Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Hi Courtney, this is Carly from City of Boulder City. Can you hear me on Zoom? Courtney, this is Carly from City of Boulder City. Can you hear me on the Zoom? Can you count to 10 for me? Okay, one more time. One, two, three, four, five. You can stop. We're getting you now. I just wanted to make sure. And you can mute your mic until you're on. Thank you. Thank you.

I will now call the August 26, 2026 Historic Preservation Commission meeting to order. Staff, roll call and posting, please.

The agenda has been posted in accordance with Nevada open meeting law. All members are present with the exception of Chairman Davenport, who is participating via teleconference through Zoom. A quorum has been established.

Please join me in standing and saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation,

We will now conduct the initial public comment period to matters on the agenda for action. Each person has up to three minutes to speak on a specific agenda item. As a reminder, all public comments shall be addressed to the commission as a whole, not to an individual member of the commission, the audience or city staff.

Hello, it's always nice to see everybody up there, and you're all smiling, so that's always a good thing. So I wrote out- Can you please state your name? Oh, I'm sorry, and I have it at the top of my paper, remind me, Robin Baker. So I have been talking with neighbors because I know that with my presence here frequently, it appears that it's just me with my concerns and my desires and wants. And so I have been perception checking if maybe I am running a one-man show, so I've been talking with neighbors on Cherry Street, Birch Street, Ash Street, Arizona, and most of my neighbors on Colorado. So I feel that I have covered some other interests, but not probably all. But there's been varying responses from people who don't want to discuss historic preservation, they don't want to know anything because the city has not done anything, and that's pretty much what several people have said, and they don't want to discuss it, period. Then it goes to people who actually have questions and I'm not able to answer their questions. So, you know, of course I direct them to you or to Nikisha and Michael. But the one thing that has been a common factor is that everybody who lives in that area loves their homes. They love their homes. They love their neighborhoods and their heart almost to a person aches for what was. And I recognize that we cannot turn the historic resident area back into what was. But as always, I'm wondering what are we doing to preserve it? So to that point, and I know you're discussing for item number two and three, things that this comment may be relevant about. So for the last five years, I do know, and you can also find out this information, that the city has paid over $250,000 to, whether it is Broadbent, Northwind, and Courtney, for written reports which are well thought out, lots of good information, and I'm sure she's done exactly what she's been contracted to do. However, what is the outcome of those reports? One of them was an inventory. Okay, so in 2020 there was an inventory conducted. What goes beyond the inventory? So my question to you tonight, as you consider the items on number two and number three, is to think about, and I've mentioned this before, what's the end game here? The city of Boulder City says they want to preserve the historic district. What is actually being done for the residential area? The grant program, even though it was generously offered, has not really been very effective. The commercial district seems to be thriving. But at the end of the day, I wanna remind you there are SMART goals that are specific, measured, attainable, they're timed, and I think I left something out, maybe relevant. Anyway, I hope that you consider it and that you do something that as a resident, I can point my finger to, that all of the money that is spent on producing paper products, such as surveys or reports, can be seen. Thank you.

Unnervingly quiet in here tonight.

Please state your name for the record.

Yep, High Commission staff, lady and gentlemen, Brandon Smith for the record. Just a couple of talking points from tonight's agenda. And I sympathize with everything and agree with everything that Robin had to say about kind of everything she said. Norma, welcome to the HPC. I too am a little, I don't know, confused, lost, call it what you will, about what we have going on in our residential historic district. Obviously we've struggled a little bit with the commercial motel sign district, going back and forth and trying to get that jump started, which clearly has not gone over very well. And again, I think it's because the people who are considering moving forward in the commercial district have struggled with what's going on in the residential district. As Robin has plainly said on numerous occasions, that operation just hasn't gone over very well. I think we've had three or four successful submissions and reimbursements for $10,000 each, not much more than that. And there's something really wrong there. I don't think any homes that were non-contributing before the program started have Have elevated themselves to a contributing status To kind of get back on on the grid and I think we just continue to lose Historic home after historic home for whatever reason whether it's fire or somebody moves in and doesn't know they're in a historic district which I kind of find hard to believe these days, but It happens So I think that really genuinely needs to be investigated, understood why it's been a bit of a stillborn product to the city. I know that I would love to be able to take advantage of that program, but the hoops that I have to jump through are just kind of not worth the effort. The juice isn't worth the squeeze, so they like to say. And again, I think as I respect you all and am grateful for your presence on this commission, I would also like to see some actual human from the historic district who owns in the historic district who lives in the historic district. We need a 50% representation here to have that voice heard, and I think that's been lacking for years. Keep asking. The council doesn't hear from me anymore. Maybe you guys can forward that up the food chain, and hopefully we'll get somebody who lives in the historic district on there. Thank you.

okay seeing that no one we will close that first public comment period the first item on the agenda is for possible action approval of the minutes of the july 22 2026 regular meeting do i have a motion to approve a motion to approve the meeting minutes from july 22. do I have a second second all in favor say aye aye motion is approved unanimously next on the agenda is item number two for possible action Commission discussed and direction regarding the conservation district staff your report

Thank you, Vice Chairman Regal-Fasto. So good evening, Historic Preservation Commission, Keisha Lyon, Planning Manager with the Community Development Department. So as you may recall, during the last two Historic Preservation Commission meetings, These meetings included discussion on the proposed local motel historic district, as well as an opportunity to potentially host a workshop in order to engage motel owners on the historic district that was proposed. So within those conversations, Vice Chairman Rigofasto had suggested a conservation district as a possible alternative to a historic district and this was given based on the feedback that staff received from the motel owners within the proposed boundary in regards to the unknowns with the design guidelines that would be developed later down the line if this were to be approved by the City Council and then the additional regulatory requirements in regards to a certificate of appropriateness. So Vice Chairman Regal-Fasso had suggested that this alternative could offer a more flexible kind of approach, so more flexibility than the criteria within Chapter 27, Title 11 of our code in regards to the criteria that apply to a historic district and historic properties within that district. and as well as the design guidelines and would allow the motel owners to come up with the applicable guidelines in conjunction with city staff, as well as the commission and broadband associates. So the commission was supportive of this agenda item request. Chairman Davenport had suggested that Vice Chairman Rigolfasto provide some additional research regarding conservation districts. to aid in the discussion. So this would include examples, draft language from other municipalities, and then the text amendment process that would be required. So on the commission's behalf, city staff has requested Broadbent and associates who serve as our Mr. Preservation Consulting Firm to provide an overview of conservation districts in order to kind of aid in this discussion in regards to this type of preservation tool. and so the overview that they provided that starts on page 18 of the agenda packet and we also have matthew arechi johns here who is a project historian with broadbent and associates and he's going to provide an overview on conservation districts in comparison to historic districts so i'll invite matthew to come up

Good evening, everybody. For the record, Matthew Reckie-Jones. I am the project historian with Broadband Associates. Good evening again, commission, chair, vice chair, staff. Broadband has provided a summary for the staff report regarding conservation districts, highlighting the difference between historic districts and conservation districts for you. Conservation districts are a land use and zoning tool that are used to preserve local neighborhood character. The primary focus is on preserving key features in neighborhoods and to prevent encroachment from surrounding new developments. Conservation districts heavily rely on the involvement of the community and the locals in the neighborhoods to be established and to kind of set standards. The districts are not required to have historic integrity. and the buildings do not need to be a certain age to be considered eligible, comparatively to the difference of a historic district like the one in Boulder City at this moment. For this reason, one of the major benefits of conservation districts is that they are highly variable based on the needs of the neighborhoods. The restrictions of a conservation district can be as minimal as ensuring property lines and setbacks are uniform to as severe as regulations for any additions or any alterations being done to the property. While most examples of conservation districts do not prevent alterations or changing historic materials, they do have reviews of new construction or additions. They have also been used in a way to preserve potential historic districts that have not reached that age of 50 or so, or who might fall flat from the ability to become a historic, or who fall flat from the historic designation. They can also be used to develop a buffer zone to prevent immediate encroachment on previously designated historic districts to give a little bit of space from any new construction. They can also be used to prevent developers from subdividing lots that would disrupt the layout of neighborhoods and affect any housing costs in that area. As you read through the report, if you have any questions, please just let us know.

Thank you, Mr. Archie Johns. So staff is just going to give an overview of the kind of internal process in regards to being able to enable this kind of mechanism within our city code. So if the commission did wish to pursue this preservation tool, it would require a zoning ordinance tax amendment. So we would need to amend that. TIE 11 chapter 27 to include provisions and regulations that would apply to the construction essentially of a conservation overlay district so just to provide an overview this would require an initiation by the City Council Planning Commission or a property owner staff could also initiate this process on the Commission's behalf and followed by drafting of actual language that would be within our code. We would coordinate with broadband and associates as well as our city attorney just to make sure we're applying best practices to what that language is and then ensuring legal review and compliance with state law and other portions and sections of our code. After that, we would bring it forward to the Historic Preservation Commission for review, comments, things that need to be adjusted. We can go back to the drawing table, make other edits or if that first draft was SUFFICIENT, THIS COMMISSION COULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS TO MOVE FORWARD AND IT WOULD GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THAT WOULD BE A PUBLICLY ADVERTISED HEARING. then once the Planning Commission gave a recommendation of approval to the City Council then the City Council would consider the item over two meetings so the first would be for a council member to introduce the item and then the second would be the public hearing for the public to comment on the proposed text amendment and then the City Council would have DISCUSSION AND THEN CONSIDER THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT FOR FINAL ADOPTION IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO. JUST A FLAG, WE WOULD NEED A KIND OF LIKE COST ESTIMATE ESSENTIALLY FROM BROADBENT AND ASSOCIATES IF WE ARE GOING TO CONSULT THEM IN REGARDS TO THIS PROCESS. if we were given direction to do so, we would bring that back to the commission, given that our funds, we do have a majority of that allocated towards the completion of goals 3.1 and 3.2 within our historic preservation plan at this time. And so more details in regards to the text amendment that starts on page 21 of the agenda packet. Additionally, Vice Chairman Regal-Fasto, she has provided a handout that was placed on the dais for you all to review in regards to her proposal for a roadside heritage conservation district. So this is the opportunity for the commission to discuss conservation overlay districts further, as well as provide staff with direction. City staff is available for any questions that you may have, as well as broadband and associates. So I'll pass it back over to you, Vice Chairman Rigolfasto, if you wanna open up the discussion with the commission, then if you'd like to provide an overview of the handout as well. Thank you.

