I I don't quite understand what could what's amiss, or if maybe that technology isn't that good.

I I don't know.

Something's wrong there too.

Uh so there's a there's a few of these, you know, go into all these cemeteries.

There's been a time at work where they didn't believe me that I was really going to cemetery to funerals, but it's just our community, and so thank you again.

Please let's keep working really hard on all of this, and I appreciate your time.

Good night.

Thank you so much.

Before we move on to our next speaker, I will just announce that our Mayor Pro Tem was able to make it.

So for the record, uh just making it clear that our mayor pro tem did join the meeting.

Uh but with that we'll move on to our uh our next speaker, Andrew Whittencorn.

Uh good evening.

Um I'm gonna keep this short and I will ask uh I don't know if it's loud for someone else to speak the rest of the information that I don't have.

Um I just wanted to say to you all uh we fight to bring our soldiers home.

We fight very hard for that.

I'm asking uh for counsel to also fight and take on this responsibility extremely seriously for us to be buried next to our loved ones.

We fight to bring them home.

They should be fought for here.

Um this is America.

We're also humans, and we enjoy a lot of things.

Uh one of the things I enjoyed as a kid was playing Tetris.

There are a lot of uh plots that are encroaching at this point still, and I still don't understand how we can't Tetris these people in so they can be buried next to their wives or husbands.

Um I don't use the rest of the time.

Um so I'll just ask if you would like to finish my time.

I don't think that's allowed, but is that allowed?

I don't want to.

No, so unfortunately the five minutes are yours and you are able to do what.

Thank you.

Well, I'm I'm gonna step off if if that is allowed, then I'll let it have the rest of my thank you so much.

Thanks, sir.

Next we'll hear from Debbie Neme.

I just have uh a couple questions that I hope I can get answered tonight.

Um we have given our information for contact information that we have received no mailings at all.

So I don't know how that happens.

And then I don't know how to sign up for the meeting.

I don't know if I need to speak with Chris Keller.

Is that still the person you talk to?

Are you sign up?

I don't know how to sign up for a meeting.

Is there a number to call?

I mean the little part cards.

These two are need to use it.

Does anybody answer a question?

This is your time to address council.

Our staff will reach out to you after this, but go ahead and use the rest of your time.

Okay.

Because I have to leave in a few minutes.

I have a flight really early in the morning, but that's just my main thing.

And um also uh oh that's enough.

Um that's all I need to drive.

Thank you.

Okay.

I have no more speaker request forms, so I will just make sure.

Uh is there anyone in the room who hasn't had the chance to speak that would like to address council at this time.

Seeing none, I will look to our city clerk to see if we have any calls.

We have three callers online, Mayor.

Um caller with the phone number ending in three to five.

Talking is now available.

Number ending in 325.

Press star six to unmute.

Number ending in 325.

Okay, I've been informed 325 has left.

Um we will move on to number ending in 582.

Talking is now available.

Caller with the number ending in 582.

I gave that.

Press star six to unmute.

Caller ending in 582.

All right, and moving on to the next one, uh caller with the number ending in 854.

Talking is now available.

Number ending in 854.

Call our ending in 854.

Last call.

Thank you so much.

With that, we will close public input for tonight.

Uh and move on to the final agenda item within the items pertaining to the Lafayette Cemetery, which is the consideration of resolution number 2026-18.

Um I'm trying to figure out the best path forward here because uh like similar to a public hearing, we have we have public input and now we deliberate over what's in front of us.

Uh but being that there was a subcommittee and being that I heard a lot of questions uh during public input.

I think it would be prudent of us if the rest of council would uh be okay with this to just address some of the questions as a subcommittee, and then perhaps with the help of staff, just being that we're we're up here and we probably have some of those questions as well.

Um and I saw you writing stuff down, Councilor Bolier, so I will turn to you.

Sure, thank thank you, Mayor.

Uh thank you so much, folks, once again for for your very um useful, thoughtful, heartfelt input.

Um we heard it.

It's been in a strange way enjoyable to get to know many of you in the past few months and to hear your stories, even while I'm I'm very sorry that we are all collectively in this situation.

So I also just really appreciate the compassion understanding from many of you that if we had the geography, um if we had the geography for to affect the solution that we all want, then then we would snap our fingers to do that.

So thank you so much.

Um, just a couple quick things.

Um I heard loud and clearly that 90 days doesn't cut it.

So I I think and I'm I'm sure the mayor will agree.

I think we can sort certainly talk with other counselors about how to flex on that.

I think the logic of a deadline, and I believe uh Tony, I think you noticed this.

Uh we need to have some sort of time frame just to sort of collect this and drive forward.

I think 90 days was just kind of tossed out there, so happy to flex on that.

So thank you very much for your feedback on that.

You know, one thing that we heard both in the one-on-one meetings but also in the community dialogues was the the emphasis on urgency from the community.

We really need answers, we need solutions.

So please forgive us for putting the 90 days on the table, but we wanted to demonstrate that hey, here's some some potential paths forward, and within a three-month period, we'll try to address those.

So happy to flex on the 90 days.

Um in terms of the draft plot agreement ahead of time.

Um I'm quite comfortable uh assuming this resolution passes, which I intend to vote for it.

I'm very comfortable with with staff drafting uh a plot agreement and then putting that out for the community to see.

No one's going to be forced to sign anything, and my understanding, and I'll defer to staff to correct me if I'm wrong, and my understanding is we would uh uh permeate or co-create some of the elements of that uh draft agreement uh contingent upon the unique circumstances of each individual plot.

Is that correct?

I'm seeing vigorous head nodding.

So for example, um, you know, Kathy Erickson, we know that that you have a unique circumstance.

So I think in you and your family's meetings with city staff, we'll be able to figure out like do we need to do further analysis, do we need to explore other options?

But understanding we are limited by the the physical space.

But that's something we definitely want to ensure that there's creativity that we co-create this together, and that you're not presented with a form to sign or not.

Okay.

So I just want to be very clear on that.

Um something that didn't come up, and I meant to address this earlier.

Um, the rules and laws around disinterring your family members uh have not been affected either by the moratorium it started last fall or by any of this conversation.

So nothing on the table affects your rights and and privileges regarding potentially disinterring your own family members, so I just want to make sure that's clear.

Um I have some questions I'll direct to staff in a moment, but you know, something has come up on the ground penetrating radar.

Um I don't work for ground penetrating radar companies.

I have no dog in this fight, but from what I have learned from experts, my understanding is that it is the gold standard.

I would welcome uh anyone educating me on another non-invasive gold standard, uh, non-invasive being the key word.

I think there's something we can discuss mayor in terms of whether test digs are a feasible option.

But as far as non-invasive, my understanding is that ground penetrating radar is is the gold standard, and this handsome gentleman, Chris Keller there is nodding in agreement.

So I think that is that is the case.

Um I I heard some questions around the headstone amendment, so I want to make sure that we discussed those.

Um I really appreciate all the feedback from the community.

Uh I think there's maybe one other thing I want to highlight.

The the legal aspect.

Um that I just I want to make clear before we dig into the to the resolution, is that while the city staff have been trying to do tremendous research uh to uncover you know lost records, uh, who's who, thank you, you know, Mr.

Connerau.

Um I think Doug's not in the room, but you know, sharing the news about the John H.

Simpson buried it in in Ms.

Saddler's plot.

So that I think is a real selling point for the friends of the Lafayette Cemetery, and I'm gonna nominate uh Doug and Frank among others to be on that group.

