City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call to order our city council meeting for Tuesday, 04/21/2026. I'm gonna ask council member Fiddler to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Thank you. Madam city clerk, please call roll.

Mayor Mills. Here. Mayor Pro Tempedia.

Present.

Council member Carbajal.

Present.

Council member Collins? Here. Council member Fiddler?

Here.

Council member Green? Here. Council member Snyder?

Here.

Council member Taddeo?

Present.

Council member Worth?

Here.

You have a quorum, your honor.

Thank you. And the next, madam city clerk, please read the consent agenda into the record.

Item two a, approval of 03/17/2026 city council minutes. Item 2B a resolution of the City Council of the City of Brighton, Colorado approving an amendment to the contract with Harley Ellis Devereaux Corporation for the Brighton Recreation Center Gym Design Project for the total contract amount of $821,622 and authorizing the city manager to execute the amendment on behalf of the city.

Thank you. It's a pleasure council. Councilmember Snyder.

I move to approve the consent agenda as written.

And then council member Worth?

I'll second that.

We have a first and second to approve the consent agenda as presented. Roll call vote. There we go. Motion passes nine to zero. Next, everybody pay attention. Next is the approval of the regular agenda. Who'd like to make a motion on that?

Mayor Pro Tem.

I move tonight's agenda as presented.

First to move tonight's agenda. Do we have a second? Council member Collins.

Thank you, mayor. I'll second.

Alright. We have a first and second to approve the agenda. Roll call vote. Motion passes nine to zero. Moving on to ceremonies. Item four a. National Arbor Day celebration proclamation. Council member, Collins will read that into the record.

National Arbor Day celebration, 04/24/2026. Whereas in 1887, j Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees, And whereas this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska, and whereas trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen, and provide habitat for wildlife, and whereas trees are a renewable resource giving us paper wood for our homes, fuel for our fires, and countless other wood products, and whereas trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community, and whereas trees are a source of joy and spiritual renewal, and whereas Brighton has recognized has been recognized as a Tree City USA for each of the past forty years by the National Arbor Day Foundation and desires to continue its tree planting ways.

Now, therefore, on behalf of Gregory Mills, mayor of the city of Brighton, Colorado, on behalf of city council, do hereby proclaim April 2020 04/24/2026 as National Arbor Day, dated this April 2026.

Thank you, council member. City manager Martinez, who is here to receive this tonight?

Thank you, mayor. Good evening, mayor. Mayor Pro Tem, members of council. Eric Descuda, who is our city forester, is here to receive this proclamation this evening.

Come on over. Go ahead and state some words if you'd like, and then we'll come down for a picture.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you, mayor pro tem and council members. It's a great honor. The city of Brighton has been recognized for its since recognized for its fortieth consecutive year as Tree City USA. Trees are such a vital part of every city, town, and community.

They clean the air we breathe. They help with energy savings due to the shade they provide. They cool the air by emitting water from emitting water vapor from their leaves. They reduce wind speed by dampening gusts with their canopy, and trees have even been shown to decrease stress, anxiety, provide and provide many other mental health Studies have shown that public areas and neighborhoods that have more tree rich environment bring a sense of comfort and safety to the community. Areas that have abundance of trees also help fostering an environment where people tend to socialize and even feel healthier.

As a city forester and resident of Brighton, this is a type of city and community I'm striving for each and every day. I believe this is what the city residents are striving for too. The support we have from city residents is shown throughout our 2026 tree sale program as well as many volunteer planning events. This past last Friday, April 17, we began taking orders for the Brayton Tree Sale. To celebrate Brayton's fortieth year as Tree City USA, we sold every tree for just $40.

To our surprise, we sold out of 90 trees in roughly three days, so a huge thank you goes out to everyone who purchased a tree. Yesterday, April 20, we did our first volunteer planting event the year with AnyThink library. We planted three trees in their right away off of Bridge Street with the help of roughly 15 volunteers. April 27, we are planting 12 trees at Brighton Sports Complex with Brighton Youth Baseball and Softball Association. We will be planting them along the perimeter of two fields to increase the shade in the future and make it more comfortable for those watching the games.

April 29, we're planting three trees at Overland Middle School. This is the idea of three eighth graders as a community engagement project. May 2, we're planting four trees at Carmichael Park with the honor society students from Baiken Middle School. And also on May 22, Adam Rodbeck, the open space and forestry manager, will be planting seven trees at Brownlee Farm to replace trees that we have lost with a 12 person youth volunteer group. And finally, on May 8 will be the Brighton High School senior day planting at Benedict Park.

We will be planting a total of 32 trees. I believe the species we chose for this planting will be a great addition to the park and help diversifying our urban canopy. Many of our upcoming plantings involve many youth groups and organizations and brings me great joy that these children have the want and passion to serve their community. It is a selfless act to volunteer to better your community, and I applaud each and every one of them. I believe that if children continue to be taught the importance of trees through volunteering and education, that the city of Bryan will only continue to keep growing in a positive direction. This

leads

in the next item agenda. But I just wanna thank you for

your

time, and I appreciate your continued support. Thank you. Nice.

Stay close. We're gonna have a little picture. Up up there. So many good opportunities to celebrate Arbor Day ahead. All right, the next item is the Item 4B, recognition of the Arbor Day poster contest winner.

And look like hey. It's up on the screen already. City manager Martinez.

It's much better than anything that I can do. I'll tell you that right now. So this is another one of our wonderful events that I look forward to celebrating each year. I believe Eric and our assistant director of parks and open space, Kyle Sylvester, will be introducing the contest winner.

Come on over.

So, yeah, just a little background. Every year, the city participates in an Arbor Day poster contest, open to any and all fifth graders. This year, we had a pretty good turnout for posters, across the city. So a huge congratulations to Katya for winning and being chosen. One of the plantings I did leave out as a part of, Katya winning the poster contest this Friday, April 24 on actual Arbor Day, we'll be planting a tree with Katya and her entire classmates at Bramalese Charter School. So here I am Katya.

Does she do you wanna say some words, or do you wanna just do a picture? Okay. We have a sample of the picture or just on

the screen?

Oh, I actually do have the

Yeah.

Bring it over here.

The real poster.

Yeah. There

we go. Wanna hold the picture? Alright.

Alright.

I love that Bromley East have has put out so many winners of this contest, but I still encourage other schools to participate. Think last year we did have Pennock bringing up winners as well, but all elementary schools, please bring participants. Thank you. Alright. Next item four c, National Earth Day celebration proclamation. And I've asked Council Member Worth to read that into the record.

Thank you, Mayor. Proclamation National Earth Day Celebration, 04/22/2026. Whereas the first Earth Day was observed in 1970 and engaged over 20,000,000 Americans in advocating for a thriving environment and whereas Earth Day is now a global celebration consisting of numerous events that highlight the importance of protecting the environment on a worldwide scale. And whereas Brighton is blessed with a diverse natural environment, including open space, agricultural lands, parks and an expansive trail system. And whereas the City of Brighton is committed to taking positive actions to preserve our natural environment, so it can be enjoyed by the community for generations to come.

And whereas Brighton is leading by example by supporting projects that promote a higher quality of life through water and energy conservation, waste diversion, emissions reduction and resiliency. And whereas the City of Brighton challenges every resident to follow our lead and engage in activities that protect the environment such as recycling, practicing responsible water and energy management, using multimodal transportation and participating in educational opportunities about environmental stewardship. Now therefore be it resolved on behalf of Gregory Mills, Mayor of City Of Brighton and on behalf of City Council, do hereby proclaim 04/22/2026 as Earth Day.

Thank you, council member Worth. City manager Martinez, who do we have to receive this? Thank you, mayor.

Here to receive this proclamation is our sustainability coordinator, Tracy McLean.

There's Tracy.

Is this on?

Yes.