i would like to open the item up for discussion or any questions the commission may have for staff and i did give you guys all this roadside heritage conservation district it's just an idea of a name for it rather than the you know something that's maybe less confusing than motel sign district because people didn't quite understand what that meant um well i'm proposing that we have the conservation district because i think it is a way to save our buildings and make sure that they don't get torn down but it also gives the flexibility for the community and business owners of these motels to be able to make a profit make some changes to it so that they have a profitable business but you know not tear them down because they are historic and that's what we're all here for is to protect them anybody else

A long time ago I did a lot of research on conservation districts and preservation districts and what differs and I appreciate the explanation. I thought it was quite thorough and I recognize it's a planning tool that can be used for many things. It can also be used for historic preservation. I know you kind of said that. I just want to reiterate that it is not just a preservation tool, it's a planning tool which can be used for historic preservation or I've always read it as historic preservation light. And I mention that because if we're talking about preserving the history, this will do it less than a historic district. And I want to be clear about that. So we can't say we're going to be historic preservation and then say, oh, but we're going to do historic preservation light. They're kind of separate things. All that said, I think a conservation district could be helpful, but I would also ask the commission as well as historic districts are more tried and true than conservation districts, and I think the effort to do a conservation district will be immense, not even the zoning aspect of that and putting in the code so we can even do this. it would require charrettes and meetings. And the last meeting we had, we basically said we didn't want to meet with the public. So if we're going to do this, it's going to be times 10 to even explain what this is, what it should be. Are there financial benefits like there are for the historic district? And I say that because if all our concern is just to not tear down these buildings, that's great. I think that's great. But if it means any hotel can do any modification to their building that they want, that is not, I think, what this represents. And that is not how I interpret the goals And that is not how I interpret the public's interest in historic preservation for Boulder City. So that is, and again, this can be anything we want it to be. It can be as rigid, my opinion anyways, and if you disagree, please rebut me. But this can be as rigid as a historic district or it can be as light as... Again, you kind of said it too, right? All I care about is setbacks or whatever. It's up to, as I understand anyways, it's up to the interpretation and the thoughts of the public and us as a commission to develop that and give that to the city commission, but yeah. Again, I think conservation districts are great in theory, and yet we have not tested it here in Boulder City. I think it makes it a lot more complicated on many levels. We would have to provide a lot of direction, a lot of outreach. There would probably be a lot of consultation with Broadbent on, what does that look like? and I could see us spending a lot of money also in just trying to educate us, let alone the public, on what that could and should be, and then it's hosting a charrette that says, what does everybody want? Oh, I don't want paint regulation, or I don't want this, and then it's trying to come to a consensus on what that is, and we would be the center point of all that, or broadband would be the center point of all that. So if there is concern that the public's not gonna show up, for historic district? Will they show up to have a shred on a conservation district? And then again, is it the same financial benefits that we have for historic districts? Would that be given also to conservation districts? Because to me, there should be a difference. Because then I could see people saying, well, I want a conservation district. I don't want a historic district. There's a lot of pros and cons. And I just want to be mindful of that too. And if we are going down this, It probably would be a bit of work for Broadbent to help even educate us on some of that. Those are my thoughts.

Any other thoughts?

I have a question. Who are we trying to win over? Are we trying to win over the hotel owners, the community, us? I think that needs to be answered. Who do we want to be up cheering about this and in agreement? Because it seems to me, based on the last meeting, I wasn't here for but I watched it, that the hotel owners don't want this. Now, I know that you had mentioned that the people do. Perhaps we do, because that's why we're here, right? We want to preserve. But I think there lacks a focus of who we're really trying to convince, persuade here. If it's the hotel owners, then we need to approach it from that perspective. I think that they need to know what's in it for them. What's in it for me, right? Isn't that something that someone would think if you're a business in that district? What's in it for me if we create a historic hotel district? Or what's in it for me if we can create a conservation district? So maybe that's the approach. i think personally based on what i just read that you sent here with the roadside heritage conservation district that that strikes a really a good balance because the historic district seems to be dead in the water they don't want it it's attempts have been made for them to come and speak business owners to speak about it they're not interested perhaps this is something fresh a new approach something more palatable for the business owners that still will still have some wins. The community will have wins what we as a commission wanting to preserve and conserve, we will have some wins, but it won't be as hard as sell as what already has been dismissed, which is to make a hotel preservation district. That's, that's my opinion on it.

Sorry, Vice Chairman Rigofasto, I just kind of want to add a little bit more context to what we heard from the motel owners, which was ultimately in my conversations with them based on direction that we got from the commission to meet with them, offer up meeting with them individually. Myself and our economic development coordinator, Rafi Fitzgikchen, we met with them, at least the ones that were willing to meet, which was about five of the property owners. And I had prepared a document that was reviewed by broadband as well as city staff in regards to What we were proposing as far as the motel historic district what were the benefits information on the grant and we kind of had that and conversation and were there to kind of answer questions and ultimately overall the opposition was in regards to regulations and in regards to the certificate of appropriateness process. And within this research, and Mr. Orecchi-Jones can kind of add to this, the conservation districts that we saw, the examples that we looked at, it varies, right? The design regulations are customizable, but there is still some sort of process to review. what's going on within that area, whether it's like an independent committee that's formed for that conservation district, whether it's this commission, whether it's city staff, and that could be done a variety of ways, but I just kind of want to offer that that most of the ones that we saw had

that kind of kind of oversight governmental oversight or an independent body oversight in some way with this process so thank you that is true except for we also have that just in general because we can't build anything without or change anything without permits so it still has to go through a process and the process can still be long and it can still be tedious but we still have to go through it. The difference is this will actually, might actually save some of these motels from being torn down. We already had one that was almost torn down and it just so happens to be the only one that can actually be on the register for the National Register of Historic Districts. But, We don't want to lose our history. And if we compromise and we allow them to have a say so in what the regulations are going to be as minimal or as tedious as they want them to be because we're going to work together instead of just telling them, oh, you can't do this and you can't do that, they get to decide. And then they also have an opportunity to beautify and help beautify their motels and possibly even still get grants to be able to do so. So it to me, it seems like a win win and it's better than not having anything at all.

Just to add some additional context, currently the way that our grant program is written, you have to be within a historic district or you have to be individually eligible on the national register or listed. So that would be something if we were to create this process, that would be something that the commission would ultimately have to recommend to be changed in the guidelines to allow any properties within a conservation district to qualify for the grant. So I just also want to make that clear. Thank you.

So the question here is, what is the goal of commission here with preservation now you put on the panda here it solves the integrity trap does it really if you are allowed to alter a historic building at any point in time you are no longer preserving that historic building in the preservation industry this is what's referred to as the ship of theseus paradox if you have the ship of theseus which is made of wood and you replace it plank by plank at which point is it no longer the original artifact And that is exactly what's being proposed here. You can say, oh, we're going to conserve and you're not going to have any form of regulation that helps preserve the history of the buildings. And that might be fine and well for the business owners of the community. But what does it do to actually preserve the historic integrity of those structures?

And just my add to that, I completely agree with everything you said, is if the only concern is not to demolish, but if the building has been altered so much, what does it matter if it's been demolished at that point anyways, if the historic integrity is gone? So I guess back to that point, that's my ask of the commission is, what is it that we're trying to accomplish? Is it just not demolish? buildings that are old, whether it's historic or not? Or is it actually saving, preserving, being a body in which has a COA process to recognize that this is historic, the change, or this is not historic, the change? Because that, to me, is the purpose of this commission, is to see that as changes are being made, they do meet historic integrity intent. And it's not piece by piece by piece withering away so there isn't and but i will say if it is just so they don't demolish i think a conservation district is fine i personally would like it to be more than just don't demolish the building it would be there is some means in which to preserve the preservation and that to me would be the reason why we have grants that would be the reason why people would come in front of this commission and to say this is the change i want to make is does this meet the intent and is this worthy of you know, receiving a grant. I know that the next agenda item is things around this, and I think we can develop that too, which I'm hopeful gets to the heart of what's challenging to some of the Boulder City residents, but.

So ultimately this comes back to goal setting. without a clear direction of what it is this commission's trying to accomplish, you're just gonna blow in the wind, wherever it takes you. And that's why clear set goals, whether it's those that have already been identified or whether we need to take a step back and look at those goals and revise them to put a clearer direction in place, That's what's steering this commission. We need to look at those goals, and we need to see whether that matches where this commission wants to go, where the community wants to go. That should be what's directing the members of this commission.