Um but I do think there's something that we have to be clear about, which is that part of the cemetery plot agreement that folks signed was an agreement to update the city if they changed addresses.

Now I understand as of the the Ortega family.

Um, Jim, I know you didn't get mail that you should have, because you've been in the same address for a long time.

So errors and mistakes were made.

And it is incumbent upon cemetery plot owners to update the city on their address.

And so if there is a family member, a hypothetical family member or plot owner who now lives in Australia and has not told the city that I am a little confused as to how we're supposed to find them.

So I think to Counselor Gianola's question in terms of the public notice and putting the names out there, and as our city staff mentioned, the records that we have been able to find, you know, we've done the best we can.

But it was in the agreement, and I'm just gonna read it so everyone is is on the same page.

Um the agreement that everyone signed for the cemetery plot is under 7.5, change of address of law owner.

It shall be the duty of the owner to notify the city of any change in his or her address.

Notice sent to an owner at the last address on file in the office of the city clerk shall be considered sufficient prior legal notification.

So with that said, we are still trying to find people.

So even though that was the legal agreement that the city signed with plot owners, we are still trying to find people.

We would love your help finding folks.

The gentlelady uh Debbie, who I believe um you just gave the contact information from.

So that's that's a new person.

So if you have folks, let's absolutely find them.

But I do want us to be clear that the duty was on the plot owner to update the city of changes of address.

So I want us to keep that in mind as we proceed.

Uh with that, Mayor, I think those are my opening remarks just with tremendous appreciation for for the public for coming out, for holding us to account, for giving us good ideas and good guidance, uh, and just extraordinary appreciation to to staff to Mr.

Keller for the tremendous work they've done in the past few months on this issue.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh being that you hit on pretty much all of mine.

Do you want to start us off with questions for staff?

I I know you have a few.

Sure thing.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, two primary questions, and I appreciate the the suggested amendments on the table.

But one is, you know, we heard the question on the city paying for plot owners, and I understand there's an effort to train staff on how to function that observer role.

Now, my understanding is that each plot observation of a dig, and Chris will also look to you, um, is uh is a couple grand for that observer.

Is that roughly right?

Uh it depends on who we're or who we're talking about.

But in Do you mind coming up?

And Chris, would you mind introducing yourself just for anyone who doesn't know?

Yeah, for those of you who I haven't met, um hello, um, I'm Chris Keller, and I kind of work for you.

Um so my company, uh Link Partners has been hired to help operate the cemetery, especially through this this difficult time.

We've got a lot of experience with cemeteries, especially historic cemeteries.

Uh to answer a question earlier, too.

Uh I've been part of and actively aware of hundreds, if not thousands of GPR studies in old cemeteries throughout the country.

So this is common.

This is the gold standard, and it's absolutely not perfect.

But this is about as good as it gets, and I'll say it again, the data we have for this cemetery as GPS GPR data goes is good.

It's just not perfect.

Now back to the question of having an observer there, depends on who you're hiring to do it.

And I'll bring up the question as to whether or not we already functionally have that.

Because each and every dig, and Doug Conroe alluded to this, as my team is in there excavating, I'm at every dig.

Now, whether or not we need to bring in the state archaeologist's office or a medical examiner, uh depending on what we're finding, that would that would follow from what we find once we open the ground.

But as far as having an observer there and not just having a guy on a backhoe, functionally the city already has that right here.

Um so whether we need to go beyond that and train others to do that or not, up to the council to decide.

I don't know that it's required at this point.

Okay.

Anything else?

Thank you, Chris.

Uh, just on that note, if the powers that be come down and say you and city staff are not allowed to do that.

I believe they are, and I I'm with you.

What what would it cost for an individual uh dig um observer per those plus or minus 30?

I wish I could give you a a number on that.

I have no idea because I've never had to engage someone outside you might know.

We did um we didn't have to conduct a burial, and we uh had worked with the state archaeologist to bring someone in, and it was like three to four thousand dollars.

Wouldn't surprise me.

I think the estimate that was the estimate that we got from them.

Yeah.

And we did the state archaeologist said that someone from her staff might be able to come and assist, so we had a couple of options, and that was like a last minute situation.

So I think that um again, it could be a range of costs, but again, I think we would want to mitigate those costs and also recognize that it might be something that would happen potentially, you know, more frequently.

So we'd want to have people trained, they should help with that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you so much for answering my question.

I just if I might uh a brief opinion on that.

Um I would love to see us empower Chris andor other staff and get get them trained, whatever that looks like, so that we could do that in-house.

Um because I agree with the concern that pushing that that cost to residents, I I feel empathy for that.

I also do think we have as council a real fiscal responsibility duty to our our residents.

Um we know that we're looking at several hundred thousand dollars as we try to solve this problem.

Um great tunes.

That's a that's a great thought.

Sorry.

Oh no, not at all.

Um is a happy thought.

I I guess a question that that I have for fellow counselors is you know, we've heard a lot of really wonderful thoughts uh and and heartfelt questions and some things that have held us to account.

But something I'm kind of personally struggling with as we consider this resolution is the challenge of misinformation percolating and how to how to address that and how to try to ensure that the public is able to make uh their decisions and their assessments of whatever decision we take tonight with kind of the the full understanding of things.

You know, for example, the question came up this evening as to why the state archaeologist was brought out.

And I think we have a very clear answer to that in terms of when we encountered human remains last fall and various laws uh that Colorado has and that we had to uh to satisfy.

So I I welcome folks from both staff and fellow counselors' thoughts in terms of how we can continue to tell the story and ensure the public is able to understand what we're collectively grappling with.

Mayor, maybe I'll turn to you first.

I think it's a hard one.

Um I believe it comes through our efforts and our recommendation to really push communication.

Um like I said before, I I I think this will be the most robust process in terms of engagement, communication, and just outreach that the city has done, and I I want that to continue.

Uh it's difficult, though.

Misinformation has been something that we've been fighting since they won on this issue, and it's it's certainly made things more difficult when I get a call that is something completely out of the blue and it's entirely wrong because they heard it from someone else or they saw it on a Facebook post, it makes things much more difficult.

And it also unfortunately stresses out the people that were given that misinformation.

So I hear you.

I don't know if I have a perfect answer.

I wish I did.

Uh, but outside of just extensive communication and really trying with our communications department to make this as clear as possible.

Here is the information and try to get everyone the correct information.

I don't know if there's a perfect answer.

Thank you, Mayor.

Any questions from council, thoughts from council?

We are now fully in deliberation mode.

I mean, just on that last topic.

I mean, we do have a frequently asked questions about the cemetery, and as we get new questions, we should continue to update that.

You know, the this question of why was the archaeologist called has come up several times.

This to me is one of the most frequently asked questions.

And the and that question is not on here, and the answer is not on here.

Um so that might be you know a way that we can continue to address this.

It was in uh something we had because I didn't know that and that question.

I don't know if it was in a memo to council or whatever, but the reason I remember was that there were some bones discovered and they were old enough to warrant that they were historical, not current, which is why the archaeologist was called.

Um and that is the practice.

Yeah, and my my understanding of it is there's a a process that staff is supposed to go through according to state law.

The state law spells it out very clearly, but that state law does not appear in the answer to that question.

And it I think the public would understand it very easily to say, okay, we followed this, and then we did the next step was after we called the the police and the uh the coroner that when they determine that the bones are historical age, then you call the archaeologist.

So it's a very easy, shut and dry answer, but that law you know just hasn't been spelled out as far as I'm aware.

I I'm happy to request uh our city attorney to add laws to the FAQs.

I I would note that at this point there's something like 40 frequently asked questions.