Okay. Alright. Good evening, mayor mayor pro tem and members of council. It is wonderful to be here with you this evening. This is our first, fourth Earth Day proclamation.

If you can believe it, Time flies. And I would just like to thank you for your continued commitment to, promoting sustainability across the community. I am proud to say that over the last year, we've made a lot of meaningful progress, including in establishing Brighton's first sustainability advisory board, securing over $2,500,000 in grant funding, which we'll be hearing more about over the coming weeks, and also advancing all of our focus areas in our sustainability plan that we adopted last year. We're also working to complete our first energy action plan, expand staff capacity, and continue investing in strong regional partnerships that help us amplify our impact. Together, these efforts are helping build strong foundations for integrating sustainability into city operations and long term planning.

This proclamation is a reminder that sustainability is both a shared responsibility and an ongoing effort. While we've built a strong foundation, there is still important work ahead and I look forward to continuing this progress alongside staff, community members, and partners. Thank you again for your leadership and commitment to a more sustainable and resilient Brighton. And the last thing I would like to say is that we are also hosting our second annual, Adams County Earth Day event. This year, it's gonna be at the Westminster Rec Center. It'll be, on, Saturday from 10AM to 1PM, and I encourage everyone to attend. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Come on down for a picture. Alright. That is all for for, celebration so far tonight. Next item is item five, public invited to be heard on matters not on the agenda.

So this is the time when we talk about items that are not on the agenda. I know there are some people that are here for an agenda item coming up. However, we're gonna first hear from people that wanna talk about items not on the agenda. So I have two people signed up for that. First is Tracy Morris. Come on over, Tracy. State your name for the record, and you'll have three minutes.

I'm Tracy Morris. I live in Brighton. The crash of the fist, the shattering jaw, leaves some people judging, some are in awe. You ask why I stay. I say you don't know. You don't understand. I have nowhere to go. Under a bridge is better than a shelter. It's 20 degrees out, not quite a swelter. I've been at their places, used other names. When finally found, it became nothing but games. How bad can they torture without leaving a mark? How many times could I send my kids to the park? I try as I might to keep them away from the one who would sell them or use them as prey. I have no time to hide them as I'm always found.

I'm so tired of having of them having to sleep on the ground. The resource offer officer pulls me aside. He's beating my son. It's killing me inside. You say it must be my fault my children are sad. If you looked closer, you would see they are mad. If I could find another place far away, I'd be there tomorrow if I could make it today. So judge if you must, and don't be kind. I know I'm better off alone in my mind. I was a very bad victim of domestic violence.

I wanna thank this woman right here for being my rock on my bad days and encouraging me to do 05:00 5AM poems.

Thank you, Tracy. The next the next person's yeah. The next person standing up to speak is Tom Lample. Come on over, Tom. State your name for the record. You have three minutes.

Alright. Thank you. It's good to see everybody. Good to be back in front of Brighton. I'm Tom Lampo, and I'm here to lift Brighton up to the lord in prayer. So please join me in prayer. Heavenly father, in Jesus' name, we come before you giving you all praise, glory, and honor. We are your people, and Brighton is your city. There is no one that can remove you from your place of honor. You are the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, and there's never been a time when you weren't in control.

We've asked you for moisture, again, you've provided. Thank you. Praise and glory to your name. Philippians four six, your word states, do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your request to God. So we come before you with praise and thanksgiving on our lips and, again, ask for moisture. Bring cooler temperatures to the mountains and deliver snow so the runoff will fill our streams and rivers, and our farmers will have the water they need for their crops and livestock. Bring moisture to us in the cities to fill our retention ponds and reservoirs. Water our lawns and shrubs to keep them growing. Nothing is too difficult for you. Nothing is beyond your control.

Praise be to your name. Our land is yours. On 04/30/1789, the first act of our new government was to to dedicate this land to you. You have immensely blessed us, and we have not always been faithful to you. We have committed many transgressions that have blotted and marred what we could have been. We've taken for granted the blessings you have given us. Please forgive us of our transgressions and renew us. In Psalm one forty three eleven, the psalmist cries out, for the sake of your your name, oh lord, revive me, and your righteousness bring me my soul out of trouble. We as a collective body can do betty can do better. We as individuals can do better.

Place a higher calling upon our lives and help us to exceed the calling you have upon us. Heavenly father, for us to do everything you have created us to be, we need the holy spirit

One moment.

You have given us. In John fourteen twenty six, your

word

states, that the advocate, the holy spirit, whom the father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said to you. Holy spirit, come into our lives and work with us. Remind us of the scriptures which will guide us as we traverse through this life. Set us on a path of righteousness, and don't us don't let us divert from it so we can bring glory to God. You are our God, and we are your people. In Jesus' name, we pray. Amen. Thank you, guys. Have a nice night.

Thank you, Tom. And that is all I have signed to speak on items not on the agenda. And like I said, there will be an item in coming up in the agenda where where if you sign up to speak on that, I'll call upon you upon that time. Next item, item six a, an ordinance of the city council of the City Of Brighton, Colorado annexing to the City Of Brighton approximately 88.303 acres of continuous land in a portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5 and the Northwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 1 South, Range 66 West of the sixth Principal meridian, City Of Brighton, County Of Adams, State Of Colorado to be known as the Grind Property number two annexation, and this is a final reading. City manager Martinez.

Thank you, mayor. So this is one of three items. This first item is a final reading that does not have a presentation attached to it. You all received that presentation in previous meeting. However, the next two items will have an additional presentation. So with that, staff is available for any questions.

Alright. If there's no questions for staff, go on to any motions, mayor pro tem.

Thank you. I will move item seven a, which is the annexation of the property.

This would be six a.

Six a, the annexation of the property.

Council member Green.

Thank you, mayor. I will second that motion.

There's a first and second to move six a, which is the annexation portion of this item. If there's no other questions, roll call vote. Motion passes nine to zero. Next item, item six b, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Brighton, Colorado approving the Grind property planned development for an approximately 88.303 acre property generally known or generally located to the north of Longs Peak Street alignment and to the South of East Baseline Road, East of the Fulton Ditch and west of the North 27th Avenue alignment, and the Brighton Lateral Ditch, more particularly located in the Northeast quarter of Section 5 and in the Northwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 1 South, Rain 66 West Of The 6th Principal Meridian, city of Brighton, county of Adams, state of Colorado, and this is a final reading. City manager Martinez.

Thank you, mayor. As I mentioned, since this item has some changes to it that, happened as we presented to you the first time, in front of you, you'll have two options, which Emma will go over with you. Emma will also remind you of what this PD is and the nuances behind it, but you'll have an option to consider the original ordinance that you approved or an ordinance that has some changes in it that was asked of by council as well. And I'll turn it over to Emma to explain that.

Thank you, city manager. Good evening, mayor, mayor pro tem, and members of council. My name is Emma Lane, senior planner and historic preservationist with the city. And I'm here to present a quick follow-up presentation on the Grind property plan development. The project contact is Travis Fraser with Redland on behalf of the owners, Ivan e Grind Living Trust and CC Realty LLC.

As the city manager mentioned, because this is a a second reading for the project originally heard on March 3, I will make this presentation short. The location of the property is outlined on the map. The 88.303 acre property is generally located to the North of the Longs Peak Street alignment, South of East Baseline Road, East of the Fulton Ditch, and West of the North 27th Avenue alignment and the Brighton Lateral Ditch. The property owner requests to establish zoning as planned development, PD, within the city of Brighton. For those unfamiliar with the process, rezoning is the second step in the land development process with the city.

Additional processes such as subdivision plan and final plat will be required before site development can occur. When considering the planned development, staff used the review criteria outlined in the land use and development code section two point o four c one. Little background. The city council conducted a public hearing on 03/03/2026. The PD was approved on first reading seven to two.