Just another piece. There's always a disconnect between this commission and the public, and it's a fair point to make. I know we proposed this last time, and it didn't go forward, but I always want to know what people feel, how they feel, what's their motivation. I don't know that enough personally. Whether people show up or not, that is not my concern. My concern is trying to do the right thing and being an advocate and doing everything that I can as a member of this group while I'm spending my personal time up here as well is to be an advocate for how I interpret or goals and how I interpret those in Boulder City for what Boulder City is, right? And that is maintaining, keeping historic integrity. And that has not been sustained through the years. And the public does not know why. And even here today, we heard that from the public. I know why. And I would love to have a conversation. And I would love to have a conversation on conservation district and the historic districts and the misnomers and the untruths And I think all of those push us to fill strongly for this or for that, but I have knowledge. Broadbent has knowledge. Some of us also on this commission have knowledge on not only their history in Boulder City, their time in Boulder City, historic districts, because I don't live in a historic district. I have a lot of knowledge about historic buildings. I've lived in historic buildings, but um and i'm a huge advocate of historic buildings and that's why again i i choose to live in boulder city i'm proud to live here for for the history and but i don't i think there's a lot of misunderstandings about conservation district historic districts and maybe even other measures but i see my job here is to make it easier for the public to keep their buildings historic in any way and to me that is our job if we are not doing this if this is not happening we are failing as a commission And I wrote from one of the comments, what are we doing with the information that we're being given? The idea is for us to act on that, in my opinion. We pay a lot of money for broadband and others to give us information to act on. And that to me was why we did all, why Brad spent all that time in writing basically a book about the history of the motels. And then we as a commission basically said, we're done with this, we're gonna move on. That's a sad moment for me. And I didn't want to just let it go. I still saw there was a glimmer of light somewhere down at the end of the tunnel. And we as a commission voted that let's put that to bed. There's other needs in Boulder City. Well, to me, that's a huge asset that Boulder City has that we basically said, well, the public doesn't care. And I wish the public was here. And when I wasn't on the commission, I never showed up to this meeting either. I know it's difficult. And I care a lot about historic preservation. I never came to these meetings either. So I don't know. And I'm really kind of saying this. I'll get off my soapbox. But I'm really kind of saying this to see if anybody else has any other ideas. It's a problem. And I don't know exactly how to solve it. But I'm happy to talk to anybody and everybody about my thoughts and my feelings about this without disrupting open meeting laws. But anyways, yeah.

well personally I see this as an opportunity to save the buildings yes we want to preserve historic buildings to be historic but maybe sometimes we can't do that and it already a lot of people in the community have already spoke out and said that they're not interested in a historic district for the motel row, they're just not. We had not one person come and give their position except for the people who normally come, which I do appreciate that they do come. So how do we save these buildings? And sometimes a building can be repurposed. It could still have a lot of historic integrity there, but they get a say so the motel owners get a say so I don't think that the motel owners want to completely change their buildings but I do think that they need help to keep them beautified because right now some of the motels look nice but some of them don't some of them a lot of people in the community want them torn down because they're ugly and they make the they make the you know entering boulder city look a little bit not cared for and that's not what we want we want it to be beautified we want to show our pride in our community and it just seems to me that that the conservation district is probably the only way to do it because it does allow the community to participate in deciding what can and cannot be done. In the historic district, we have a lot of homes that were historic that are no longer historic, and we have a lot of, and people are not participating in that program to keep their homes historic or bring them back to a historic integrity. So I'm just trying to save what we already have and not have that destroyed.

think is important to clarify that what we heard from the community and what we heard again from staff was not that they were opposed to a historic district they were exposed to regulation and this would still be regulation but minimal regulations well i mean it was important they get to decide what the regulations are going to be That's not the way it works, though. We would decide. We decide what's on a certificate of appropriateness, and a certificate of appropriateness is required in a conservation district just as it is in a historic district.

But they get to participate in what's going to be considered appropriate.

But it's still, I mean, and I know Nakisha brought this up as a distinction, but it's still, let's just say, all hotel owners sell new hotel owners come in regardless of who approved it then it's it's still that is that becomes the design guidelines that we hold the public to any future owner would have that that those design guidelines that we agree to and make even in the conservation district as a coa well that's true but they are purchasing it with that understanding

You'd be surprised how many people buy properties without understanding HOA regulations, historic district regulations. They just sign and they don't read the print.

I'd like to make a comment. I appreciate your being here, and I was listening as you were speaking about some general ideas, the difference between a historic district and a conservation district. And my thoughts on the matter, especially in Boulder City, and we were talking about the historic district here with our residential homes. and we've been talking about the motel district, there's a fundamental difference between a historic district of homes, which are static living places with beautiful tile roofs and wood floors and nice period paint jobs and preserving the integrity of streets where people live, especially this historic district, which is in such great shape. We love our historic houses, but it is a far cry uh between preserving uh preserving a home in that condition and preserving a business a business property our our hotel sign district that we've been talking about turning it into a preservation area these are living businesses these are properties that people purchase so they can make money so they can provide for their families so they can provide for their future. They buy motels, they buy the different buildings. They do things to them in order to make their customers happy, in order to make their business viable. My purpose when we're talking about a historic district in our business area is that first and foremost, it is a business area. And I am concerned about preserving the excitement and the vitality and the prosperity of our business district. Turning it into a preservation area, preventing people from, when they buy a property, preventing them from doing what they need to do in order to turn it into a profitable business. These hotels that we have, some of them, the rooms are, 150 square feet 200 square feet what do you do with that you uh you paint it you change the tile in there you get people to want to try to stay there it's these aren't museums these are living businesses and they need the freedom i believe in order to change with the times it's the 21st century these buildings were built last century early to mid last century They need a lot of work and getting stuck with a building that you can't do anything to because of all the regulations and government, you know, government oversight of everything that you want to do. We have to be extremely careful of trampling on the property rights of business owners in our business district. There are some buildings that need to be torn down. I'm thinking of the old Frosty Freeze. I love that building. It's been modified, it's been changed. If you look inside of it, it is absolutely in utter decay in there. To turn that into a prosperous business is gonna be hugely expensive, very, very difficult on a very nice piece of property in downtown Boulder City. Somebody might buy that property and say, I can't do anything with this little tiny building. and make any money off of it that's probably why it's sitting vacant now it's just it's just sitting there decaying away because nobody can do anything with the property it's an old frosty freeze used to be able to walk up to it maybe there's somebody that with a creative idea that wants to that wants to has the desire to preserve something like that but that would be on them but beyond that that's a valuable piece of property it needs to have a good business there to bring jobs and prosperity to Boulder City to make our business area attractive to all of our visitors. We want people to come to Boulder City and appreciate it. Some of our buildings are suitable for that kind of careful conservation, and some of our hotels have done a great job in conserving what they have. They've taken care of their signs, they've upgraded their hotels, and people like staying there. But that doesn't apply to all the buildings. And removing the ability for business owners to do what they need to do in order to make their property, their investment profitable, we have to be extremely careful in crossing that line.

I think it can still meet the intent of businesses being businesses, businesses still wanting to modify their historic building in a historic district as well. As I understand, historic districts are generally restricting exterior changes, not interior changes. But even with extra changes, I think within a design guideline that we would ask broadband to put together and we would approve, there's still some latitude to allow flexibility. Not that I want to shift this conversation, but I would rather focus on having a historic district and how to make it viable for businesses, for owners to want to be in a historic district. That is a fundamental problem. We have that, we've heard that from the public. i think we could have a lot of discussions about that too and about how to make improvements or to make suggestions for improvements in historic districts but i do think that not having a historic district will further the decay of buildings and losing their historic integrity than not and there are challenges absolutely there's challenges but i think we can work with that as long as we as a group are committed to finding and solving problems open-minded to what solutions are and advocating for that. And I know we saw that very few people take advantage of the grants. Why? That's what I want to talk about. Why aren't they taking advantage of it? And let's solve that problem. Let's make people want to be in a historic district and want to take advantage of the grant and want to find a non-contributing property and let's make it financially viable for them to make changes that add integrity back. That's what I would like to talk about as a commission. And it's not easy.

Just a quick point of clarification and just kind of education for the public. Vice Chairman Regal-Fasto and the Commission, there are commercial properties already located within our existing historic district. I know the majority of them are residential, but I just want to make it clear that there's plenty of properties like along Nevada Way that would already be have to follow certain design guidelines as well as a certificate of appropriateness process as it exists now, as well as one of the motels that was proposed within the district would fall under that requirement already. So we do have businesses that when they make certain changes have to consult with the city in regards to what they are looking to do. A good example of that would be the old Milo's where a new restaurant is going in and that's something that we had to work with the new property owner on for that. The property is non-contributing based on the changes that have occurred to it throughout time but we did have to go back and forth with some of the changes that they were making and he did comply with our suggestions and the recommendations from Broadbent and Associates and went through the administrative certificate of appropriateness process. So just adding some context and clarification to that. Thank you.

Do you have any comments that you would make on the difference between a residential and a business district and how our decisions here could affect, what effects it would have, the different kind of effects it would have between a residential and a business district?

I would probably pass that off to Courtney Mooney, who is over Zoom.

So we'll pass it on to Courtney, see if Courtney has any comments she would make regarding the difference between a residential and a business district when it comes to conservation and preservation?

Courtney, can you hear us in Boulder City?

All right, well, my role here is to advise the committee, so I'll do my best to answer your question. Again, this comes back to what is the goal. Is your goal specifically for preservation? If so, there is no real difference. The only difference being one's being used for commercial, one's being used for residential. If you're designing this to preserve the historic integrity of the structure, then it doesn't really matter what the internal occupancy is doing. You're still preserving the structure. Now, if you're looking at this from a non-contributing standpoint, then it starts breaking down from there. Obviously, if it's non contributing, you've already outside the guidelines and you have a little bit more flexibility with what you can do with that property. And as a commercial property, and as you already pointed out, you need to adjust with the times or your business fails. And so Looking at it from that standpoint, there is some more flexibility by not having a contributing property. And certainly from a business standpoint, the incentive on the owner is to be non-contributing, not contributing, because it's going to allow your business to be more flexible in what you can do and more modern that meets the current aesthetics and wishes of the customer. But, that said, historic buildings do have the ability to attract customers on their own, so it can go both ways. But from a regulatory standpoint of what we would look for on this commission, for certificate of appropriateness and preserving historic integrity of the structure, there is no real difference.

ask a question. Okay, so once we're finished with all of the discussion, then do I propose something?

I mean, yes, we're looking for direction from the commission as a whole. So yes.

Okay. Is everybody finished? Does anybody have any? Any?

What?

Is there any other questions? Yes. Okay.