And at certain point, the law of diminishing returns comes into effect.

But the specific question on the the archaeologist, I agree it could be highlighted.

Why was the state archaeologist called in?

But on the city cemetery's website, the question, why was a moratorium enacted to prohibit casket burials?

I'll just read this, it's very quick.

During a burial in September of 2025, workers digging a grave encountered fragments of human bone and casket hardware in the cemetery soils pile, as is required by state law, the city notified police and the Boulder County coroner.

Due to the age of the remains, the Boulder County Coroner's office contacted the Colorado State archaeologist, Dr.

Holly Norton, who confirmed the presence of human remains.

After this discovery, the previous city council enacted a moratorium on casket burials at the historic cemetery, et cetera.

So I just I just want to be very clear.

That's why the state archaeologist was brought in, right?

First we went to the Boulder County Coroner, as is required by law.

Boulder County Coroner was like, this is very, very old.

Called Dr.

Holly Norton, and she and her expertise in office then began um engaging with our community.

That's clear.

Council General, I think you have more.

Um, I I do thank all the members of the public who spoke.

Um you raise a lot of important uh questions that I hope we can get answers to.

Some of them uh I'll try to you know raise at this time.

Um others have been raised already by Council Bullier and the mayor.

Um of the questions that uh I want to address is, and I think maybe this was you know addressed by Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

Keller, is it?

Um, about you know identifying unmarked remains.

You know, for example, using DNA.

This is something that you know would require removing human remains from the ground.

And as I understand it, that is not permitted by the law.

We I don't think we will be doing any removal of human remains, even as as a glorious of an idea to identify someone.

Uh it just it's it's impractical and unworkable.

And to me personally, I don't feel morally justified by that.

Um, the the I think uh someone else raised the issue of you know the liability of knowingly or unknowingly disturbing remains in the ground and saying that the law shouldn't be a roadblock and it doesn't prohibit it.

And while that may be true, I believe that our uh our morals should block us from removing remains from the ground and disturbing remains uh from the gr from the ground.

We should we should rise higher than what the law requires in this case.

Um and so to me, uh you know the risks of disturbing uh you know the the remains in the ground are really high, even with reasonable care.

Um you know, we we have the soils pile that apparently has human remains in it, and the excavations were done with with care, as we've heard, and yet human remains appear in the soils pile.

It's not always easy to identify these, as we've heard from the state archaeologist.

Um you might not know what uh a bone fragment looks like.

They they have special training to understand what that looks like.

It's not always easy.

Um so I I just personally morally do not feel like you know, this this broad question of a just let's dig the entire site to give everyone the answer of what's there.

To me, I just don't understand the practicality or the the realism of that happening just feels uh uh morally atrocious to me that you're going to risk disturbing all these, you know, folks who have family members in the ground.

But the unmarked and unknown burials.

I do appreciate uh Mr.

Conaro raising that you know it's possible to identify some of these uh encroachments from the ground, actually, through historical records.

Um so that to me is uh a really uh helpful piece of information.

I did want to raise an issue.

You know, we heard someone talk about you know probing the ground, and this is not something that I was aware of that has occurred.

I believe uh uh Ms.

Ortega mentioned the knee bones probe their their lots.

Um I don't know if staff can address the ability to probe uh lots and what might I when that might be allowed, when that might not be allowed.

Um I I again I have have moral qualms about you know about that.

Um please.

Real quick on the on the subject of probing.

Um in a cemetery sense, probing is actually uh reaching down through the ground with a steel rod.

You're searching for a cascular vault.

And if you find a cascular vault and you're in a human cemetery and you're in a grave plot, and you can actually find the the the margins of that by multiple probes, and and it gives you pretty good idea in a modern burial what you're looking at, what you're finding without having to disturb the remains unduly.

The problem with these older ones, and especially uh burials that do not have a protective vault around them, and this cemetery did not require protective vaults until probably the mid-80s.

Um had them earlier, but wasn't required.

Um by this point, the casket and its contents have degraded enough that in many cases the probe will go right through.

You will not know what you hit.

I mean, you're hitting rock, you're hitting tree roots, and you're hitting hard dirt all the way down, so you will go right through it.

And so back to your issue, and and from my personal standpoint, it's an ethical issue too.

I I'm ramming rods through through bodies, and I want to be real careful of that.

There are times for that.

And when we did the Smith burial that uh uh Mr.

Conroe uh mentioned, as we hit what was obviously a vault, we probed and we used this uh grave probe and we found the margins of the vault and we moved accordingly, playing Tetris uh to find a way to get that burial in.

But we found two caskets in the meantime.

But probing helped.

But it's a tool that's more helpful during the dig process than it is above the ground to find where a burial might be.

So I don't know what Mr.

Nebone was given permission to do or what probing meant in his case, but probing just ramming a rod down in going to tell them anything.

Yep.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um I had just one more question.

Um it was regarding uh two more questions.

Um about process, you know.

Um Mr.

Mayor and Council, you know, we've been provided these citizen amendments and we've heard a lot of uh the community members speak on the citizen amendments.

I wanted to raise an issue to the city attorney, you know, if we were to adopt some of these amendments to the resolution, what is the process to to achieve that?

Um is that something that is straightforward to do?

Is that you know how how do we do this on the dais?

Well, in terms of any amendments that you wish to make to the resolution tonight, you would do that through a motion to amend and then state what you would like to amend.

And so uh with the number of amendments that have been proposed by the public tonight or that council might consider, I would recommend that you handle those one at a time before you make a final motion to approve the resolution to determine if there's council support or discussion on a particular amendment.

Understood.

Um I think that actually is all I have for right now.

I may have one more if I can do a member.

Counselor Gallegos.

I just had a clarifying question regarding the 90-day timeline.

So I thought I had heard during the presentation that if you are already in talks with the city, the 90-day timeline does not apply to you and your family.

Could you correct that for me and members of the public?

So I don't believe there's anything to correct with your statement.

If you've already had a meeting with the city, if you've already had a one-on-one and you're already talking about what the potential group might look like, that 90 days does not pertain to you.

What that 90 days for us is ideally finding new folks, folks that we haven't heard from, folks that haven't reached out.

So just assuming most people in this room uh have had one-on-one meetings with our city or have reached out to our city in some capacity, it wouldn't affect any of you, those 90 days for lack of a better term, do not matter for your individual cases.

Thank you.

Councilor Jensen.

Thank you.

I I wanted to follow up on the 90-day issue, and I I first of all I want to say to all of everyone that we owe all of you an apology.

The city has messed this up throughout history and throughout time, and um we are in this circumstance because of negligence on the part of the city.

And I'm sorry to say that this is happening to you, and it breaks all of our hearts up here to hear the pain that you are going through.

I I can't imagine how difficult it is.

And I know if my father were told that he couldn't be buried next to my mom, it it would be the end of his world.

So I get it.

I really do.

But with regard to the 90 days specifically, I think part of the reason that 90 days was a quick turnaround is if there are people who have plots who are not contactable in any way, who have moved to Australia or whatever, then that plot potentially becomes available for someone else if it actually exists, right?

So it's a benefit to those of you who are here in Lafayette who might want to know whether that plot might be available to you to expedite that time frame.

Where it's not a benefit is to whoever moved to Australia who might not have heard about this, who does want their plot and who now has to contact us and may have less time.

So I think it goes both ways, and I'm I'm unclear as to whether it's good to extend that amount of time or it's bad to extend that amount of time.

Um so I I'd love to hear other council members' thoughts about that.