Staff worked with the applicant to revise the PD to remove mention of the historic homes. Both the original PD as well as the revised PD are before the council for consideration. And since in the last presentation we went over all the other PD elements, the only thing I'll be talking about is what we changed. And so that is just this slide here. As required per the LUDC Section 10.03(two), cultural resource surveys were completed for the existing homes on the site.

Three separate sites were studied, and two of the sites, both along East Baseline Road, were deemed eligible for local designation. Because of this, in the original PD, the sites were required to be preserved. This requirement has been removed from the amended PD. The PD still proposes to preserve as many healthy established trees on the property as feasible. A preservation and maintenance plan for the trees will still be required at time of subdivision plan review once further investigation on location and condition of the trees has been completed through a tree survey.

The future metropolitan district will also still be responsible for maintaining and repairing trees. And at this time, the city council has four options. Those are on the screen. Please note that there are two ordinances for your consideration tonight, one for consideration of the original PD and one for the consideration of the revised PD. Thank you all for your time and attention, and I look forward to any questions.

So if there are any motions, be clear on which one you want. I don't see any questions, so we'll go on to motions. Mayor Putem.

Thank you. I move the amended PD for item six b.

And then council member Snyder.

I would like to second approval of the amended PD.

So there's a first and second for the amended for item six b. There's no other questions. Roll call vote. Motion passes nine to zero. Thank you.

Next item, item six c, a resolution of the city council of the City Of Brighton, Colorado approving the Grind property annexation number two, annexation agreement for the approximately 88.303 acres of continuous land, generally located to the north of the Longs Peak Street alignment to the South of East Baseline Road to the East of the Fulton Ditch and West of the North 27th Avenue alignment in the Brighton Lateral Ditch. In a portion of the Northeast corner of Section 5 and Northwest corner of Section 4 Township 1 South, range 66 West of the sixth Principal Meridian, City Of Brighton County Of Adams State of Colorado. City manager Martinez.

Thank you, mayor. Turn it over to Emma one more time.

It's the Emma show today.

It really is. Alrighty. Good evening again, mayor, mayor pro tem, and members of council. My name is still Emma Lane. I am still the senior planner and historic preservationist with the city, and I am here to present the Grind property annexation number two annexation agreement.

The project contact is Travis Fraser working on behalf of the owners. The subject property, as you may have heard, is outlined on the map and is generally located to the North of Longs Peak Street alignment, South of baseline East Baseline Road, East of the Fulton Ditch, and West of the North 27th Avenue alignment and the Brighton Lateral Ditch. To provide some background on the subject site, the property is approximately 88.303 acres in size. It is currently unplatted and is within the city's growth boundary and zoned a one, agriculture one within Adams County. The purpose of an annexation agreement is to generally identify the terms and adopted city codes, ordinances, and master plans that will apply to the development of the property.

The applicable focus areas of the draft annexation agreement before the council tonight are transportation, utility service and stormwater, which includes water dedication, parks and open space, preservation of existing site character, zoning, community benefit incentives, and general obligations. Most agreements brought before the city council include a special provisions section, commas commonly included in Exhibit D. With respect to transportation, the the draft agreement lays out responsibilities of the annexer. Specifically, the annexers shall dedicate right of way abutting the property along Baseline Road. They will construct the south half of the road to a minor arterial cross section.

The roadway will be constructed between the Fulton Ditch and North 27th Avenue and will continue west to North 19th Avenue if there is sufficient right of way. Right of way will be dedicated for the east side of North 27th Avenue, and the roadway will be fully constructed to a minor arterial cross section between Baseline Road down to Longs Peak Street. Lastly, Longs Peak Street will be dedicated and constructed to the full width of a Collector Street cross section between the Brighton Lateral Ditch and the Fulton Ditch. The construction of this roadway will be dependent on reimbursement at a later date. In addition to the roadway improvements, the annexor will be required to design and construct the planned traffic signal located at North 27th Avenue and Baseline Road, construct or pay a pro rata share of the planned signal located at North 19th Avenue and Baseline Road and design and construct a roundabout at the intersection of North 27th Avenue and Longs Peak Street.

All timing or pro rata share will be determined at time of subdivision plan or final plot. The annexor is also responsible for dedicating raw water shares, designing, coordinating, constructing and connecting a low water low zone waterline from Mountain View Estates to the existing line in Longs Peak Street and reimbursing the city for the waterline located in Baseline Road and the storm drainage outfall that was constructed to serve the property. In terms of parks and open space, the annexor shall provide right of way and design and construct trails along and within the property. The annexor will also be responsible for dedicating parks and open space land and or pay in lieu pay fee in lieu for land dedication. The annexor also agrees to preserve trees along Baseline Road and an additional grove of trees interior to the site.

A maintenance plan for the trees will be submitted with a subdivision plan. The original annexation agreement requires preservation of the two historic buildings along Baseline Road, and the revised annexation agreement does not contain this requirement. Regarding the zoning, city agrees to consider the proposal for PD, planned development, zoning of the property. The annexor will make any assessors and and assigns aware of the community benefit incentives, which address incentives for affordable housing. Other obligations of note within Exhibit D of the annexation agreement include the requirement to complete subsequent land development applications.

A subdivision plan for the site is required before a final plot can be reviewed. At time of that final plot, a development agreement will be required to address specific needs of the platted area. City staff finds that the annexation agreement is in line with city codes, plans, policies, and therefore recommends approval via resolution. At this time, the options for consideration are before you on the screen. Thank you all for your time and attention again this evening, and I look forward to any questions you may have.

Thank you, Emma. We'll go on to questions by council. Councilmember Green.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you, miss Lane. I I guess and this just jumped out at me. On that south side of Baseline Road, the build out is only required if there's sufficient right of way. Could those trees block the sufficient right of way? How do we make sure that that road is gonna be built out? We're talking about traffic

here.

Yeah. The sufficient right of way is only for the portion between 19th and the ditch, which is not adjacent to their property. So because that's a safety issue and something that we've heard from residents and things like that, we asked the developer to consider that. And the right of way is one of those things that makes that difficult. So they will absolutely build full build out on the south side adjacent to their property. And then if there is additional if there's a, adequate right of way on that west side between 19th and the ditch, then they will also build that.

Okay. It's just I wanted to be clarifying. I don't like the ifs.

Next, council member Snyder.

Yeah. That portion of the road is my concern as well. I promise you, our residents are going to be very happy with the traffic light at 19th and at 27th. That has become a dangerous part of the road. But I'm very concerned about that caveat that if did our staff look into whether there's enough right away or not? How how will we know that? What is the I I guess before I I'd like this plan, but before I vote on it, I wanna know, is there enough right away?

We've done a little bit of preliminary research into it and so has the applicant, but that's not something that we were gonna get into until the subdivision plan and or final plat because that's when the road would be platted.

Stipple.

That all?

That's the answer they've got. I don't like that answer. But if that's the answer we've got, it's the answer we've got. I would like to know because that part I mean, it's gonna get skinny and it's gonna pop back. It's it's really dangerous there to not do that part of the road. So I I I am concerned about that piece of the proposal. K. I get it.

What were you asking? Would the developer like to address that at this time? Or the applicant, I should say.

Sure. My name is Travis Fraser, civil engineer with Redland. We did do some preliminary look at that portion of the road. One of the reasons we're discussing this, if available, is that is private property there. Those are, you know, private homeowners. So we can't necessarily you know, we're not gonna go through, like, any condemnation process to get right away. One thing we did look at is we can widen the road to the curb and gutter, but possibly not have room for the attached sidewalk or or some of the extra areas, tree lawn that occur on the south side

of the road.

So there could be a compromise.

Whole street.

Yes. I we can widen a portion of it to the the right section.

Thank you for clarifying. Yeah. Alright. Right. We're on the motions Councilor Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you. I move the amended annexation resolution item 6C.

And then Council Member Fiddler.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll second.