I'll add one more thing in our handout. One of the primary differences between a historic district and a conservation district is it's A conservation district is typically, excuse me, typically established through a neighborhood-driven process, often via a neighborhood plan developed with heavy resident participation. And that goes back to what we've been struggling with in our previous meetings is that the property owners in the hotel district are not participating in any of this because it's, and they've told us why they're not participating. It's too restrictive. They're worried about government overreach. um a a conservation district even though it's i i'll just say that i'm cautiously optimistic about a conservation district and that primary reason why i would be optimistic towards that is the heavy resident participation and that would have to be emphasized in any anything going forward you know as far as i'm concerned There would need to be heavy property owner participation in what we're doing. We need to know that they're on board with what we're doing so that we're not overstepping our bounds and giving them something that they simply don't want.

If I may, I'm gonna go back to the idea of what's in it for me, or them, the business owner. So here where it says a strategy that shifts our paradigm from regulation to investment, that would be something in it for them. I think that if it's presented this new, fresh idea of a conservation district, would be more palatable for them because they already believe and it's like beating a dead horse that a historic district is going to regulate the life out of them so if they're presented with something new something fresh something that can list what incentives like what benefits they can achieve by having this um conservation district that's a sell i mean we would have to sell it So I think in a prior attempt to try to sell the historic district, it didn't go over well when they looked at it, but I think this is a fresh approach and in a perfect world, well, it's not a perfect world and that's it. We're not gonna be able, they don't want it. They have made it very clear that those business owners do not want it. So let's present them something fresh and new that is less stifling to them that they feel will have something that will grant them benefits, and they can get excited about it.

We haven't presented anything to anybody. We chose not to do that, and we voted on that last month. But secondly, there is no ability to give incentives for a conservation district. There are a lot of things that will have to change to make that happen.

And there's already several incentives for the historic district itself. What you lack is the buy-in. Everybody likes the idea of a historic district. Nobody wants to deal with the things that actually preserve the history. They want the benefits without doing the necessary activities to get there.

I missed that.

And if I may say if I can comment on miss miss valleys comment in the one of the paragraphs here on the handout item. It does say that What we want to do with this conservation district or what we'd like to do is to celebrate the associative and community value of the property without forcing the property owners to meet strict architectural standards that they cannot realistically return to. and i think that paragraph says it right there we don't want to give them strict architectural standards or other strict standards we want to help them celebrate their associative and community value and that would still give us give us an opportunity to promote conservation and promote preservation uh without going through a uh preservation district i think this is something right here in black and white that none of us have really talked about or pointed out in this in this piece of paper and i think that's what we're looking for i think that again we're not trying to win anybody over um what we're trying to do is uh conserve the uh the preservation and the history of boulder city however possible and if we can't do it through actual uh preservation districts which in this case the property owners don't want it we can do it through these uh through another way without harassing the property owners without having them meet strict standards this is a way that we can help preserve the certain preservation situations in the city without coming down hard on on the property owners i i just think that i just wanted to point that out in this handout item number two

If you don't have architectural regulation, what are you preserving? What's the point?

The point is we're celebrating their associative and community value. That's the point. It's right there in black and white.

And we're preserving the building.

It's for the Eastern District to do that? Why don't you just celebrate it?

We're protecting the building.

No, you're not. If you're not having architectural standards and regulations, you're not doing anything.

If they cannot tear down the building, that means they have to somehow or some way figure out as a group, as a community, what changes that they can make to make it a viable business. For an example, all the hotels are single pane windows. Well, that isn't efficient in our weather.

I don't disagree with you. I'm just pointing out the problem that you're faced with here as you consider this is are you actively trying to preserve historic properties or do you just want to acknowledge the history of the area? Doing the latter requires no regulation or no action on this commission's part. You can promote history. You can celebrate history. I think that's all what we're here to do. But if you want to physically preserve these historic structures, then it will take some sort of regulation, architectural guidelines, certificates of appropriateness, all the things that we have heard time and time again from the community members that they dislike.

Yeah, I think we all have different opinions on what we're trying to accomplish. I'm not just trying to prevent the building from being demolished. And maybe that's what we need to identify. What is it that we're trying to do? It sounds great to say, oh, we just care about the look and the feel of the community. To that point, it has to be a design guideline that we hold somebody accountable to that says, look, we provided design guidelines. This does not meet that, which is typically a facade, an exterior plan drawing that shows what that detail is, and it could be all different styles of architecture, things like that, but it could be tree line. It could be setback. All these things are design guidelines, but that's not what we're seeing here. And so if it is just the feel of a neighborhood, it could be designed with guidelines, again, on those things, but I don't think that's what the historic district, or that's what the motel historic, or the area that we're identifying as a potential for historic district is. I think it's an amalgamation of different buildings over different times that have different historic characters. So what would be design guidelines that we would want to uphold? Because that is what would be a conservation district or a historic district. It has to be something that we can describe that says, we need you to keep this, and it needs to look like this. Whatever you do, please maintain this, whatever this is.

My experience in the past was with a hotel owner who was trying to do those things. He owned a hotel. I knew him pretty well. He was well-funded and very enthusiastic about the property. He loved the building itself. He loved the idea of creating, being creative with the building. He had an idea. He had a vision that he was working towards. he ran into regulations with the city and they he tried to comply with them he had more hoops to jump through he tried to comply with them he had meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting and eventually it reached the point where he threw up his hands he took his money and he left town and he isn't the only one that's that that's happened to we had a chance of having a really nice property in our business district usable functional bringing in revenue and being an active and vital part of our business district and we drove him away through regulation and oversight he simply got overwhelmed by everything and I am NOT one to add to that burden to the rest of the property owners our business district

Well, then let's get rid of all of our historic districts. Everybody do everything they want. Hopefully you guys keep the historic integrity of your buildings, but if you don't, no big deal. Like, what are we doing here then? This is our purpose. We have to have some means of, I hate to say policing, but of verifying that we as a commission, we as a city have said we want a historic district, at least in our existing historic district. And that has, I do believe that has helped preserve. It's not perfect, nothing's perfect. And again, I have not had to deal with the regulations one on one. So I'm speaking in theory. I don't have the history to speak on that. But if we're not having a means in which to preserve history, then what are we doing? Because doing nothing is not our purpose. We might as well just demolish the commission. So again, I feel like we're all at odds here, but there's drastic misunderstandings of what historic preservation is, and I don't think that it has to be as restrictive. It's easy to say that so-and-so had an issue and this was all the stuff, but until you get into the nuts and bolts and break it apart, it's hearsay. I could say the opposite on the positive side of historic preservation, but it's situational to the exact building, that exact location, the exact regulation, all the things, you know.

This is why clear goals are necessary. The goals should be driving this commission.

well my goal is to preserve the motels but allow the owners of the motels to have more say so in what gets done with them i'm not saying let's change them so they completely look different but we already have a whole bunch of motels that are non-contributing and they look beautiful But we need to help them to want to make them beautiful. We need to encourage them to move forward, to make them pretty, and to make the design of when you're coming into Boulder City, all of the motels look nice. now it does i'm not saying let's tear it down and let's just make a three-story or or even add an extra story to it but and i'm pretty sure that most of the people who buy those buildings already like the way they look they just want to modify it a little bit by having different types of windows or doors that something that's that the owners have the best interest in mind so why go through all this

If you have full faith in the business owners, then have faith in the business owners.

That's why we're rejecting the idea of a preservation area.

Yeah, because we already had one that was almost torn down. Because somebody thought, okay, well, let's turn it into a burger joint.

Really do trust the property owners.

I get that. My point is, we've been here an hour now, and why?

because we're on different poles. Why? We're on diametrically opposite poles, and perhaps we can find the middle point.

And this is my point, is we need to have clear goals guiding it, because without these goals identifying what the commission is supposed to do, we're steering rudderless right now. You need to, as a commission, come up with a consensus of what it is we're trying to achieve and why.

Without that, we're all just sitting here wasting time. So just for clarification, what I'm hearing is you don't like historic districts. So would it be your preference to get rid of the existing historic district?

I didn't say anything like that. What I don't like is government regulation over private businesses.

But that's what a historic district is.

Right. You understand.

okay so this is not a historic district and they've already decided that they don't want it to be a historic district and i understand that in a perfect world we would be able to make it a historic district and and put the regulations on there so that we can keep it truly historic but that's doesn't look like it's going to happen and we already um decided to move forward So moving forward, there's another idea, and the idea is a conservation district because it gives them more freedom. It preserves the building. If only our restriction is they can't tear the building down.

But then it doesn't preserve the building.

It does preserve the building.

It does not. It does not meet historic preservation.

We're not trying to make a historic district because we already decided that that wasn't going to happen.

that that already happened nobody's interested in making it a historic district the conservation district will allow the building to remain it's if we agree as a body it will do that we we have to agree as a body like it's whatever we want it to be it could be five foot setback it could be not demolishing it's not necessarily it'll prevent buildings from being demolished it's whatever we decide

Okay, so I think that I propose that we move forward and we ask our city staff to move forward in the conservation district to see if the community would be more willing to do something like that.

So if I could get some clarification, I've heard the discussions among the commissioners, and it is clear that for those that are interested in a conservation district, the only regulatory element I heard was prohibition to demolition. Otherwise, property owners would be able to do whatever they want with their properties. Is that correct? For those supporting the conservation district.

That's what I'm supporting OK, but I would say that the demolition restriction would have to be carefully worded if there's a fire that damages a building beyond repair we sometimes buildings must be demolished so we would have to really clarify what we mean by I'm by restricting the demolishing of a building so if that had a a criteria or a spectrum that we could word that carefully.

conditional demolition condition so because this commission spent well over a year working on this effort what staff would suggest is that we and because i've also heard from the commissioners that you want to hear from the property owners we can't get the property owners to come to meetings we've invited them to several of the commission meetings staff can go back and engage those properties again and ask them if they're interested in a conservation district with the only regulatory provision being a prohibition on demolition. Kind of going back to what Nikesha said, they don't like the extra layers of city regulations. I think engaging them to see if they even would be receptive to that before we spend a lot of time and effort exploring the conservation district I think would be appropriate.