Um, and I'd also like to ask staff a question about this consolidated review and study, like if doing it all at once uh is in any way beneficial.

Part part of me says um it would be expensive and it would be time consuming, and it might not happen quickly to do it all at once.

So it it might not be beneficial, but I uh I would love to hear from whoever is the appropriate staff person, just your comments or feedback on this proposal to do this all at once, so everybody knows what's what I think in terms of the um the additional sort of GPR analysis and research, which is something that we're talking with the with a lot of the families about is taking a closer look at the data that you know has been um generated on a plot by plot level and doing more analysis and potentially doing more kind of field research around that.

That is something that we will likely be doing during that three-month period, and um it'll probably take a little bit of time to do that, and but they'll be in the process.

So even if their agreement isn't complete beyond that, you know, they'll still be in that process.

And yes, I mean, I I think an extension um that's that's your that's your decision, but at some point we will probably have to move past that kind of process with the company that we've been working with with the GPR company.

I don't know if we can continue to do that work sort of indefinitely, but you know, I don't know what the timeline will be for that.

So, but I I'm you know, Doug Conrose offered his assistance, and we have um you know, additional sort of research that we could do for individual plots.

Why would it be beneficial or not to do that all at once versus on a case-by-case basis?

I I mean I you know I I don't I don't know.

I think we we probably they've been Doug and Frank have been doing that research on an ongoing basis for years, I think.

I don't know if that's still here.

They've been doing that you know, kind of on an ongoing basis.

They've been getting more information.

So I you know, I don't know if there's benefit to doing that all at once.

Okay.

And then um personally, I believe the role of council is to develop policy and allow staff to implement.

So I would not want to be asked to review what is an objective decision on the part of our city manager and staff on what happens with an individual.

I don't think that's a political decision.

I think that should be based on data and what they're able to discover, and I trust that they will do the best job possible.

So I'm I'm really strongly opposed to that option that is presented uh before us.

And then with regard to the making public the agreement, it's a gonna be a generic agreement that will be customized to each family.

So we can make public the generic agreement, but maybe not everybody wants their personal private agreement shared with the general public, and I think that should be respected, and if they want to share it, great, let them share it.

But I I don't know that in their hour of uh you know making a difficult decision, it's appropriate to share that information with everybody and their brother.

So I'm I'm not excited about that one.

Um but I I I do would like to hear other council members.

I mean, I'm happy to support the 180 days instead of 90 days if it makes sense, but it actually drags things out for the plot owners who are here versus ones we haven't been able to contact yet.

And so I'd love to talk about that.

Counselor Bullier.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Councillor Jensen.

I your question is is helping me catalyze in my head some of the maybe challenge that that we're all grappling with, which is there is the the deadline of finding the folks we're not currently in contact with, which again does not apply to folks in this room, um, which could be 90 days, could be 100 days, could be 12 days, and then there's the what's the time frame for for all of you to make a decision, which I I'm very comfortable having a generous amount of time.

I don't believe it should be unlimited because we need to make decisions and we need to prioritize resources.

But maybe we need to slightly amend or adjust the language so that there's what is the date from today, assuming the resolution passes, at which we say, okay, these are the folks that we haven't been able to get in touch with, they're off the rolls.

What's that date?

And then what is the date for the folks with whom we're currently in contact?

And let's hope that we find some new folks in the next 90 days.

What's the date that that we have to have that that agreement signed?

Um because again, we we shouldn't be drawing this out at infinitum.

We need to make decisions and I full fully respect 90 days is too short.

Okay.

So then that's does that make sense, Mayor?

That the date dynamic.

And then while I have the con, um, you know, uh, Councilman Jensen I I find compelling and interesting the question of let's just test dig the entire cemetery, plus or minus 35 plots.

Um I have some concerns about the potential damage to numerous caskets of having all that open soil.

But one particular angle for me is let's say a family that has a plot says, hey, I want to do a test take.

And we do a test dig and we inadvertently disturb someone else's remains.

And then down the line, that family member who owns that plot says, actually, I don't want to be buried there.

I want to do something else.

We have needlessly disturbed someone's remains.

And I and I don't want to do that.

So I I very much respect the perspective that no one wants to pass away with the understanding of X and then we encounter and then we have to do Y.

I fully respect that.

But I am reticent for us to needlessly disturb remains.

But open to being convinced.

That's good good point.

I appreciate that.

Counselor Janola.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Um I I appreciate all these comments.

I I agree pretty much across the board.

I that you know, I think we need more time.

I understand that the potential conflict that you're you're seeing, Councilor Jensen.

Um the one issue that I feel like hasn't really been brought up or addressed in my mind sufficiently enough is this idea of kind of this you know, priority list.

You know, we we've heard a lot of the residents, you know, ask about well, what if my spouse is there?

Do I get priority for you know a city-owned plot or you know, if there's a potential spot?

And I feel like we just haven't haven't touched that tonight.

And so I'd like to just get that on the table for discussion and see, you know, what do folks think about it.

I don't believe it's in the resolution uh that's in front of us tonight.

And I want to make sure it doesn't get forgotten about and that uh I understand how that plays into this whole discussion and how we can address it.

I don't know if staff has or or if the subcommittee has comments or thoughts about that.

I can try to take this one, and if staff wants to support um feel more than welcome to do so.

Um I think this is something that we wanted to come after for the main reason is we we want to understand what the numbers are going to look like.

I think of as a as a subcommittee, we are absolutely supportive of this amendment.

We were absolutely supportive of the spousal amendment or whatever you want to call it.

We think that's what should be prioritized 100%.

However, I felt we felt that it was possibly premature to do that now, no not knowing what the numbers are going to look like after this happens, right?

And whether that's 90 days a year doesn't matter.

Whatever date we choose, this is when we finally understand what the cemetery is going to look like.

This is when most, if not all decisions have been made, and now we have these numbers to work with, then ideally is when that conversation would happen and we would reprioritize.

But then counselor, you can you can add to this.

But to me, it felt almost premature to do this before we knew exactly what those numbers were going to look like.

I just fully agree with with the mayor's remarks.

Um my hope is that the dialogue with residents with plot owners uh continues robustly, and that we we get those signed agreements that are satisfactory to you uh in the near future, right?

No rush, no pressure, but but we get those commitments both from the city to you and your understanding in writing of what's going to happen uh when the inevitable occurs.

And then we have we have the numbers, we have clarity, and and the numbers might surprise us, right?

There might be there might be shifts, or what we saw on the slide uh earlier in terms of the numbers might stay the same.

I don't know.

A lot about the past few months has surprised me.

Um so I'm very eager to find out what those numbers are, what folks want.

And that that way we honor them, and then going from there, do our level best to ensure that we honor in a in a prioritized fashion.

I get I would be open to an amendment that has a time delay, but I guess since it's hopefully only a few months away, I would love to come back, discuss it as a council, you know, notice all of you uh in in writing and and address this so that we we can have clarity.

Yeah.

I I'm still struggling with the you know a resolution that's in front of us that doesn't make that clear to the residents who are kind of thinking about this, worrying about this right now because it's not in the resolution that you know that this is gonna come back.

Basically, it's uh you have to choose between selling your plot or going to Cole Creek Cemetery or engaging in a discussion for uh uh an individual agreement, and that has to be done within 180 days.

And so this is where I'm like, I don't know how this fits into that.