We have a first and second to approve 6C. Roll call vote. Motion passes eight to one. Alright. Thank you.

Alright. Before I continue on with the agenda, I just want to explain a few things of what's what's coming up next. So this next item is an appeal of a decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission. This is a quasi judicial public hearing that will be coming up next. And a public hearing is meant to provide a opportunity for you as a public to be heard on issues.

For this appeal, each side will present their portion and provide their evidence. The commission will present first and then the applicant will present after that. I'll ask each side to come up front at this time and when it's your turn to present, please make sure you state your name for the record and your title if you have one. After presentations, the public may come up and speak for three minutes each if you sign up to speak. So if you do wanna sign up to speak, there are forms in the back to fill out if you haven't already, but I show about five people so far that signed up to speak.

And then the city clerk will have that for for the record. Written comments oh, if you've already submitted written comments to the city clerk, you will not be heard at this time. Written comments are intended to replace speaking at the public meeting. If you have any written materials that you'd like to be distributed throughout the people here at the dais, if you have like 11 copies, you may hand those to the city clerk when you come up to speak. City council members may ask questions or follow ups on any public comment.

I'll ask all parties and members of the public that you do not repeat each other. Please remain respectful with each other. Avoid clapping. I know we're not trying to avoid any, you know, celebrations, but we need the record to be heard on the recording. And that's when when we're clapping, that's when that kind of dilutes the ability for the public to hear what's being said.

So thank you for coming this evening, and I will start oh, I got to read rec this into the resolution into the record first. So this is item seven a, a resolution of the city council of the city of Brighton, Colorado, considering an appeal of a historic preservation commission denial of an application for a certificate of appropriateness and certificate of exemption for the total demolition of a designated structure located at 575 Bush Street. I will go ahead and open the public hearing. I'm going to ask if the city clerk if she'll verify all the necessary postings and publications were done.

Yes, your honor. A notice of public hearing was not required for this hearing this evening, but staff did send two adjoining property owners a notice on 04/13/2026.

Thanks for clarifying that. Next, I will ask council members if they have any conflicts of interest or any ex parte communications which they need to disclose. Okay. So for the public comment, we need to go on to presentation. City Manager Martinez, I'll turn it over to you.

I'll turn it over to Okay. We'll start with the presenter. Go ahead, Emma. No

problem. That's all good. Good evening again, mayor, mayor pro tem, and members of council. My name is Emma Lane, senior planner and historic preservationist for the city. And I am here to present the appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission's decision regarding the certificate of appropriateness for the Brighton Town Hall.

I have a bachelor's degree in history from San Diego State University and a historic preservation certification as well as a master's degree in historic preservation from the University of Colorado Denver, and I am also the staff liaison to the Historic Preservation Commission. With me tonight is the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, Valerie Cooper Whitney, who is a licensed architect in the state of Colorado specializing in historic preservation. The applicant for this appeal is Pierce Miller on behalf of the city of Brighton. For those unfamiliar with the location of the property, it is outlined on the map. The property is generally located to the South of East Bridge Street, to the North of Bush Street, to the West of South 6th Avenue, and to the East of South 5th Avenue, part of the historic Walnut Grove second edition.

The city is requesting reconsideration of the Historic Preservation Commission's decision regarding the certificate of appropriateness for total demolition of the principal structure at 575 Bush, the Brighton Town Hall. An additional outbuilding that is not designated is also proposed to be demolished. On 02/19/2026, the HPC denied the application for a COA. Within the thirty day time frame for appeal, the applicant requested that the city council hear an appeal of the HPC's decision. The appeal of the HPC's decision shall be heard tonight in front of the city council through a public hearing, which is why we are here.

Staff and the HPC use the review criteria in the land use and development code section 10 o three d to analyze this proposal. To provide some background on the property, the Brighton Town Hall was built in 1919 as the first building built for municipal purposes in Brighton. The building housed a few different important offices, such as the mayor and clerk's offices as well as the council chambers. Throughout the years, the building held a few different community focused uses, such as the city's library and the city's first senior center. A more detailed history of the building is located in your packet.

The Brighton Historic Preservation Commission submitted a nomination application for the Brighton Town Hall as a historic landmark, which was designated by the city council in 2014. The reviewing body, in making its decision, must follow the review criteria from section 10.03 to COA criteria of the land use and development code. Please note that all COA and COA demolition criteria applies to the exterior of the structure only. The reviewing body must keep this in mind when analyzing the criteria. For this application, there are three sets of criteria, first being the regular COA criteria.

In regard to criterion one, this review criterion requires the effect upon the character of the landmark not to detract from the categories under which the structure was originally designated. All analysis performed on this criterion was based on the content included in the original designation documents from 2014, which are included in your packet. The original designation criteria are on the screen before you. Keep in mind that all preservation criteria regarding the physical building reference the exterior only. The building was built by renowned architecture architect William Reading, whose projects include the Hotel Boulderado in Boulder.

Additional notable persons of Brighton are also associate associated with the building, including Brighton's first mayors and staff who founded and grew Brighton. Daniel Carmichael's company, the Brighton Water and Electric Company, was founded in 1891 and located Wells and the water tower on this site prior to the building's construct excuse me, construction. The structure was the first building in Brighton built for purely municipal purposes and through its one hundred and seven year history, has been used for many different community driven purposes over the years. It has served the community and has been a gathering place for a variety of community groups. Its architectural features, common to the classical revival style, were originally designated as character defining features.

The proximity to other iconic structures in Brighton, such as the Armory, the depot, and the Adams County Courthouse, highlights the community's tight knit nature. The original designation criteria would be affected by total demolition of the structures. I did include a picture of the Hotel Boulder Auto on this slide for reference while it does technically relate to the criteria I just went over. In terms of criterion two through four, criterion four is the only applicable criteria as the proposal does not involve new construction. In regard to criterion four, the review criterion requires that the proposal does not significantly change, destroy, or otherwise impact the character defining features.

With the proposal to fully demolish the building, these character defining features would be impacted. Continuing through the review criteria for a COA, criterion five through criteria five through eight are on shown on the screen here. In regard to these criteria, staff's analysis is that the application does not meet these. In regard to criterion five, stating that the condition of improvements is not a hazard to public health and safety, The site does not present a structural hazard at this time. The structural integrity of the site has been analyzed twice through historic structures assessments, HSAs.

HSAs are detailed investigations of historic structures typically completed by historic preservation architects and structural engineers that evaluate the condition of a building system of building systems, provide prioritized lists of corrections and improvements, and provide cost estimates for that work. Per the 2025 HSA, there are no indications of significant deterioration to the primary structural elements. A total demolition of the structure leaves no opportunity to fill the vacant building and remedy nonstructural issues. Based on documents originally submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the by the HPC, there have been several instances where first responders have been called to the area generally surrounding the property in the past years. The first responder call summary that was originally provided and reviewed covers an area shown on the left side of the screen, an approximately three by-two block area.

No information on calls or types of calls for this specific address was provided with the original packet, so it's difficult to determine whether the current building condition is contributing to public health or safety hazard. In regard to criterion six, that the proposed landmark will preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate the use of the landmark, The total demolition of the structure will not protect, preserve, enhance, or perpetuate the use because the building will have been removed from the site completely. In regard to criterion seven, requiring that the proposed alterations are in accordance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the rehabilitation. The Secretary of Interior Standards does not address total demolition of a structure as this is not a preferred method of preserving a historic structure. The standards do include guidance for partial demolition, mothballing, and moving structures as alternatives for demolition.

In regard to criterion eight, stating that the proposed alterations are in compliance with other rules and guidelines that have been recommended by the HPC or approved by the city council, There are no other rules or guidelines that have been developed for total demolition of a structure as this is not a best practice. In addition to the COA review criteria, as you just heard, the as the proposal is for total demolition, it must also meet separate criteria for that total demolition. This is the second set of three that I've mentioned previously. Those are before you on the screen. In terms of demolition criterion sorry.