And if I was a business owner, what would I get in return for that?

That's right. I would say, when it's presented, how are you going to sell it? How is it going to be appealing to them? What perks will they see? I like this idea. This is much better than what they originally talked about, making it a historic district. this seems like doable and these advantages interest me. Like, will it be presented in that way or it'll just be kind of more, you know, cut and dry, it's this and then you can't do that and

Well I think to to your comment and the comment. It was made about it has to be carefully worded I maintain that anything that this commission does regarding any type of motion or what not we want to carefully worded so it doesn't pertain only to this pertains to everything we do.

Correct, and that's why I'm seeking clarification on the intent, because we would want to convey exactly the expectations of the commission to those property owners.

I would also add that this commission, it's difficult, if not impossible, really, for us to move forward without some kind of input from the property owners. So we would love to have their participation, if at all possible. I mean, we certainly can't compel it, But back to this statement here, it's developed with heavy resident participation. That really is a key point for me. I really want to hear from the property owners themselves. I'm not comfortable at all making decisions. I'm not a business owner. I've never owned a hotel. I don't know what they're dealing with. I don't know what that's like. they need to be the ones who, the impetus really needs to come primarily from the property owners and I would love to see more of their participation if we could just politely and gently maybe ask them if they could find it in their hearts to come in and talk to us.

We can invite them again. They were invited the last several meetings. And we can suggest that if they have a proposal that they want to present, they could present it to the commission.

Yes, that would be good. We'd love to hear that.

Point of clarification for you, Michael, just for the members of the board here, open meeting law does not prevent individual members of the board reaching out in their personal capacity and talking to owners themselves, correct? That is correct.

Just not...

talking to each other about what you heard yeah okay well i'd like to make a motion that we move forward on the conservation district and make have the city reach out to the property owners to get some feedback and let explain to them what the conservation district benefits can be

so we would have to establish some clear benefits to present to them they need to see some clear benefits on paper something for them to be attracted to and perhaps in contrast to what they dislike about the historic district restrictions or regulations yeah that's largely much less regulation than what was previously proposed

So there's a motion.

Yeah, I made the motion. Is there a second?

I second.

All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

You need to call for all opposed as well. Oh, all opposed?

Opposed.

And the motion passes.

The motion pass.

Three to one. Three to one.

next is agenda item hold on next is agenda item three for proposed action matters retraining to the budget for historic preservation a commission discussion regarding the overall budget for historic preservation b commission discussion regarding the residential historic preservation grant program staff your report

Thank you, Vice Chairman Rigolfasto. So at the last Historic Preservation Commission meeting, Member Johnson had requested that this item be placed on the agenda. This is just based on the public comments that we've gotten in regards to the adequacy of the funding of historic preservation efforts and this includes the Residential historic preservation grant program that the city offers so page 24 of the agenda packet this goes over the last five fiscal years of budget that relates to historic preservation items. So this includes the grant program itself, historic preservation day budget, the budget in regards to our consulting services contract with broadband and associates, And then our membership fee for the National Association of Preservation Commissions that we subscribe to every year, which provides training opportunities and other resources for the city as well as this commission. And then the totals are there. So all of that information has been included within the table, as well as some considerations in regards to upcoming budget requests or considerations for the future, which would be creating a new historic preservation plan So that information is there, staff is available for any questions that you may have in regards to the budgets in particular. And then also requested at the last meeting was an opportunity to discuss the residential historic preservation grant program. that the city offers and the commission was amenable to that request. So at the bottom of page 24 starts just an overview of the connection with the city's strategic plan in regards to continuing to promote historic preservation. and strategy number four, which is expanding available grant support to incentivize reinvestment within our historic properties. So the intention of that program was again designed to incentivize homeowners in the historic district to maintain the historic character of their properties. when it was previously adopted by the city council back in 2022. The top of page 25 goes over an overview of the total amount of applications that we've received for the grant, which is a total of eight. And out of those eight applications, four have been approved by the city council, three were withdrawn by the applicants, and then one was denied by the Historic Preservation Commission. So for the four grants that have been awarded, that equals to a total of a little over $30,000. And then the breakdown of that funding per fiscal year is included after that summary. Below that, in regards to just recommended or proposed changes to the residential historic preservation grant program, staff has consulted with Broadbent and Associates. We've had internal conversations as well as the public feedback that we have received in regards to some of the barriers or concerns with the grant program and so the Recommended kind of areas within the guidelines to look at and some things that should be clarified or change That starts on page 25. So I'll just kind of quickly go over these because there's more detail provided but that includes looking at increasing the the funding amount that is reimbursed. So currently it's not to exceed 50% or $10,000, whichever is less for total eligible cost of the project. Going into the criteria, currently we do require that the property that is receiving the funds They're listed or they're eligible for listing either individually or as a contributing resource on the National Register of Historic Places or they're within the Boulder City Historic District. And so also property owners have to either be of a contributing status within the district or they have to be non-contributing and willing to make the necessary improvements that would result in their property being reclassified as contributing once they utilize the funds. Going into just eligible and ineligible activities, Just again, some recommendations from staff based on the information and feedback that we've received. So currently there is a restriction that if you receive one grant in one fiscal year, in the next fiscal year that occurs, you would not be eligible for the grant. So they essentially would have to wait two years. before they would be eligible to receive another grant for their property. And then looking at adding in other eligible exterior activities that elongate the life of a historic property such as painting and making that clear within our eligible activities. Removing life safety code improvements as an eligible activity since that conflicts with the public safety hazards that is listed as an eligible activity. Defining what maintenance means, making sure there's a clear distinction between eligible restoration work that's occurring and what would be considered ineligible routine maintenance. And then just greater clarity of those requirements in the guidelines and the activities and so attached to this agenda item starting on page 27 starts the guidelines that was provided for you for your review and to kind of help aid in this conversation so I'll go ahead and pass it back over to Vice Chairman Rigolfasto to kind of open the discussion up. And so city staff is looking for you to just review the budget as well as the program information and the proposed changes and to offer some direction for where you would like staff to go next. If we were to make any changes to the guidelines, we would draft up language and come back to this commission for their recommendation to the city council as well as consult with the city attorney and the city staff is available for any questions that you may have thank you okay i will open the item up for discussion or any questions the commission may have for the staff

Nikisha, I thank you for providing the five-year outlook. I don't think I've ever seen that in my time on the commission thus far, so that was very beneficial. Can you speak to why there's been such a substantial decrease in funding over the last five years? I know that first FY was just coming out of the pandemic, and there was a lot of home reno going on, but if you could provide a little bit more specificity in why that keeps getting reduced from year to year.

Yeah, absolutely. And so kind of like the overview that I provided, just the amount of grant applications that we receive is very low. So every year it's just essentially adjusted for that. Since 2022, we've only received eight applications, four of which actually received funding. So that's kind of the main reason for that. Thank you.

Do you have any idea of why we're not getting more people making a request for the grant?

Yeah, I think that's heavily supported by the proposed changes that staff has kind of outlined. A lot of the feedback that we've received is that the funding is not enough, as well as the restriction in regards to having to get it to a contributing status if you're non-contributing or BEING CONTRIBUTING. MANY OF THE HOMES WITHIN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT HAVE VERY MUCH CHANGED OVER TIME. SO HAVING TO ESSENTIALLY REMOVE CERTAIN COMPONENTS OF YOUR HOUSE THAT WOULD MAKE IT SMALLER TO BECOME CONTRIBUTING AGAIN. can be very expensive and also limiting for property owners that want to live in their residential home needs space. We've kind of seen that theme throughout some of the past projects that we've discussed. So that's some of the feedback that I've kind of heard one-on-one with folks in regards to why they don't ultimately end up pursuing it. As well as the process so, you know staff has to review Part of the grant requirements you do have to comply with the Secretary of Interior standards and the design guidelines and Also get approval by this Commission Sorry a recommendation of approval by this Commission and then final approval by the City Council and and so that process can take a couple months so that's some of the the feedback that I've heard and

If we were to change the grant amount, that would be a request from this commission to city council and appropriations would come from city council, correct? That is correct.

So if I understand correctly we're kind of in a death spiral with the amount of money that's as the one from 100,000 to now which is only 30 because people think that it's not enough money and so they're not applying that's perhaps one of the reasons why they're not applying for the grant so the less people apply for the grant the less money is being budgeted, is that correct? Yes, that is correct. So we have to get out of that death spiral, right? Incentivize people to get excited about wanting to get these grants. I'm curious, the people that withdrew, You had said four received the grant, four was, no, what was the numbers? Some received the grant, but some withdrew from. Yeah, so three of the applications were withdrawn by the applicant. Do you know why they withdrew? Was it because it was too difficult, the process, or do we have any idea why they withdrew?

I'm not sure if Deputy City Manager Mays would be able to provide a little bit more context to that.

with the withdraws specifically um i think it's a combination of time constraints because one of the critical elements to the grant condition is they cannot begin work until they've gotten approval from the city council i see so is there any way that it's possible to expedite that i mean we're losing people here like what can we do to get

the process moving along more quickly is maybe something that we need to look at so that we don't lose people.

Yeah, I think that's the smaller condition here. I was involved in the grant creation and I spoke to probably about 50 property owners within the first year and a half. And the largest reason why people did not proceed is because they had non-contributing properties. And so they were ineligible. or they would have to spend so much money to bring their property up to contributing that it was not worth going through the grant program. So I think with what Nikisha's suggesting with recommendations to changes, that will help encourage and bring more potential applications before this commission. That's gonna be one of the key contributing factors because as Nikisha mentioned, over half the properties within the district are not contributing so right there you've knocked out fifty percent for eligibility i think as long as it is an improvement that does not make it less non-contributing but can help to provide improvements that enhance the property then that goes back to the objective of encouraging reinvestment maybe not within the contributing properties but within the historic district

Is it possible to do something such as, as long as they bring it closer to contributing and not completely contributing? That's what I'm suggesting. Yeah.