Um I think one thing that you we could do is we could you could add something that just recognizes that that if we could come back to you in you know 90 days, which would still be within the window for those who are in the individual um plot holders process, and by that time we'll have more data around how many sellbacks we've had, and we're already making that list of sellbacks, and we've already screened everything that's been sold back, so we have that subset of what might potentially be available, and we're already getting numbers on those who are in that set who either are you know a single spouse whose plot uh whose plot looks like there's their spouse, you know, that they're not gonna be able to be next to their spouse, but they are would rather be in the cemetery than go to Cole Creek.

And then also um, you know, if there's uh a couple who there's plots aren't available, but they want to be in the cemetery versus Cole Creek.

So to start to kind of build that.

So I think we could come back if that's something that you wanted, and then you can make a decision and we could have more data around what we're seeing and what that you know might look like.

So the language, just to follow up and make sure I understand what you just said.

Would we put something in the resolution that once we've had all of the meetings with people and we see how many plots we have that we would develop with the community, a prioritization list of some kind, and we could put that in this resolution to say that we're going to do that?

Is that is that what you're saying?

I think we could put something simple in in there that that you know left kind of left the door open for that opportunity and that option you know, based on that need, if there's outstanding need for people that we could come back to look at that option.

Okay, so I I would like to put put that in there to say that we will be doing that at some point and give our city attorney permission to word that in a way that's something in the and I would also like to get rid of the language about paying for an observer and be silent on it for now because I think we have too much work to do yet to know that that is the direction we're gonna go.

If if at some point we have to do something about somebody paying for observers, then we can come back and do it.

But I think it we're still working on that, and I don't think it should be in the resolution at this point.

I have a few things written down that are possible amendments before we before I try to get a feel of the room.

Uh Counselor Chianola, did you have any final questions for staff before the summit?

Uh I'm I'm done with my questions.

I think I anything else I have might be just a discussion.

Okay, I saw Councilor Gallego's hand up.

Yes.

So before considering a time extension of that 90-day period, it would be helpful to know how close we are to that original number of 170.

So I add it together, buy back, people who are okay with cremation, people who prefer casket, and um the five exchanges to Cole Creek.

That brings us to 149.

How many more meetings do we have scheduled?

Many sorry, counselor, I guess we are you meaning um plot owners or plots with the numbers.

I am not sure.

Um I used that original slide from the presentation that listed the number that have already committed to various things.

So I'm assuming 149 meetings have been held.

We're somewhere close to that.

Probably plots.

Plots, yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's it's um yeah, about 60 families.

60 families.

Yeah, and about 140.

I mean, it's changing every day tomorrow.

I think we have six meetings today, so it's very dynamic.

But I mean, we we probably have at least 20 scheduled in the next two weeks, and we're we're still scheduling them, so would encourage people.

And then we heard from some people that they haven't gotten emails.

We just now started sending this is like a public message to everybody.

We just now started sending out emails to people, like sort of recognizing here's what we discussed.

So if you haven't gotten that yet, we're doing that.

But since we've had over 50 meetings, we're just catching up on others.

So we're just kind of starting that process too.

But at least 20 are scheduled for the near future.

Yeah.

But uh counselor gallegos, I think you're trying to get at how much more time do we need.

I think that's the nature of your questions.

Yes, so if we were relatively close to the number 270, I don't know if I would necessarily extend beyond the 90 days.

Okay, we're here.

And we I've heard from many that there's at least some possibility of a change to the 90 days.

Um Council General's hand up, but make sure we don't forget that I'm watching Pro Temporary's hand to go up, but I can offer him an opportunity to speak if he's been learning for his hand on the spot.

May I brought up?

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, can you all hear me?

Yes.

Wonderful.

Um I do apologize for everyone in the audience that I'm not there.

This is um at aid commitment that uh unfortunately landed me far away uh at the wrong time.

And uh I have to thank all of my fellow counselors for catching me up with where you are.

Uh and I didn't miss didn't see all of the testimony uh or the public input, but I do feel strongly that the 90 days um should we should read it take another look at that 90-day uh extension, especially if we're well, specifically for those who haven't uh contacted us, and I did hear uh Ms.

Munoz mention there there are people who are not at the place to make a decision yet.

Uh and we family and friends can do as much as they can to help them make a commitment, but as the rest of the council has stated, at some point we need we need some resolution for those who um need a decision made, uh residents who are here.

Uh I would also say I do agree with the uh councillor uh gentlemen that I don't I think the city can make the best decisions without council making a political intervening politically.

Uh I would also say do you agree with uh councillor uh Jensen that I don't I think the city can make the best decisions without council making a political um intervening politically um this is such a such a unique situation and our city staff I I cannot I cannot thank you enough for how much work this is requiring and it's um I I really do trust that you're doing the best that you possibly can today uh I think we should let you come to the best agreement uh decisions possible and uh believe that's all the information I have already now I mean only any feedback I have right now um so back to you uh mayor thank you Mayor Breton.

I'm hearing a majority of council looking at a possible change to the 90 days.

Uh I will ask, is there any number in particular that anyone would like to put on the table?

Councillor Jensen.

So it seems to me that the amount of time we have to contact people should be less than the amount of time that people have to make decisions.

So in the resolution, we have on part two plot holders have the following options for their unused plots at the cemetery, and there are a couple of 90-day references there.

But if we extend um the amount of time to contact people, we want the people who are making decisions to know what the universe looks like and how many plots are available, so they need to have more time than the time to contact people.

So it seems to me if we did something like 120 days to contact people and 180 days for people to make decisions, then they would have that information about whether there are extra plots that got sent back when they make their decision.

So that would be something I would throw out there as a possible amendment.

Any other counselors have thoughts on this?

Councillor Gayez?

I was wondering if we could also add clarifying language about if you are already in communication with city staff, this timeline does not apply to you.

You're talking about the the first one, because there is some stuff that does apply to them in this resolution, which is after the resolution's passed.

Uh and let me just pull it up.

Um plot holders have the following options, and then it says uh cremation fee waiver must be initiated within 90 days.

And if you're an exchanging uh for something at Colt Creek Memorial Cemetery, it says 90 days after this resolution.

So I would extend for plot owners that to 180 days for making that decision, those two items there, and then 120 days for further contacting people so they would know the results of that effort to further contact people.

Councillor Bullier.

Uh I very much like where Councillor Gallegos and Councillor Jensen are going in terms of the time frame.

I'm I'm gonna come back to I think we're actually we have two buckets of time.

There's the find the unfound people we're still looking for, and there's make a decision.

Uh I'm a firm believer we do need uh time frames for both, and I I agree with your logic that the finding the unfound should be a shorter time frame.

Uh I'm I'm comfortable with 90 days, but I take I take your point.

I'm certainly open to uh a longer period of time to take a decision.

I think it it might be helpful for us instead of 90 days, 120 days to to talk about updates.

So 90 days from today is October 19th.

That might feel too soon.

I respect that.

Um if we were to lengthen the time for a decision to I'm gonna make up a number, January 31st.

And say by January 31st, uh plot owners must make a decision, I would feel comfortable with that.

I think that's slightly slightly over six months.

Uh and then for in terms of the time frame for finding the unfound, um, if it's you know three months, four months, I think having having dates in mind, so end of October, end of November.

Uh I don't want to put it around uh the new year and Christmas because I I don't want to cause a slam around the holidays.

Um and and our hope, right, is that folks who are currently in contact with the city uh will find it, find consensus, find agreement with the city, and we'll we'll have those signed whenever works well for you.

Um so does that sound good in terms of again making up numbers, end of October for find the unfound and end of January for make a decision.

That's more than more than 90 days and even more than 180 days for that make a decision.

I'm I I can support that.

Yeah.

Right.

Can you repeat those dates just one more time?