In terms of demolition criterion one, that the structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite documented evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. While improvements should be made to the structure, it is generally considered structurally sound. Per the 2025 HSA, there were no indications of significant deterioration to the primary structural elements since 2013, twelve years later. Additionally, there are no signs of movement in the foundation walls. The floor is made from cast in place concrete, which has a few small cracks, but these are likely due to the normal shrinkage of concrete over time.

The photos on the screen provide a visual representation of the structural condition of the building. These photos are from the 2025 HSA and represent the items with the lowest rating in poor condition. The building has issues that must be prioritized as identified in the 2025 HSA. However, most of these issues were first identified in 2013 and do not appear to have been addressed in the past twelve years. In regard to demolition criteria two and three, that the landmark cannot be rehabilitated or reused on-site or moved to another site in the community, with the original submittal, the applicant included information on the city's attempts to sell or give away the structure.

The applicant's response on the original application checklist included preliminary research on location on relocation but did not provide any concrete information regarding this alternative. Per the land use and development code, some alternatives for total demolition or moving of the structure include consulting with the HPC, civic groups, and other interested parties to find alternative solutions for demolition or moving, recommending or facilitating acquisition of the property by another interested party, and exploring potential for salvaging significant features of the structure if it were to be demolished. In regard to criterion four, the applicant can demonstrate that the proposal mitigates impacts to the greatest extent possible. The visual character of the neighborhood would not be mitigated if this building were be were were to be demolished. As the applicant did not submit any future plans for the site with the original proposal, it is staff's understanding that the lot would remain vacant until entitlements have been completed for future development.

Related to b and c of review criteria four, the historic importance and architectural integrity of remaining cultural resources on adjacent properties would not be affected. There will be no additional cultural resources remaining on the property after demolition of the structures. Based on the review criteria in section 10.03 d two e, which is the c the first criteria, COA criteria, and 10.03 d six a one, the COA demolition criteria, staff finds that the request for total demolition does not conform to the criteria. As such, the applicant requested an exemption from the COA requirements. The code section authorizing the exemption request is on the screen.

Because the application does not conform to the criteria per the previous slides, the HPC's decision was made, based on the next few slides, the exemption criteria. The three exemption categories are on the screen. Staff did not do an analysis on the following criteria, but the HPC used these to make their decision. In regard to number one, economic hardship, the applicant submitted documentation surrounding the attempts to sell property. In regard to number two, health and safety hardship, the applicant applicant submitted documentation surrounding asbestos testing, interior condition of the property, calls for service in the general vicinity of the structure, and two HSAs completed for the structure.

In regard to number three, inability to use. As there has been no action taken on a demolition permit, this exemption does not apply. In addition, the applicant must provide adequate documentation and or testimony to establish to the satisfaction of the HPC, qualification for one of the listed exemptions. One, the data provided by the applicant must be substantiated by either professionals in an applicable field or by through thorough documentation of how the information was obtained. Or two, the Historic Preservation Commission may request additional information from the applicant as necessary to make informed decisions.

In addition, c, the Historic Preservation Commission shall include the following factors in its consideration of the request. Number one, documented evidence of applications and written correspondence, including written consultations illustrating efforts made by the property owner to comply with this section and or make the necessary repairs number two, efforts of the applicant to find an appropriate user or to find a purchaser for the property and number three, adequacy of the applicant's efforts to locate available assistance for complying with this section and or making the property functional without demolition. While not required under the Land Use and Development Code, courtesy public hearing notice was mailed to adjacent properties on 04/03/2020 excuse me, 2026. Staff has received five formal comments regarding this application. Staff reviewed the review criteria for a COA and for total demolition and finds that the application does not conform to these standards.

The Historic Preservation Commission heard the application on 02/19/2026 and determined that the request for exemption from the COA standards was not warranted. On 03/12/2026, the application or the applicant filed an appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission's decision. At this time, there are four options for deciding for the deciding body on the screen. As these options are taken from the code, please keep in mind that the first and the last are the same. There are two resolutions for your consideration. Thank you all for your time and attention this evening. And at this time, I will pass it over to the chair of the HPC, Valerie Cooper Whitney, to discuss the HPC's decision making process.

Thank you. Hello. Wow. This feels different on this side of the bench. Good evening, mayor, mayor pro tem, and members of council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Valerie Cooper Whitney. I am a licensed architect in the state of Colorado, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the Association for Preservation Technology, and an NCARB certificate holder. I hold a master's degrees in architecture and historic preservation from the University of Colorado Denver. I have worked at my current firm, Anderson Hallis Architects in Golden, for almost four years, where I have exclusively worked with historic and existing buildings in many states.

In that time, I have authored several historic structures reports, which are essentially more comprehensive versions of the twenty thirteen and twenty twenty five condition assessments that were included in your packet. I have been sorry, there was forgot. There was a slide. Okay. I have been inside an enormous variety of buildings, from comfort stations and visitor centers in national parks to a two story adobe brick building, which was very cool.

I have even witnessed an entire building being moved off of its foundation and put back, which is the bottom right photo. In addition to my professional experience, I am also the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. The other members that were present on the HPC the night that we voted on 575 Bush Street included Martita Murphy, who is our vice chair. A program she's a program manager of Historic Core and an architectural designer with a master's in fine arts for in our interior architecture specializing in historic preservation Barbara Human, a former history teacher and current Brighton Museum volunteer and Tony Jean Kyle, a current high school and college level social studies teacher with social studies licensure and a bachelor's degree in history and master's degrees in educational psychology and curriculum instruction. Home was actually locally designated as the first residential property on our list of historic places in Brighton.

Three of the four members that were present at that meeting are considered professional members of the HPC as determined by the state criteria. On 02/19/2026, the HPC had a public hearing for the application for demolition of 575 Bush Street. The application the applicant submitted the same documents that you are viewing tonight in support of their demolition application, citing two specific exemptions under our land use and development code. While I will discuss the interior conditions as a response to the documents submitted, our decision was ultimately decided by the exterior conditions alone. After review, the HPC did not find that the documentation submitted was adequate to support either of those exemptions.

If there are additional documents presented as testimony by the applicant tonight, they would not have been considered in the HPC's decision as they were not available to our commission, at the time of our review. The HPC's decision was made solely on the basis of what was submitted in February. And now I'd like to walk you through each of the code exemptions and explain the commissioning's reasoning. As you heard from Emma during her presentation, the criteria for demolition are clearly outlined in our land use and development code. The intent and purpose of the relevant code section, section ten three a, states that the policy intent and intent of city council is to protect and enhance the use of cultural resources having historical, architectural, or geographical significance to the city's heritage.

One distinction I would like to make for the demolition exemption criteria is that the Land Use Code 10.3.7, an applicant may request demolition provided that the intent and purpose of this section is not significantly compromised and provided that adequate documentation is submitted to the HPC. The Commission's determination was that the application did not meet this standard because there was insufficient documentation and the intent and purpose of the land use code to protect and enhance cultural resources was significantly compromised. Emma outlined the four demolition criteria required under this code, none of which are met in this case. And most importantly, the record is clear that this building is structurally sound. Because the application did not meet these four criteria, the applicant requested consideration under two exemptions, economic hardship and health and safety, and I'll address each of those in turn.

To understand the economic hardship claim in context, it helps to look at the timeline of this building's history. 575 Bush Street served this community almost continuously from 1919 through 2012, first as a municipal building through 1946, then as a public library through 1976, and finally as the senior center through 2012. The existing addition was constructed in 1986. May condition was first evaluated in 2013, and the findings of that assessment are substantially similar to the findings of the 2025 assessment. Most of the deficiencies identified in 2025 were already documented twelve years ago.