Okay. What if we... What if we tried to target property owners who want to do smaller things to their house? A lot of times when we talk about bringing a house up to a contributing status, it's almost like an all or nothing thing, which is extremely expensive, and we'll give you $10,000, up to $10,000 to offset that. Well, $10,000 is really nothing in today's construction world, very, very tiny thing. But what if somebody says, I want to start moving my house towards contributing status, but I'm going to start with my front door. My front door doesn't close right. I want to refinish the door and bring it up to contributing status. It's going to cost me $1,200. And if we were to target the idea that anything, like for instance, anything under $10,000, we will contribute 60%. 70% of the cost of a small project to get people more interested in doing the small things on their houses moving their houses steadily get just Trying to appeal more to people's smaller There's a lot of people who have small pocketbooks nice houses and small pocketbooks to be able to to do big things to their houses but I think that they can do small things and trying to target that to get more people participating with small things on their houses and

I like that idea. I think you're absolutely on the right track getting incremental steps towards the ultimate return to status. I think that should definitely be a goal.

The budget amount, the $30,000 that's currently allocated, is that use it or lose it state funds?

It's from the city's budget, and yes, it is use it or lose it.

The original one I was asking was I was wondering if it could roll over, but if it's, okay, yeah. to me I think these are the points that we should be reviewing whether we increase the amount from 10,000 to 25 if we make a request from the 30,000 back to the hundred and or you know I think they're all good suggestions as far as whether there can be incremental improvements and hopefully with the end result of getting back to a contributing property well and there's no reason we can't do both yeah exactly

There was a couple more things I wanted to consider with regard to incentivizing homeowners. So once they get the C of A, then they have to get More permits from the city approved or does one make the other?

Yeah, so just like a couple I guess maybe points of clarification and I'll answer your question So the grant here you don't necessarily need to get a COA So a certificate of appropriateness is our design review in regards to Secretary of Interior standards and the design guidelines that apply to to the property that occurs on the exterior of a building that's viewable from a public street and requires a building permit. So I know that that is a lot, but I wanna make that distinction because people can apply for the grant for certain things like window changes or painting that don't require a building permit, so they don't require a certificate of appropriateness. So yeah, once, let's say somebody is, we can just kind of go over the last application we had, in regards to the painting. So they had applied for the grant. At that point, it's reviewed by staff. Then it's reviewed by Bromber and Associates. So we're ensuring that it's actually preserving the historic integrity of the property. We're able to make those findings and making sure it complies with the guidelines. And then at that point, we would bring that information to this commission for their recommendation. So then it was brought forward to you all for your recommendation. And so if they get a recommendation of approval, then we would move it forward to the city council for their final consideration of approving the grant. Once that occurs, there are a slew of documents that do need to be executed. So one of those is like a participation agreement. So they're acknowledging what they're participating in. One of the kind of major things, there's an easement agreement that is associated. So because we are giving city funds to an individual for an improvement that's occurring to their property, that easement kind of goes over what's required. Let's say they decided to remove that improvement within two years, well, they would owe the city a portion of that money back. So that easement is executed on the property. And then other Requirements or for like a notice to proceed and then ensuring that the work is actually completed based on what was recommended from approval By this commission and then finally approved by the City Council. So staff goes out and verifies The work has been done in conformance with what was approved. So those are kind of some of the steps that are after that once they've gone ahead and they've done the improvement they would provide the city with an invoice and And then we would process their reimbursement and then they could receive a check or a direct deposit Once that's done so kind of dependent on what it is. The last example probably took two to three months given scheduling timelines The applicant was on vacation, you know like there there are a lot of kind of things that may make that process longer or shorter shorter just dependent on on the individual case and

So if there were a case where the homeowner needed a building permit, would that be a scenario that would happen or could happen?

Yeah, that could definitely happen. And then it would just kind of be also applied into that process. So usually, let's say if they needed the building permit, we review the certificate of appropriateness. We try to review those simultaneously so that we're not delaying that process, and so planning and zoning staff, if we need to take it to the commission, or if we would just do an administrative review, we would conduct that in line with the building permit review process, and then if they got a grant on top of that, then all three of those processes are kind of running simultaneously.

if there's an opportunity at all to fast track any of that you know to say yeah we will simultaneously you know grant you or review the building permit as we are reviewing the certificate of appropriateness like so that they get a feeling of like oh i don't have to wait for this again and i have to wait for that i don't have to i don't it's the waiting process that may be a turn off for some people or maybe make it an incentive that it won't be as long if they feel that They're getting maybe a little bit of a fast track.

Yeah, that is something that city staff is conscious of when we're having these communications with members of the public going through this process. Ultimately, I think some of the kind of larger concerns that we've heard from the public is really funding that's being provided not being enough or having to become contributing again. And those are kind of the things that we can control within this discussion as far as like the grant guidelines themselves so that's what stops looking for is ultimately direction on what this commission would like to amend and change within the guidelines so we can you know take it back to the drawing table work on it and bring something uh back to you all as far as amended guidelines that we can then approach the city council with

okay is everybody finished with questions i i have one question for staff um this is kind of kind of way out there i have no idea where this where this would go but uh our historic district uh beautiful homes uh lush lawns it's really really pretty driving down those little tiny streets and they are uh and also home to very old trees we have our very old trees that are there And are those trees considered to be vital to the historic district, and are they covered in any way by any kind of, can we cover them in any kind of funding way, like replacing a tree that comes down, Can a property owner say, my tree in my part of this street, which is beautifully covered with other mature trees, it came down in a storm, can I get funding to help replace my tree? Is that something that we can work?

So yeah, the city does not regulate landscaping. We don't require a building permit for that, and it's not integral to the design guidelines that would apply to landscaping. the properties within our historic district. So yeah, at this time, that's not something that we have. Could that be explored? Yes, but not within the scope of this conversation. So we really want to just kind of focus on the information and the program for the grant that's in front of you at the moment.

And to just piggyback on that, landscaping is generally not included as part of Secretary of the Interior standards, except in very rare instances, things like major gardens or design landscape that contributes to the overall architecture of a site.

Any more questions? I would like to make a motion that we change the guidelines to bring that people will be allowed to receive grant money if they bring their building closer to being contributing and that we increase the amount of the grant. I also like his idea of if it's under $10,000 for a door or something like that, we pay 75%.

So we actually don't need a motion for that. Staff is just looking for direction. So just direction on what you all want to change and then we will come back for another discussion and then at that point we could do a recommendation to the city council. So we're just looking for the changes. So I'm hearing removing the contributing status requirement or you're just getting closer to contributing status so you don't have to fully make it contributing. Increasing the amount of funds that are available So I would encourage you to maybe think about the amount that you would like to increase it to and then if there was any other Recommendations based on what staff has provided or your independent review of the guidelines Well, I think it should be 25,000 I agree occur

and then 75% if it's under $10,000, and it's bringing it closer to being contributing.

The only thing, well, I also wanted to maybe re-increase our total budget from 30 to 100, and I don't know how everybody feels about that, being that back in FY22, 23, that's what it was at, but the only thing I want to make mention on contributing versus not, and this is just me being overly cautious, so take this with a grain of salt, whether there's more incentives for, I want to give more incentives for non-contributing properties, but the only thing I want to make mention, I would hate, I don't think anybody would do this, but I at least want to make mention of it, is somebody would allow the property to go into non-contributing status to then get the additional benefits of non-contributing money or as a percentage. I just want to make sure before we go with that, like we understand that potential risk and are accepting of it, but.

that's a good thought any question any answers to that thought just thinking of this as a mind experiment i think you'd have to actually undertake those alterations to get it to non-contributing unless you just let your property full out degrade but there would be actual construction steps that would need to take place at which point i think code enforcement would already be involved

Yeah so I guess if there was a property that was contributing currently and they decided to make all of these improvements yeah they would be required to have a building permit so that would be one way of us regulating that because of course if it was contributing and dependent on the improvement they would need to go through the certificate of appropriateness process and would have to get approval more than likely from this board or for administratively. And then yes, to piggyback on what Member McMahon said that yes, if someone is kind of moving forward with those changes without a building permit and we are made aware of that, then we can move forward with code enforcement for compliance with the process and then they're able to, we can explain the certificate of appropriateness process and making sure that they're getting the appropriate building permits as well. but also if they're already contributing that means they already qualify for a grant so why would they uh that is correct but i believe that member johnson was saying uh how would we kind of control or regulate if someone is contributing but maybe if we're opening it up uh to non-contributing and someone decides to just become non-contributing just to utilize and get more grant funding.

Because my understanding was we'd be going from 50% to 75% for non-contributing.

No, I think that should be in general for all of them.

Okay, for everything.

For everything, but just change the status to as long as you're bringing your home closer to contributing, that means the money that you're asking for is going to bring it closer to being contributing, then I think that they should be allowed to have that money.

Okay, so regardless of status, if you're in the historic district, you're eligible for the grant.

They have to be able to justify it. Provided that they are bringing it closer.

Oh yes, correct, but we would still do our usual review and ensure that it would be something that isn't making it more non-contributing, absolutely.

And just from a budgetary standpoint, do you think it's too much to add? I know this is a lot of things I think now that we're asking, and I think these are great improvements that hopefully we see more use of this. Do you think, I don't know if these individually could get denied, whether that's by city council or staff, but do you think there'd have to be proof that this is being used before maybe going from a 30,000 as a budget to 100,000? Or do you think that's a viable request?