October 31st to find the people that we we have were not in contact with, and January 31st to make a decision.

Great.

It seems like the majority of the council, at least from my own.

I I guess I'm still confused about how this plays out in the resolution.

And understanding what these dates mean.

Because I read the resolution that says plot holders have these options.

Sell back the plot by initiating a release of interest within 90 days.

So that becomes January 31st.

That's my but that could apply to anyone who has not even been found.

What do you mean?

If somebody comes from Australia on January 20th and says, hey, I want to I want my money.

This says January 31st.

It doesn't say no, it also says they have to initiate um a release of interest.

No, it just says initiate a release of interest.

B maintain plot for burial, cremation fee waiver must be initiated within 90 days.

That becomes January 31st.

C, exchange plot for Col Creek Cemetery, initiate a written exchange agreement within 90 days.

D, if conditions permit, subject to exception.

It's for that one.

Get the um I think this moves into D in section three.

Sorry, yeah, section three.

Then that says must contact the city of Lafayette within 90 days, only for those people who are interested in maintaining their plots for a casket burial.

And this is where these dates all feel really jumbled in my mind.

Can we get out our city attorney?

I'm gonna bring in our city attorney on this one.

I see.

What we're trying to figure out is I think you know what we're wanting to do.

And I don't know.

What we're trying to figure out is how to do it with the framework that you have here, because I think Councillor Gianolo's point is there are sort of two different groups of people, and and the way the language is written, it applies to both, and it it should probably be distinguished between the people who've already been contacted and the people who haven't been contacted, and some of this applies to some and not the others.

Very much that.

And I just want to add on my understanding, and please correct me, uh staff.

My understanding is that this portion of our conversation is focusing on the casket burial because cremains burials is is a very is available in the future.

Is that right?

So for example, February 1st, someone flies back from Australia and they say, I want to be buried in Lafayette Cemetery and be cremated.

We we will still honor that.

Right.

Yeah.

So is that is that clear?

So all of this is that's helpful, but I think the language in the resolution as it currently stands conflates these two timelines in a way that I don't understand what is being proposed with respect to the language of the resolution.

I I think you have a point.

It's not clear.

Yeah.

I understand that the I think I understand the goal of the discussion, which is for those people who and really is it only for those people who want to maintain a casket burial is what we're talking about.

Yeah, maybe this will help.

So the two A, B, and C, right?

Sell back your plots, maintain for cremains, and exchange.

Um all can occur for a long time.

What the difference is is within 90 days, if we don't hear from them, the sell back is 3500 in the 90 days versus 1500 that it would revert back to.

Um the maintain your plot for cremates as we would um waive the fee for the first 90 days afterwards, you still have to pay the fee.

So all those options will still be available if that helps I understand the different things.

And just to be abundantly clear, um, and and I won't speak for you, but some of how this is structured is frankly to incentivize decisions.

We want folks to make decisions that they're comfortable with because we don't want to kick the can down the road to a future council, a future city staff to have to figure out, which again candidly has been the problem in Lafayette for many decades.

So is that is that clear?

It's helpful, but the thing that troubles me is this discussion about trying to figure out what is done.

If we're moving these dates to the January 31st, the longer time frame, it actually and and requiring folks to contact us sooner.

It doesn't get that uh I mean I I don't know that we get answers.

I mean I I I just am still struggling with with how these dates are.

To me, it just would be a lot cleaner if everything was the same date.

Is there a proposal you would have been?

I mean if we could just put all these dates 90 instead of 90 days, we just say January 31st for all, you know, two ABC and three.

Just a single single time frame.

I mean, I I think there's there's something to the idea of if those folks who are not kind of coming out of the woodwork or we just haven't been able to contact and they you know we don't we don't give them as much of the benefit as the folks that we've been working with.

I mean I do understand that.

It's just the language that's in front of us, to me, I can't understand how that goes together.

And your your amendment would be to stick to the January 31st date on all of those.

Yeah, I mean at this point it's very clean, it's very easy.

I I understand the logic.

I I think you know your latter point I really agree with counselor.

I strongly believe we ought to prioritize these folks over hypothetical people who we have not been able to find.

Yeah.

Um that does not mean we don't consider them.

But I I do think that there is utility in prioritizing the folks we're in contact with, sorting it out with y'all.

Um and then if we are able to find, and again, we're gonna put all the names that we have out in public notices in the newspaper.

And if we're able to find more folks, wonderful.

But I think the priority should be on our community and not my hypothetical dude who went to Australia and has no idea what's going on in Lafayette.

I I understand.

And I I really do appreciate um Tony Munya's.

She took off.

Okay, she did.

I really appreciate her her point as well about um about dimension Alzheimer's.

Alzheimer's runs strongly in my family.

And so I really empathize with the idea that for some of the elderly, you know, they're not necessarily tracking this particular issue.

And so I I feel a lot of empathy for that.

So that's why I think you know, October 31st to find those folks through public notices, through contacts, through leveraging Frank and his expertise and brilliance.

Um I I think that would be able to find as many as we can, but then we are able to take a decision where we prioritize our community here and then focus.

And the other thing that gives me a little pause about if it's all January 31st, if quite a few people show up in the last week of January while we're currently finalizing things with this community, that may be really difficult for our staff who, as folks know, have many other responsibilities in addition to this one.

Yeah.

And I and I guess I just turn to the city attorney and and ask, is it clear what we want to do and can we do it with the resolution that's in front of us in a way that is?

I think that we could draft some language to further clarify it.

I I do I know that when staff and my office drafted this, we did try to I think that it does what you're asking.

Um but we could draft some language that would further clarify that.

Um I think to But where is the language in here if we extend till October 31st the uh date for finding people?

I don't see the language in here that references that.

Where is that?

So there's nothing in here about October 31st.

No, but the action that we're talking about in terms of putting out public notice and all of those.

That you have to have responded by a certain amount of time.

I don't actually see that item in here at all.

The responded piece is in here, but I I think you're right that there is not something in here about continuing to try to notify it.

And and that that October 31st is the deadline for people to have contacted us to do something to start that.

That's not I don't see that in here.

It's well it's 90 days, but we could I'm not sure.

I agree with Councillor Jensen, we could clarify it, but at the the opening sentence of section three, if a plot holder elects to maintain their plots for casket burials as provided under subsection D of Section 2 above I see they must contact the city of Lafayette within 90 days of the passage of the resolution.

So my argument would be we say within uh by October 31st.

By close of business October 31st.

Instead of 90 days.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh and city attorney, I defer to you, but then maybe add language to further clarify the distinction between the people we need to contact and the people who we are in contact with who have until January 31 to take a decision.

Does that address your concern?

It does.

So distinguish between people we have already made contact with and have their contact information versus January 31 for everyone here.

Okay.

And then October 31 to find others.

And if we find the others by October 31, then January 31 for them.

This feels doable.

No, I understand what you're saying.

I think one uh one word that's that is um that I'm struggling with is the find word, because we don't have the resources to go write.

But we do staff does have a plan.

Um it was on your slides as well, council, um, to put public notice out there in newspapers and to put more information on the website.

So we we don't have to.

Yeah, I don't think we need the finding words.

I think you just need to change the website.

Okay, yeah, perfect.

Because there's only so much we can do, and that's to give notice and help people contact us.

So I just want you to be clear that that it's not, you're not creating affirmative obligation to skip tracing path, you know.

Find people.

But yes, so we um so would you like you would like something in the resolution that clarifies if they're already in contact.

Before that October 31st date, they have until January 31.

Exactly.