In the twelve years since that 2013 assessment, the rehabilitation work completed on this building consists of a roof replacement on the 1986 edition, roof patching of the original building's roof, and replacement of the front stairs. The applicant's proposal shows a building owned and controlled by the city sat with known deficiencies for over a decade, and the primary documentation before you is now a request to demolish it. That timeline matters. Twelve years is a long time for known problems to go unaddressed, and demolition should not be the answer to that. The cost estimate perks rehabilitation costs at nearly $2,000,000 The applicant has categorized rehabilitation as economically impractical.

From my professional opinion, a single high level estimate does not make that case. I would recommend a phasing study to understand how portions of the building's rehabilitation can be prioritized into more manageable projects and achievable goals such as partial occupancy. Beyond the cost estimate, the commission also questioned whether the applicant had made genuine efforts to explore reuse options before arriving at demolition as the only solution. The commission's position is that this application was premature. There has been no meaningful public outreach regarding reuse, no programmatic or feasibility study, and no documented research into available grant funding or tax credit programs, all of which are standard and expected steps before a demolition application of this magnitude should even be considered.

As a part of the commission's own outreach committee, commissioner Human and I met with several members of the Brighton community last month. What we heard was not indifference. It was enthusiasm. There was genuine interest in exploring alternative funding strategies such as grants, local fundraising, and even volunteer participation in rehabilitation work. You'll likely hear from several of those community members tonight.

Neighbors are already volunteering their own time because they deeply care about this building's future. That kind of grassroots momentum is meaningful, and it deserves a genuine opportunity to succeed before demolition is considered. Alright. The second exemption claimed is health and safety. The applicant cited two concerns, asbestos and structural stability.

On structural stability, as Emma noted under demolition criteria one, the HSA does not support a finding that the building is structurally unsound, so I'll focus on the asbestos claim. During the HPC public hearing, the applicant described asbestos was found throughout the building. And when I hear throughout the building, I think very significant hazards all of, like, everywhere. However, the report shows the actual asbestos containing materials are, in fact, very discrete and localized and include window glazing compound in the muntins, which is the putty that holds a pane of glass into, like, the wood frame and is generally redone when windows are rehabilitated anyway. Floor tile in the room above the North Basement stairs, mirror adhesive, which are the glue spots that attach a mirror to a wall, roof flashing, and the flat roof on the nineteen ten portion of the building, as well as several other elements that are assumed ACM and were not actually confirmed by testing.

Asbestos abatement is a routine part of rehabilitating buildings of this age. Its presence alone does not constitute a health and safety emergency justifying demolition. I have worked on projects with far more extensive confirmed asbestos than what is documented here, and abatement was completed as a routine component of those rehabilitations and were not used as a reason to abandon the building. Regarding the safety data submitted, the commission reviewed this documentation and found it did not meet the evidentiary standard for this exemption. The report references ten fifty five total calls in the area surrounding the historic building over the last three years.

Per the applicant's testimony at the HPC meeting, only 75 of those calls over the last three years, or about 25 calls a year were directly attributed to the building itself. Critically, the documentation includes incident types such as domestic violence calls that have no connection to the building and are not relevant to a determination about the public safety risk it poses. Aggregating unrelated incidences into a crime report and presenting it as evidence that a building is dangerous is not the standard this exemption requires. Bank at buildings often attract break ins and loitering precisely because they are vacant and present opportunity, especially when they have sat empty and not properly mothballed for fourteen years. Per the applicant's testimony at the HPC meeting, the only additional security measure taken was requesting more foot patrols from the police department.

Per the applicant, basic standard safe security measures were never attempted, such as sight lighting, security fencing, cameras, alarms. The HPC did not feel as what was presented was enough of an attempt to mitigate their concerns regarding public safety. This is not evidence that the building is a public safety hazard. It is evidence that the building needs an active use. With the breadth of the geographic area and the time frame used in this data combined with the inclusion of unrelated incident types, the HPC determined that the crime documentation did not demonstrate this level of evidentiary standard needed.

Exemption three is not applicable to this application. It only applies where a demolition permit has previously been denied and three years have elapsed since that. Neither condition exists here, and the commission, therefore, did not consider this exemption further. To summarize, the commission made their decision to deny the COA exemption based on three main code criteria. There was not adequate documentation of economic hardship.

The evidence provided was not enough to substantiate the claim that the structure is causing a health and safety hazard. And finally, most importantly, the intent and purpose statements would be significantly compromised with the definite demolition of this building. Okay. The commission's denial is not a statement that this building has no future. It is a statement that this application arrived before the community had a genuine chance to find one.

We believe there are meaningful concrete alternatives that have not yet been genuinely pursued. A feasibility study alone could unlock the door to funding. Brownfield grants, for example, can cover the cost of a feasibility study itself, meaning the city could begin to understand what this building can become without spending a single dollar of its own capital on rehabilitation. The HBC's role is to evaluate applications and protect historic resources. The stewardship of this building, the funding, the maintenance, and the path forward, that is the city's responsibility, and the tools to meet that responsibility exist.

The funding is there, and we would not be standing here tonight if we did not believe that this was solvable. As a cursory study, Emma and I looked into some potential grant and tax credit opportunities that the city could pursue. Some of these are dependent on end users such as commercial, cultural arts type of thing. But we wanted to give you an idea of what is out there. We have copies of that grant list here if you would like to see them.

But I would like to highlight a few. Boundfield grants, the city has already been awarded half $1,000,000 in brownfield funding for feasibility studies, and there is approximately $240,000 remaining. Those funds could be used to evaluate potential uses for the building without needing to fill out a new application. State Historical Fund grants, typically called SHF grants, are administered by History Colorado and offer up to $250,000 twice a year for eligible historic preservation projects, which as a locally designated building, 575 Bush Street would qualify. The city has applied and received three noncompetitive SHF grants in the past five years.

And historic tax credits. While the city, as a government entity, cannot directly claim historic tax credits, they can sell those credits, creating a financial tool that a private partner or developer can leverage. Emma has become an expert in grant writing, has her role here, and she has successfully applied and received several grants for our HPC projects. Her expertise would be a real asset in pursuing grants for this building, and I have every confidence that she could bring the same success here. It may be useful to look at what this kind of funding has already accomplished for buildings right here in Brighton.

The original Brighton High School received just over $67,000 in grant funding to assist with the rehabilitation of its historic windows, an irreplaceable character defining feature. The Bromley Farm is a more comprehensive example. Looking at photos, the Brownlee Farm was in significantly worse condition than 575 Bush Street when the preservation efforts began with Brownlee Farm. Today, it is a community staple holding events like the day at the farm this coming Saturday. The Bromley Farm received four separate grants totaling $670,000 covering a historic structures assessment, exterior rehabilitation, roof replacement, and an interior rehabilitation.

That is exactly the kind of phased grant supported approach that a feasibility study for 575 Bush Street could utilize. And as an addition that was completed after this slide packet was due, Emma kicked off a grant for a condition study for the eighteen eighty six church on 1st Avenue. I'd like to close with this. Old bones can support new life. The city has demonstrated time and time again that Brighton's historic buildings are worth preserving, the Bromley Farm, the Armory, the Depot, historic City Hall, and the eighteen eighty six church.

Each of these required investment, patience, and will. I have been inside buildings that have been vacated for years due to structural safety concerns, buildings that were far more compromised and deteriorated than this one. The photos of the interior included in the applicant's reports are cosmetic conditions. They are not structural. This building has been structurally sound for the fourteen years it has sat vacant, and the 2025 assessment reiterates that.

575 Bush Street, the original town hall, has stood for over a century. It was the first building in Brighton constructed expressly to serve a municipal purpose. Within those walls, the city's founding government conducted its business. The decisions that shaped this community were made there. It is now proposed for demolition by the same governing body it was built to house.