I believe that you work on making the changes to the grant guidelines, and then we see the kind of response after we promote it to the historic district. If necessary, if we're getting a tremendous amount of response within the fiscal year that's only budgeted 30,000, we could go back to the council and ask for an augmentation, and it'll be up to the council to decide. I don't think we need the commission to make a recommendation on that.

so you can always ask for augmentation it doesn't need to be in the original budget build for the upcoming fy correct thank you i don't need to make any motions

No, I think based on the conversation, we have our direction and so staff will work on making these changes and then we would bring it back to the commission at a later date once we have some draft language ready for your review.

okay next is agenda item number four for possible action matter pertaining to the historic preservation plan update on implementation of the commission's goals and priorities commission discussion regarding public transparency and clarity of terminology in the commission's goal and priority reporting staff your report

Thank you again Vice Chairman Rigolfasto. So this just to kind of go over each component of this item. So this is like the monthly opportunity for the Commission to receive an update on the adopted goals and priorities and so the matrix is provided any changes are kind of indicated in bold so that starts on page 38 I'm just going to kind of highlight a couple of items before I get into the next sub item. So in regards to training, so upcoming training SHPO, so that's the State Historic Preservation Office, they're offering a statewide training program a training opportunity in Carson City. This is gonna be September 24th to the 27th and so myself and Chairman Davenport as well as Member Baker will be attending that conference and City Planner Keaton is going to be participating virtually. So this is a good kind of training opportunity for us and then we'll work on the grant reimbursement after attendance. And then another update is that myself as well as member Baker recently traveled to Minneapolis for the National Association of Preservations Commission Forum Conference that they, put on that was like a three day event. It was a very great experience kind of learning about what other historic preservation commissions are doing within their respective communities. So very educational. an awesome opportunity to see Minneapolis. I took back with me a lot of ideas that I'm very excited over my time here to introduce to the commission definitely some suggestions for upcoming historic preservation day and month. I didn't know if Member Baker wanted to share anything about his experience at the conference. You're more than able to as well.

I can make a couple of comments. In the report that I turned in to you and to Mr. Mays, I noted that some of the other preservation commissions around the country have promotional programs that are, I was just very, very impressed with the work they do. and i i did acknowledge the fact that those commissions are much larger than ours their budgets are much larger than ours so i know we can't do everything that that they do but and i'm not just talking about newsletters which is something that i've brought up in the past this goes much more than that brochures about what our commission does and what we'd like to do rather than just have it on our website and whatnot. But these are promotional pieces that are done by ad agencies or by staff people who are able to do those kind of things. And I did mention in my report that in the event Mr. Mays is interested in seeing any of that, I'd be happy to share that. Did you happen to notice that? Or did you read that report I sent? You may not have seen it yet, Mr. Mays.

I have not had a chance to review that yet.

Okay, thank you. So now that I'm talking about it, I'd be happy to meet and go over some of those things. I brought many samples with me, not only from the Minnesota Preservation Commission, but also from the state of Idaho which exhibited at the event and they had their own promotional material that I was very impressed with so I would like to Bring that forward I could maybe bring it forward Miss Lyon would it be more appropriate that I bring it forward at our next Commission meeting rather than meet separately with mr. Mays and

I think it would be more appropriate to first meet with kind of city staff so we can kind of understand some of the items that you're looking to move forward with. And then it would be after that, if you'd want to bring it up on one of our kind of last items for Item number six, possible action in regards to commission discussion regarding potential agenda items. It would be at that point that you would bring that idea to the commission and see if there's general agreeance to add it to the next agenda.

Okay, thank you. Those are my comments on that.

Yeah, awesome, thank you, Member Baker. So yeah, it was a really great time and really looking forward to the opportunity in Carson City, so I'll just keep it to that. If you guys have any questions on the updates, please let me know. And I'm gonna go ahead and move into the sub-item in regards to the discussion for public transparency and clarity of the terminology and the goals and priorities. So member McMahon requested this item and the commission was in agreeance at the last meeting in response to some of the reoccurring public comments that we've received in regards to transparency and clarity of the terminology within our goals and priorities reporting. So these comments are generally kind of centered around four themes and so it's just ensuring a shared understanding of preservation terminology amongst the Commission members and the public and then requests for kind of clear smart goal or smart principle structuring for the goals and priorities so that they're measurable and and the outcomes are cleared and that they're being evaluated. Request for more specifications in regards to funding and program costs, so how much money we're spending, who's participating, and how that stuff is also evaluated. And then just kind of a general call for just better public engagement about the goals themselves. So within that, I just kind of wanted to highlight, provide an overview of some of the efforts made by city staff based on this feedback that we've heard, not just for the goals themselves, but on our webpage. So we have created kind of like a sub webpage on the historic preservation website on the city's website for commission goals and so that provides hyperlinks to our historic preservation plan and then our updated goals and priorities that we provide monthly, as well as our progression metrics, something that we update the City Council on every year, but how are we progressing in regards to the completion of the goals within the adopted historic preservation plan? We've also, within this current goals and priorities metrics before you, I added some further details regarding the funding that we receive from the State Historic Preservation Office as a certified local government, a CLG. for training and workshops. So I gave a better breakdown of that. And then we do include information on the next agenda item that we have at every meeting in regards to what acronyms mean. When I say things like SHPO, what does that actually translate to? So that information is there. The only kind of current recommendation that staff has is that we can include that kind of breakdown of acronyms, certain definitions and common terminology that we use at most meetings when we're having these conversations, including that kind of like as a appendix or another part of the goals, just so folks can kind of have something to reference to understand the acronyms and things of that nature. But you know this is the Commission's time to provide direction and suggestions to staff on how we can better clarify the terminology and the context that is within the goals and priorities and then any format changes. I just kind of also want to add that this is something that is within an approved plan. The language is a certain way within the plan that was adopted by not just this commission to follow, but the city council. So there are limitations in how many changes that we can make to that. And so certain changes that may kind of include like measurability and then changing of outcomes that would more than likely be more appropriate when we adopt and redo our historic preservation plan and we are actually creating new goals and priorities that includes public And so, yeah, I just kind of wanted to add that additional context there. So I'll give it back over to you, Vice Chairman Regal-Fasto, and can open up the discussion and staff is here and available to answer any questions that the commission may have. Thank you.

Okay, I'll open up the item for discussion or any questions the commission has for staff.

I was listening and there was a lot that you said. Can we get a little bit more targeted on what kind of, if there's a question to be asked, what exactly was the topic that I'm asking a question about?

Yeah, so this item is just in regards to clarity and transparency with the language that's used amongst the Commission but specifically in regards to the goals and priorities. So every month we have this matrix in front of you. These are adopted goals and priorities within our historic preservation plan and we've heard a lot of public feedback of not understanding what the goals mean, maybe not understanding some of the language that is used and so I believe based on some of that feedback that we've been hearing member McMahon and the Commission agreed to kind of adding this and so I don't remember or McMahon or any of the other Commission members want to kind of expand more On with what they've heard. But yeah, so it's just kind of around the goals and priorities themselves. I

yes one of my concerns is i've been in the preservation field for 30 years now i know the lingo but i know some of the members on the commission here don't know it and certainly some of the members in the community have expressed not understanding fully what goals are aimed for what some of the language means and so my goal was to try and move towards better clarity because ultimately we do serve the citizens and the citizens have a right to know what this commission is trying to achieve and I thank you for the effort that the city's put in particularly expanding the website and Trying to make this more accessible and I'm sure Robin will be more than happy to provide us feedback on what's working and what's not I Want to thank you guys too for doing all that work I

Just to offer maybe kind of a recommendation that might help, there is the kind of like staff report that kind of goes along with this item. And so, you know, staff could take time to include a definition section, a glossary section, a breakdown of acronyms there, as well as the we can't change the language in the matrix itself. We could definitely maybe add some Contacts to what those goals and priorities are within the staff report itself kind of maybe offer more layman's term explanation of what the goal and Priority is and what it's trying to achieve. I think that that would be something that we would be able to do So that's just offering up that recommendation from staff's perspective. I Thank you.

I think that's a great idea. My first packet and all of the acronyms, I needed a cheat sheet. I'm like, wait a minute, what is that? Oh, my God, all those letters. I was going nuts. I think that would be really helpful to have that glossary or legend list of definitions. And I'm just wondering if, for the people that are viewing, if there's any chyron that can go up of all the... Topics that we're talking about the acronyms so that they understand What it is that we're referring to if they're not familiar. I don't know if that's possible and

So one of the things that I think we can do as a commission that's very easily adoptable is just stop using the acronyms. This is one of the lessons that came out of 9-11 for public responders is when you're all using different lingo that works for you, it may not work for somebody else. And I think part of the way we can be more accessible to the community, even though it's easier on shorthand, is just verbally say it.

I agree. Stop using acronyms.

And I remember that several meetings back, you told us what the colors mean. We got yellow, green, and blue. Would you go over that one more time?

Yes, I can, and it is also at the bottom of the matrix. I was looking for it. Just to highlight that as well. So this is just, like, the prioritization, and so, like, the yellow color is just a high priority to complete.

Sorry, there it is right there.

Yeah, medium is... I'm sorry, green is medium, and then low, kind of a lower, but also, like, more lower-level kind of... low-hanging fruit, so also easier to achieve, but also could be interpreted as a lower priority. And also just to reflect, many of these goals are completed. There is two that are kind of ongoing. So just to also highlight that. Yeah.

Thank you.

While I was preparing, I watched a lot of the past meetings. And I had difficulty hearing. I don't know if there's a way to up the volume at all, because I was really like I had to put my earbuds in. I couldn't just watch it, because the overall volume seemed low to me, even though I had my iPad all the way up to the top. So I don't know if that's a possibility. Just for people that are viewing, And then the other thing that I like sometimes if it's possible to get up on the screen so that people that are viewing can see what we're looking at when appropriate. Those would be my suggestions.

Yeah, so I can consult with the media team in regards to if we're able to make any audio changes as far as increasing the volume. When people are watching the videos or the live stream, if you look at the screen, it shows you what item we're on. So that is something that is kind of controlled while we're doing the meeting, as well as all the information that is provided to you is publicly available. So we have copies of those items. the actual room but they're available online so folks are able to follow along while watching the live stream and can go and click on that item and pull up every any of the staff reports any of the attachments that that we have while we're having the active discussion that's good you know because I didn't know that

Is there a possibility that we can have some kind of announcement on the page somewhere that they know that they can do that?