And if they initiate contact on November 1st, I'm so sorry, business is closed, would be my argument.

Okay.

So if we have to pick a date.

We'd have to pick a date.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Sounds like the majority of council is on board with this amendment.

Uh so I'll move on to the second one I heard about, which was the observer.

Um it sounded like the majority of council was on board and just taking this line out entirely because it it sounds like we're already planning and moving forward with a potential solution.

Uh I'm looking at Chris, but also just at the potential of staff uh taking that role on.

So any any thoughts from council on this on this amendment I heard about.

And I'll take nothing as a yes at this point.

Yeah.

I'm just trying to think about the specific language for how do we achieve that?

You know.

Um I think maybe the I look at the community amendment as you know, an interesting uh amendment here.

You know, the the way that it's written currently.

It says the written agreement will also require all plot holders to commit to hiring a professional to observe the burial as recommended by the state archaeologist with all costs paid by the plot holder.

And the community proposal is the written amendment will also provide that a professional will observe the burial as recommended by the state archaeologist, arranged by the city and at no cost to the plot holder.

I don't think we need any of that.

We just leave it blank and let the operations sort of work itself out.

I agree.

Should we say that a professional needs to observe the burial?

So I don't know if we even know that.

Isn't that already the law?

Yeah, I was gonna ask, is that just what we're gonna do moving forward as a as a process?

I don't think we need to necessarily specify that.

I thought that was just what we're doing.

Yeah, from the resolution.

Okay.

And I I just I very much respect the point you're making.

Um, and part of why I love striking the language per Counselor Jensen's recommendation is I would be reticent for us to commit to something as the proposed language does when we we don't know what's going to proceed.

And it's possible that we could be binding ourselves in the future as opposed to just strike it and we just don't find anyone.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'm on board with that.

And the other thing was this one amendment six plot allocation.

Um we had talked about saying something about when we hit that deadline of January 31st.

So sorry, I'm gonna stop you right there.

Okay.

Uh can we stop referring to them as amendments?

Because the problem is this wasn't in the packet.

This is not something that is publicly noticed.

So you can bring anything you'd like up.

But just kind of describe it just so it's on the record.

Sure.

Because if we keep describing those amendments, we no notice.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

So there was a suggestion by a citizen that we get more specific about allocation process.

And I think what I heard from me the committee is until we know what we have, we can't really start talking about an allocation process.

So I think some general language that there will be a prioritizing of allocation of plots that are left at some point would be a thing that we could include in here to clarify that without getting specific about what it should be.

Councillor Jensen is ahead of me.

That was one of the things I was gonna hit back on.

I heard circle back on this priority conversation.

I heard leave it relatively open-ended because we don't know if tomorrow we're gonna have the exact numbers or if that's gonna be in December.

Um is there any thoughts on whether that should be the way we move forward or whether we should stick it to an exact date?

I'd like the open-ended to allow staff to meet with as many people as possible.

I'm comfortable with that.

So do we need to clarify that we're leaving that to the city attorney to draft and stick that in at another time?

Are we is that how we do that?

I think we can make the motion and then make the amendments and allow our city attorney to bring that language into the after we pass.

Yes, it would be helpful if council wants to see the language tonight to be able to take our recess for some of these amendments and get those drafted and bring them back so that um everyone can know uh what you're approving and and okay with.

I will absolutely do that.

I have one more to get to and we will get to that.

The last one is about the agreement being made public.

Uh that's the last one I heard a couple counselors speak out on.

Uh and it seemed like it was something that counselor would the council would be on board with, mainly because the one we would release publicly would be the one that is kind of generic.

Generic.

Yeah, it doesn't have the we're not going to release any of the individual agreements, of course, but the general generic agreement that people may see.

Uh any thoughts from this on council?

Counselor Oliver.

Thank you, Mayor.

I appreciate the intent of this proposed language.

Um and I would encourage staff to post the draft agreement on our excellent, extremely informative Lafayette Cemetery's website.

Um I'm not comfortable with having such binding language on what is relatively routine paperwork.

Um I I don't think that that's that's something we should do regularly.

Um to Council Jensen's earlier point, I trust city staff to execute a compassionate legal uh agreement that that will meet muster and pass muster.

And since each individual plot owner would of course be able to see the draft agreement in front of them before they sign, and they could have multiple meetings, et cetera, and there's there's no requirement that they sign.

I I I don't know that I think adding this language to the resolution helps us.

But I would encourage the draft agreement to be put on the city website just so folks can see it.

I'm okay with that.

Any other thoughts from council?

Uh or our city attorney, did you have something?

I I just wanted to confirm for council that we are working on drafts now.

I believe our intent with the resolution um is that we do have somewhat of a form.

Um it would be very difficult to have a individualized customized agreement for everyone, and we do need to have a general form that that that implements council's intent of this resolution.

So it will be a form and there will be some options that can be um customized within there or uh options that could be selected within there and uh for example with the um those who are granted an exception uh for conditional um casket burial.

We there would be a place to fill in alternate arrangements, things like that.

So we are working on a form and um that's underway now.

We just have not been able to complete a form yet.

But when that form is completed, there should be no issue with posting something like that on the website, correct?

Right.

Um those are the four that I had.

Are there any other thoughts at the moment?

Any possible changes, any possible amendments before I give our city attorney a rundown of what we have and then time to draft that.

I just want to thank the subcommittee.

Uh this was a really difficult job.

And um I I don't envy you for having had to work through this.

And um I think you guys did a really good job with difficult circumstances.

So thank you.

Great.

Okay.

So four amendments for our city attorney.

I'm just gonna read them off to make sure you know them well.

The first one is the time to contact us will now be October 31st.

We are extending that from 90 days.

And the decision timeline will now be January 31st for everyone who contacts us before that October 31st state.

Second amendment is to strike the line about the observer.

Correct.

Third uh is an open-ended circling back on the priority and the prioritization conversation.

Just uh relevant just a line in there that says we will that will come back to council.

On on that one, what is there uh what is council's time frame for for number three?

I think we wanted to leave that up to staff just because we know that at least until October 31st, we will be waiting for potential people to reach out to us, and then after that, depending on what these conversations look like on a one-on-one.

So the reason for that open-ended is because we we definitely want to take direction from staff as to what those conversations are looking like.

Okay.

And then the final is posting the generic agreement form on the website uh when that is ready.

And that doesn't sound like it needs to be in the resolution.

Okay, perfect.

What did you just say?

I couldn't hear anybody.

It doesn't need to be in the resolution.

We don't need an amendment.

We just we just need to direct staff to do that.

Yeah.

When it when it's ready.

Uh and mayor, I I don't believe I or we need to direct staff to do this because my assumption, which I'm almost certain is correct.

Um, but there there was a proposal for the denial if there is such a denial to be in writing.

I assume, of course, our excellent city staff would provide an explanation in of a denial in writing and not simply verbally over the phone.

So I don't I don't believe it needs to be in the resolution, but I just want to have that confirmed.

Anything else from council at this moment?

Okay, seeing nothing, I will give our city attorney some time to draft this council go to the do 10 minutes.

Sounds back on as well.

Um, I will turn to our city manager just to go over the few amendments that council had and we should be close.

Thank you, Mayor.

So the second portion or second page of your original um resolution is where the edits started to occur in the first page is unchanged.

So we've added a new section two here that clarifies that any plot holder that wants to execute any of the options outlined below contact for the city by October thirty first.

And then that way they and then the additional requirement or conversation that you all had that said anyone who has contacted the city on or before the date of the passage of this resolution tonight is deemed to have satisfied this requirement.