The question before council tonight is not whether this building can be saved. It is whether we, as stewards of this community's history, are willing to create the conditions for it to be saved. The Historic Preservation Commission asks that council uphold our decision to deny demolition and that we can give this building and this community the chance to find out what comes next. Thank you.

Thank you, Valerie. And thank you, Emma. We'll next hear from the applicant.

Good evening. Mayor, mayor Perthem, and members of the Brighton City Council, for the record, my name is Pierce Miller, management analyst too with the Budget and Innovation Department. Tonight, I'm presenting an appeal of the February 19 Historic Preservation Commission's decision to deny a request for a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the locally designated historic structure at 575 Bush Street. This request is being brought forward after years of evaluation, attempted reuse efforts, and analysis of the building's current condition. The purpose of this appeal is based on the outcome of the February 19 historic preservation meeting where our application to demolish the structure was denied.

During this presentation, I will explain why we believe that the historic preservation commission erroneously denied our application due to a desire for a feasibility study and concerns regarding public input even though public notice was given, although not required under the Land Use and Development Code. However, these concerns are not appropriate basis for denial of an exemption under Land Use Development Code section 10.03 d seven. Instead, the exemption sought by the city is based on economic hardship and health and safety hardship. Under the economic hardship exemption, the exemption may be granted if the owner is unable to sell the property in its current condition. Under the health and safety hardship exemption, demolition may be permitted due to specific health and safety concerns.

Neither of these neither of these bases were addressed by the commission in their reasoning for denial. As this presentation will demonstrate, we believe that the application meets the exemption criteria under LUDC section 10.03 d seven. Here is the exemption criteria. For the economic hardship exemption, this is for non income producing properties where the owner is unable to set to resell the property in its current condition. For the health and safety hardship exemption, 10.03 d seven a two, the application of the certificate of appropriateness criteria creates a situation substantially inadequate to meet the applicant's needs because of specific health and or safety issues.

The Old Senior Center is locally designated for its historic role in the civic development of the city of Brighton. However, following extended vacancy and repeated evaluation of reuse options, staff analysis indicates the building can no longer be safely, reasonably, or economically preserved under LUDC 10.03 d seven. Ultimately, this application is not based on a lack of appreciation for the building's history but rather on economic impracticality and health and safety concerns. From 1976 to 2012, the building operated as the Brighton Senior Center. When the Sue Corbett Active Adult Center at Eagle View opened, senior center operations moved to that new facility.

And in January 2012, this building closed, and it has remained vacant ever since. That fourteen year vacancy has had significant impacts on the building's condition. I want to now give you all the opportunity to get a fuller understanding of what events have taken place since around the time the building went vacant. It is my hope that you all see the efforts the city has made to either repurpose or transfer ownership of the building. Starting off in December 2011, a staff report written from the Parks and Recreation Department directed to the city manager's office informed the count or or informed the city manager's office of a list of things that should be repaired in the building.

This gives you all some context on the already known issues with this building even before it went vacant. Moving now to January 2012, this is when the building officially closed senior center operations due to the opening of the Sue Corbett Active Adult Center at EagleView. As we know, the building has been vacant since. In April 2013, historic structure assessment is completed on the building. The first historic structure assessment, I should add.

And this gave city officials an understanding of cost that would need to be required to rehabilitate the structure. In September 2014, the city of Brighton fixed the south facing stairs on the exterior of the building. The stairs did not comply with building code, and to make the building more marketable to potential buyers, the city took on the burden of repairing the stairs and bringing them into compliance. And in October 2014, the building was officially designated as a local historic landmark in Brighton. In May 2015, the city manager's office informed Brighton City Council its plan to put the building up for sale.

Staff determined that the building could not be repurposed for city use and sought to sell the building to a nonprofit or for profit business. Continuing on with the timeline. After two years on the market, in April 2017, the Brighton Housing Authority purchased the building from the city of Brighton for $75,000. We now move to May 2020. By now, the building had been in possession of the housing authority for three years.

However, unable to complete its project on the building due to lack of funding, the housing authority sold back the old senior center to the city of Brighton. Following the transfer of the building back from the Brighton Housing Authority to the city in August 2020, the city of Brighton repaired the roof on the building. The repairs were necessitated by extensive hail damage. Although the city still wanted to find a new a new purchaser for the property, the city maintained the roof so that the building would be attractive to potential purchasers. In October 2020, the city of Brighton entered into discussions to transfer ownership of the building to Saint Augustine Catholic Church.

These discussions lasted for a few months, but ultimately, the church backed out of taking ownership of the building. Even though the city wanted to transfer ownership to the church at no cost, the church determined that the repairs to the building were economically impractical. Following the attempted transfer of the property to the church, city staff actively engaged in discussions to transfer the property to several other groups. For example, from March 2023 to May 2025, city staff engaged with engaged with five different potential buyers, but to no avail. And despite efforts to sell the property and and some routine maintenance to the property, due to prolonged vacancy, the building fell into disrepair.

In August 2025, the neighboring residents complained about the deteriorating building and its appearance. Unfortunately, after fourteen years of vacancy, the building has experienced physical deter deterioration, environmental and health hazards, public safety concerns, and criminal activity. Vacant structures naturally decline, but in this case, the vandalism and break ins have progressed to a level that raises a significant public safety concern. These incidents have also added to the financial burden that this building carries. Photo documentation that was submitted with this application shows the current state of the interior of this building.

Multiple break ins have led to significant damages to the walls and ceiling of the interior of the building. Multiple windows have been broken. This adds to the unsafe nature of the interior. Ultimately, the photos show a current state of unsafe and unsanitary conditions inside the building. Now that you all have an understanding of the current state of the Old Senior Center, I want to move to the first basis of our pursuit of the exemption criteria, which focuses on the financial barriers that exist when it comes to restoring this building into good form.

In 2025, a second historic structure assessment was completed to get an updated estimate of needed improvements. The estimated cost to rehabilitate the building for just general nonprofit use or office space is nearly $2,000,000. This cost estimate is now almost a year old, so it is very possible that this number has increased. This estimate also only reflects rehabilitation and does not include what would be ongoing operational costs. Given the building's limited functional capacity and significant needed upgrades, this level of investment has proven economically impractical.

The city of Brighton has put in good faith efforts to sell or even at no cost transfer ownership of the building to interested city partners, nonprofits, or local business owners. In 2017, the city did come to an agreement to sell the building to the Brighton Housing Authority in the amount of $75,000 for the purpose of repurposing the historic structure to multiunit affordable housing. In this agreement, there was a condition that if the housing authority could not make the project happen, it would sell the building back to the city for the same amount originally purchased. Unfortunately, the housing authority was unable to secure funding to complete the project, so the building was sold back to the city in 2020. Since then, the city has continued to entertain interested parties, but the barriers being overall rehabilitation costs and any ongoing costs associated with taking on ownership of the building have deterred outside parties.

Ultimately, the market has demonstrated that this that preservation of this building is not financially practical. We wanted to explore all options. One option is to relocate the structure to a new location. After review, this option has proven to not be viable for the following reasons. There is no identified land to relocate this building to.

The cost to relocate the building would only add to the financial burden this building already carries. Preliminary research indicates that this will cost at least $500,000 to move this building, not including any land acquisition costs. And relocation would not eliminate the nearly $2,000,000 rehabilitation cost and would add further expense. Relocation is not economically practical. Moreover, as I demonstrated, despite good faith efforts by staff to sell or transfer the property, this has been not this has not been successful.

As a result, the economic hardship exemption exemption under land use development code 10.03 d seven has been met. Now moving on to health and safety concerns with the building. Since being vacant, the building has been a hotbed for crime in the neighborhood. The building has been broken into multiple times and even as recently as the March. And the photo in the top right was taken by facility staff just early last week.