That stuff is already doing that. If you notice when they're making the reports that refer to the packet and what page it's on.

Okay. Any more questions? Do you guys have enough feedback?

Yeah, so I'll just kind of make sure I'm understanding my next steps, check into some of the audio as far as volume, the use of language, so city staff as well as the commission just kind of saying out the word. So I can definitely, we can all work on that. and then making sure there is an acronym breakdown and then further exploring in the staff report, providing some layman's terms for what the goals and priorities mean to just kind of help with the understanding, so.

Okay, next is agenda item number five, discussion update on the status of priorities in the historic district or other potential eligible properties. Staff, your report.

Thank you again, Vice Chairman Rigolfasto. So on a monthly basis, staff provides a report on the status of historic preservation activities as it relates to building permits, awards, projects, and grants. And so any updates are indicated in bold, and we are available for any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Are there special conditions for building within the historic district?

That's a very broad question. And you would need to also ask something that's related to what's within this actual item. But I can gladly answer that offline for you. Thank you.

Any more commission questions? No? Okay. Next is agenda item number six for possible action commission discussion regarding potential agenda items for upcoming historic preservation commission meeting.

I noticed at the city council meeting last night, at the end of the meeting, they have a standing agenda item where each commissioner is allowed to report, or excuse me, each council member is allowed to report out on whether it's commission meetings that they sit on, community contacts they've had, I think that may be beneficial for this commission as well. I mean, for example, I had a wonderful conversation with Brendan last night and there's no way I can share that information with my commissioners. So the opportunity to have a short report out at the end of each session might be beneficial because one of the things I'm consistently hearing is we don't get public feedback. And yet all of us are engaging with the community one-on-one. And we lack, because of the open meeting law, an ability to share that information with each other.

Is there general consensus amongst the voting members for Member McMahon's suggestion?

Yeah.

Could you condense that a little bit?

to have a standing agenda item that would allow commission members to report out contacts with the community or, for example, Member Baker's trip, things that are pertinent to this commission that there is no other agendized item that would allow that space.

And that's just a one-way feedback loop, right? There's no discussion based upon what you say.

Unfortunately, the open meeting law does not permit that.

You don't need to make a motion, I just kind of need some general yes, that is a wonderful idea from the voting members.

Yes, I think that is a wonderful idea.

Thank you. So I will consult with the city clerk's office just to make sure that's appropriate for this commission and then see about making sure that that's something that we have moving forward. Are there any other suggestions?

I noticed that City Council has, they've kind of assigned, they're assigned to one other person that they talk to on a regular basis, the City Council does. Can we have something like that here?

So just for clarification, they are not assigned to one another to have conversations that would be considered like a serial meeting and be a violation of open meeting law. They're kind of paired up in regards to city council briefings that city leadership and staff conducts with the city council before a city council meeting. And we don't really do briefings with the Historic Preservation Commission at most we will offer it up to the vice chairman that's chairing or chairman Davenport if there are kind of any items that they want to further discuss because essentially they serve to lead the meeting as the presiding officer and again staff is available if you know any of the members of the Commission has any questions about anything prior to the meeting we're able to have those conversations with you but you would have to Any sort of communications between one another again? It has to be run through staff to just make sure we're not violating open meeting law So there wouldn't really be an opportunity for a buddy system or any sort of conversation one-on-one with each other about Items that could potentially be on an agenda or are on an agenda.

We want to avoid that So if it's not an item that's on an agenda Can we meet for coffee?

I would tread very carefully with that, and Deputy City Manager Mays can add more.

Is that a no?

Yeah, the challenge is it may not be an item today, it may be an item next month, and so that's why it's not appropriate to engage with the other commission members outside of this meeting.

But we're allowed to say hi, right?

Absolutely, you can talk about your family, you can talk about your day. Just can't talk about historic preservation. Yes.

There's something I'd like to propose as a potential agenda, for the potential agenda is, it's regarding an email that we received on August 3rd, the proposed changes to section 106 regulations. I don't know if you all remember that, but just to briefly remind us, in the email it says, the proposed changes would fundamentally reshape how Section 106 operates. Rather than the collaborative consultation framework Congress established, the revisions would shift authority toward unilateral federal agency control over nearly every stage of the process. This goes on. The part that's where it gets scarier to me is the changes would also narrow who participates in the process. Local governments would no longer be a part of the consultation and preservation organizations and interested members of the public would no longer be recognized as consulting parties. So when I read that this is like one of the first official emails I received that was concerning to me and I know that there's going to be a period of time in the future where it's open up for formal public comment and right now the action of the city is to just monitor but I'm just wondering is there an opportunity for us to kind of get ahead of the get ahead of it?

so that when it is open we're like ready for action because it just seems that it's something that would really take power away from us um so any further discussion on what you're proposing would have to occur um if this was added to an agenda at a later date so i think right now um you know the commission understands like what you're Your agenda topic is as far as discussing the changes that are occurring with section 106 And so if there is general agreeance amongst the voting members of the Commission that could be something that is added to the next agenda for discussion by this Commission I Would like it added Yeah Okay, thank you.

And then there was one other thing, and I don't know if this exists, and forgive me if it does, but I was just wondering if the city offers any kind of list of approved or recommended contractors So especially in the historic district obviously like when you're hiring a contract is always daunting hiring the contractor especially if they haven't had experience with historic buildings is there a way that we can help homeowners to choose from a list of contractors maybe that the city has established or contractors that have worked with the city and have done you know

wonderful work in the historic district um so yes but I will not further elaborate as this is not the opportunity to discuss um but this is something we can talk about offline okay so that's not something that would be on a on the uh on an agenda it could be to have further discussion but we do have something like that already available so thank you

Did you guys want to put that on the agenda?

I don't think it's necessary. I think staff can handle outside.

All right. Now is the final public comment period for the evening. Public comments during this portion of the agenda may be on any subject. Each person has up to three minutes to speak on any topic. Please state your name for the record. First thing, I have a text.

suggested to me that the audio video include what you're looking at. They're not computer savvy, they're not going to be using the documents that are available electronically, but they'd like to be able to at least recognize what you're talking about. So I'm passing that on out of consideration. Second thing, I was one of the people who withdrew our application for the grant. I know everybody who did withdraw. I know multiple people who started the application process and got discouraged. I am happy to talk to each of you. Last month I sent a general email that I would like to meet with coffee. I'll be happy to buy. But I think it's important that you talk to the people in the community. I found that if I started at 8, I did find people out and about doing yard work or whatever. I don't want to knock on their doors. But if I find them outside, I stop and talk with them. And you need to know what the community values. So I would encourage you to do that. The other thing is, I'm very distressed by the budget, as always. Once again, if you look at the historic day preservation budget, $500, last year it was 300. That is not enough money. Last year we had commissioners volunteering to buy supplies so that events could happen. That's ridiculous. when we increase Courtney or Broadbent's budget by $25,000. I talked with every city council person. They're not opposed to funding the historic preservation. I would also encourage you again to even quarterly have work meetings where you can sit and talk with each other and discuss what the goals actually mean. How do they apply? What do you need to do? What do you not need to do? It's disheartening to me to see you at such opposed ends and not being able to work through problems such as when you say, well, we can fund smaller projects like the front door. Why can't we do that with the things that come before the commission? Start small, bite off, this much of the elephant and then just keep chewing away, grinding away, because we're not accomplishing anything. Once again, tonight, if I go home into the historic residential district, what can I point to? Third thing, or this could be the fourth thing, I don't know, but I know that the last report that was generated by Courtney was worked out through the museum. I don't know if you've been to our local museum at the hotel, but they have updated, they've spent a lot of money, they have wonderful electronics, they can do all sorts of technology, they have the pictures, they have the experts on hand, and i think that we should offer contracts to our local people as happened tonight our our friends and employees in phoenix are not available thank you you guys have a good weekend and thank you boulder city for all of the

Leaving again. Commission, staff, and one last lady leaving. Brandon Smith for the record again. First of all, I'd just like to thank you and acknowledge what has happened here tonight. You guys raised the ceiling from 10 grand to 25. It'd be brilliant if we got it to 50 one day. Maybe that can be a goal once... Maybe once the word hits the street that it's gone from 10 to 25, maybe all of a sudden there'll be a rush to engage this, because 10 just wasn't worth the effort. 25 might well be. I know 50 would definitively be. And I think going forward, if we can just focus on trying to perhaps lessen the hoops that we have to jump through to participate in such a program. And the bigger it gets, I'm sure the more attractive it'll be to all of us. So thank you for getting that done. We do have to stop the death spiral. It just gets smaller every year because nobody's participating. Pretty simple. I think again with with what goes on here this happens also you know in the main City Council it would be brilliant if if both or all Commission's even along with the City Council had some sort of quarterly, bi-yearly, something, workshop, day trade thing, where we can all be in the same room and engage in some productive manner, whatever that is. If you want to call it a workshop, if you want to call it Open mic night if you want to call it, you know drunken karaoke with Topics that everybody needs to talk about whatever it needs to be called I think all all this back-and-forth thing between Commission staff, whatever would be a thousand times more productive and if we could actually engage instead of it being always a one-way conversation. You guys get good ideas, we get good ideas, and then we feed off that. You know, that's what communication's about. This is archaic. It never works out the way it's supposed to be. And I think the more the merrier. Like I said, and what Robin has said, everybody, we are owners in the historic district for a reason. We love historic preservation, we love the historic character of Boulder City. And unfortunately, when the council keeps telling us how important the historic character of our city is, but then offers $300 for Preservation Day, that's kind of where the rubber doesn't meet the road. So thank you again for your contributions tonight. Love to hear Ms. Valley speak tonight. She had some great suggestions and thank you everybody. Keep it up.

So I'd like to just add a comment in my personal capacity, if I may. I'm not sure if that's allowed.

really it's just public comment so from the audience okay hearing no one else we will close the final public comment period this meeting is adjourned