So then following that October 31st deadline, we were trying to do in chronicle chronological order.

Number three, he says anyone that has contacted the city by October 31st have the following options.

These options remain unchanged, other than the fact that the release of interest is now by January 31st of 2027.

This applies to 3A, 3B, and 3C.

And then the final few things that were edited was now in new section four, where it previously said that the city will you know require that the plot owner have an observer and pay for that cost.

That entire sentence was stricken from this section.

And then we have a new section six that says staff will return to council before January 31st to develop criteria to reprioritize repurposing a sold back or repurchase plots.

I know I appreciate you guys leaving it open for staff, but I also think for those that are trying to make a decision, we do want to probably come back before that, but it gives us enough time in the coming months to develop that process.

So we felt that that was um appropriate to at least let folks know that we were going to be coming back within a reasonable amount of time, and then also um have something done before um agreements have been executed, just in case there are folks waiting to know what that prioritization process would look like.

Those are the few changes that I heard.

And this would be um the signed version and the motion language would be as amended from the staff presentation tonight on the new resolution.

Can you repeat that line just one more time as amended?

I will let the city attorney do what your motion is.

And just for the sake of counsel, this is what we would say at the end of the motion.

I do just have one question.

No, in our packet, we had amended uh cemetery rules as well.

Is this part of the resolution?

Or is this a a separate thing?

Do we need to make any of the so this resolution would also amend both of the sets of cemetery rules as redlined in your packet?

Um we are aware of some scrivener's errors that we will correct, but they're not they're not substantive.

So we'll but we will definitely take care of those and appreciate those having been called out.

Thank you.

Any chance you can put the resolution back up?

I'm so sorry, Mayor.

May I have two quick questions?

Um to our city manager.

Uh first on number six.

Um I'm so sorry.

Um does the time frame that you've provided in terms of January 31st, 2027 work well for for you and staff?

Wonderful.

I'm happy with that.

And then on number two, if you wouldn't mind scrolling up.

Not at all.

I just want to make sure a plot owner who has contacted the city on or before the date of the passage of this resolution is deemed to have satisfied this requirement.

Is there a way this could be misinterpreted to mean someone who contacted the city way back when?

Just want to make sure we're ironclad on that.

Yeah.

If they contact the city when they bought the plot in 1999.

So it okay, so if they say it one more time, I want to.

So a plot owner who has contacted the city on or before the date of the passage of this resolution is deemed to have satisfied this requirement.

A plot owner who contacted the city in 1999 when they bought the plot.

The idea is after the moratorium was first in place.

Are we protected for that?

Yeah.

I believe you could probably make it more clear.

So we could following the passage of the moratorium or resolution XX and before the passage of this.

That is, I believe resolution 257.

Uh 2570 2025 77.

So we could do that.

Thank you.

Any other thoughts, any other questions?

If not.

There's a oh, Councilor Jensen.

Nope.

I was just gonna move the motion language on the screen or in your back.

Go ahead.

Okay.

I move to approve amended resolution number 2026-18.

Transitioning the Lafayette Cemetery to an individual plot planning process, providing options for increased buyback amounts and no cost, crema's burials to plot holders, and amending the rules and regulations of the lost Lafayette Municipal Cemetery and Cole Creek Memorial Cemetery to implement these changes.

Second.

Is there any discussion on this one?

Councillor Bowler.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just a few quick items.

First, tremendous gratitude to you for your leadership.

It's been a pleasure serving with you and the subcommittee.

Tremendous gratitude to city staff who have worked extraordinarily hard in the past few months, in addition to always.

I'm just really proud of the work that you've done.

Gratitude to the public for holding us to account for giving us uh their perspectives, even when we were not able to satisfy all of them.

Um gratitude for us having the community dialogue sessions.

I know that that those were difficult, but I thought it was really cool to change the dynamic of how city government and staff uh and council engage with the public, and I would love to do future things like that.

Um I'm sad that the subcommittee will be sunsetting at a uh unknown future date, potentially January 31st, 2047, but it's really been an honor serving with you, Mayor, on this.

And then something that you know struck me a few months ago when we started this process is that we did not get, well, we got excellent support from the city archaeologists in some ways.

We didn't get a playbook for how we as a as a small medium-sized city should navigate uh a challenge like this.

And I think we have a really good story to tell.

It's not a perfect solution.

We haven't been able to bend space and time, but I hope that members of the public are pleased with what we put on the table, and I hope that we can tell a story that maybe helps other communities that struggle with the historic cemetery and imperfect record keeping.

So I'm just very grateful for you, Chris, as well, and just uh everybody.

This has been a difficult but really meaningful uh process, and I'm honored to have been here with you.

Thank you.

Councilor Gianola.

Uh ditto.

You said it all perfectly.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Councillor.

Yeah.

Mayor Potem.

Thank you, Mayor.

I would just like to with uh Councillor Boulder's um sentiments.

I ditto those as well.

And uh for everyone, I'm in the city of Telluride in the middle of what was like a the end of the world with floods and fires and smoke and it's a great place.

Um but I just like to share that uh when I spoke with my sponsors here, they uh told them what I was doing because they're like, why are you doing this?

Uh they said they had a historic cemetery issue here as well.

So this is just to let you know, this is a this is this has happened in other places.

So I just wanted to share that.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Any further discussion from council.

Right.

Uh saying none, I will just take a second.

Well, to just hear okay.

I'll just take a second to second everything that was said by the council by the two councils, by the three councillors in our mayor pro tem included.

Uh just thank you to everyone that was involved, uh, from staff to council to my partner on the subcommittee, and of course, to the public.

Just thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh with that, we will do a roll call vote, please.

Counselor Bolier?

Yes.

Councilor Gallegos?

Yes.

Councilor Giannola?

Yes.

Counselor Jensen?

Yes.

Mayor Tapia Vega?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tembars.

Yes.

That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you so much.

That concludes our one agenda item for the night.

Uh I will just close this out with council reports.

And we can begin with our mayor pro tem.

Thank you, Mayor.

Nothing to report this evening.

Thank you.

Counselor Gallegos.

Nothing from me tonight.

Counselor Giannola.

Just send out a congratulations to Council Friedman uh for the birth of uh his new child.

Uh I hope he's out there not watching this meeting and enjoying time with his his new baby.

Councillor Buller.

Ditto to the congratulations.

Um just one quick item.

Last Tuesday, I attended the Longmont City Council.

Uh, they held a vote that passed six to one on referring ranked choice voting to the ballot for for Longmont, the City of Longmont, in November.

Uh for folks who aren't aware, I'm a huge proponent of ranked choice voting and democracy reform and trying to uh make sure our democracy is fit for purpose.

So it was a privilege to watch like a hundred Longmonters show up and speak their piece about democracy reform in the city.

And it's fascinating just to see uh different city council conduct a meeting.

There's some things that I admire about it, there's some things I didn't, and I'm really proud of our council and uh look forward to uh digging into that issue with y'all in the future.

Thank you.

Councilor Johnson.

So yesterday, the uh human rights board uh met to look at um changing its scope to be more consistent with the IDEA inclusion diversity equity and access plan for the city.

And um got interestingly discussed even not being aboard of the city so they could be more free to do other things that uh they are currently not able to do because of open meetings law and uh the way that they have to notice things before they can even talk about it.

And they went that to that path, but in the end decided to stay as they are and to focus more specifically an I D E A.

So um that will come back before us in a little while, but I just wanted you to know they they thought outside the box and decided to stay in the box.

Have a great night meeting again.