Its interior has been subjected to heavy damage, including areas in which light fixtures were ripped from the ceiling and portions of the ceiling have fallen through as well as multiple broken windows and punched through and damaged walls. A portion of the unhoused population in Brighton has taken advantage of the building being vacant. This has led to multiple reports of individuals sleeping outside and possibly inside the building. I wanna direct your attention to that 1055 number shown on the slide. This number refers to a report provided by the police department that shows within the past three years, the total number of calls from residents regarding criminal activity that has reportedly occurred on the surrounding blocks where this building is located.

Miss Lane and the Historic Preservation Commission have accurately pointed out that this report is not limited to just the old senior center address, but rather a radius surrounding the building. However, since the publication of this agenda, the police department has provided me with an additional report comparing the same radius but just two blocks away. That report shows 18% fewer calls for service. Going back to the initial report, that report did include the number of calls that specifically were directed to the address 575 Bush Street. That number is 75.

75 calls and the subject of those phone calls include incidents related to burglary, drug and narcotic violations, suspicious persons, trespassing, graffiti, and lastly, disturbances. This has forced the police department to allocate extra resources to more strictly monitor this address as well as the areas around it. Additionally, facility staff devote a significant portion of their time each week, checking for break ins at the building. Currently, staff visit the building at least three times per week. And during these visits, staff have often found used needles around the property.

Confirmed asbestos containing materials are also present throughout the building. These materials have been identified in interior finishes, roofing systems, mechanical and electrical components, and asbestos has been found in both the original and the additional structure. Further, while mold tests have not been performed, what appears to be mold is clearly visible on walls all throughout the building. The risk of leaving this building vacant poses a threat to anyone who could break in and cause more damage, potentially disturbing asbestos containing materials. The current damage state of the building going along with the fact that its location has become a location for crime creates a health and safety concern.

Therefore, the health and safety hardship has been or exemption has been met. If demolition is approved, staff proposes mitigation efforts to preserve and document the structure's historical significance. These measures include a comprehensive photographic documentation of the building, a written historical narrative for city archives, salvaging significant architectural elements that are in the building presently present, installation of interpreted signage describing the building's history and submission of documentation to the Brighton Museum. While physical preservation may no longer be feasible, these measures would ensure that the building's story remains part of Brighton's historical record. Analysis to conclude.

Analysis from staff demonstrates the building cannot be feasibly rehabilitated, reused, or relocated given its current state. This is due to the unsafe nature and unsafe conditions of the structure, and rehabilitation and relocation costs are disproportionate to any achievable value or functional outcome. Therefore, as this presentation has demonstrated, the application clearly meets both the economic hardship exemption and the health and safety hardship exemptions. As a result, staff kindly request that the city council approve the exemption for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish this building. Thank you.

Thank you, Pierce, and thank you for to both presenters for showing both sides of this issue. Now it's time for public comment, and those that have signed up to speak will be called upon one upon or one at a time. You'll have up to three minutes to speak, and I will have to cut you off right at three. So make sure you keep within your three minutes. First person signed up to speak is Gail McGaugh. Come on over, Gail. State your name for the record. You'll have three minutes.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Gail McGaugh. I live across the street from this building, and the neighborhood finds it quite offensive that we're using every police call as a negative. The neighborhood calls on this building because we have failed to maintain it. We have failed to keep even it safe from homeless, safe from anybody that wants to cause it harm.

Every time a resident calls this in, it's because we care about our neighborhood safety. We care about this building. And so we don't really value the negative remark that all these police cars are because of this building. This building has sat for over twelve years with nothing put into it. The dollar bill amount to restore this is $2,000,000 Well, if we break that down, that's $166,000 a year over the last twelve years.

How much has that divider cost on Bridge? A lot more than $2,000,000 from what I hear. We need to keep this building for our community. I have knocked on over 500 doors since our first meeting. And I really need you guys to understand whether they were able to attend or not, every single person but two.

When they hear that we are considering demolishing this building, they are so appalled, and they they are hurt. Like, if you vote to demolish this building, this is gonna break people's heart. I have walked on North Of Bridge and South Of Bridge, and we have so many people that have worked in that building when it was first our city building, our water department, memories from our senior center. And this is a fabric of our neighborhood's whether it's right next to the building or two or three miles away. And we really need to recognize this.

If we're talking about dollar amounts, that's not entirely relevant when we have not spent money on this building. We have not tried to protect this building. Our neighbors want to retain this for our community. We have gathered so many valuable ideas. And just last night, yesterday, I spent all day knocking on 142 doors.

So we are making real effort to let people know that this city building may disappear, and everybody wants it for their community. They want it to move forward. If we use it for our youth and our young adults, that alone is worth $2,000,000 for the future of our community to move forward with education, Time activities

expired. To

Thank you. Okay.

Next person signed to speak

is

Robin Kring. Come on over Robin and state your name for the record. You'll have up to three minutes. And the time does count on there if you needed reference.

Thank you. My name is Robin Kring. I live at 34 South 5th Ave. I had something written out to say, but I'm gonna kinda change it. I wanna say one of the reasons, and thank you, when you talked about historic preservation that we have historically designated is so that it's protected through the rough times when there's no funding, when there's no budgeting, when things aren't repaired from vandalism, when there's emergencies like COVID, etcetera, it helps it go through generations.

It's not just a four year decision to go through a short period of time. It's been around for one hundred years, and the plan for historic designation is that goes on another hundred years because it talks about the cultural heritage of the people. And you have pride in your community, and it's so important to have that sense of place with historic structures. In the, plan I I forgot the name of it, but somebody helped me out. Yeah.

So, okay. I'll tell you about the city's plan. They talk they went out to the public, and the public said historic places are important to them. And so to me, there should have been budget set aside for at least when there's vandalism, you repair it. I bet every other building in Brighton gets repaired when it has vandalism. Okay? The reason it has so much vandalism is because it's empty, and it has really poor security. There's no fencing. You can get in. I don't really even know if that's a real camera.

You know? And there should be an active alarm system. There's it would be so easy to implement all that. So it's like we're up for losing something that's so important to our heritage because there was a failure for security and maintenance and budgeting. I appreciate that everyone and I want you to protect my tax dollars. Okay?

One minute.

But I think that the public has said, and I'm talking about in that report that and I'll have my husband bring that report name up because he's scheduled, but that the public wants these historic buildings. They want to be able to continue their cultural heritage and have pride in their community. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Michael Millay. Come on over. Be sure to state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes.

Thank you, Greg. My name is Chris Meyer. My name is pronounced Miller.

Miller. Sorry. I didn't see the r on that was omitted from here.

Yours is

I, actually, my whole intent for speaking tonight was, just in case Robin was not able to get all the way through her prepared speech, and she she was able to say everything she wanted to say. So but I did want to as as Robin indicated, the name of that plan was the city's comprehensive plans. Is is wanted to say that that's what she was referencing. That that's the actual name of the plan. And that's that's that's all I have.

I I did wanna iterate that that there

has been some community discussion about if there was an open sale of the building, that there were people who were interested in buying the building if the price was the same as what the price was for the Brighton Housing Authority, $75,000. That that that has been discussed among the community. So and one one of those people had a wanted to maybe he's in the restaurant industry, industry, and he was thinking about putting in a restaurant into it is what he was thinking. So, anyway, I just wanted to mention that. So okay. Well, thank you.

Thank you, Michael. Next, Sue Corbett. Come on over, Sue. State your name for the record. You'll have three minutes.

My name is Sue Corbett. I probably spent more hours in that building than just about anybody in this building. I had the the pleasure of being the director at the senior center over there. I started with the city in '89 and was there until we moved out of there in 2012. Seeing those pictures makes me cry. There was a lot of love. There's a lot of great things that happened in that building. But as I tell people all the time, and

most of you have heard

this mantra, it's just a building. It's the people that make it happen. And the building is old. The building there's a reason we moved. It wasn't functional. The elevator, holy shamoly. I can't tell you how many times we had to call the fire department. But the pictures the pictures hurt my heart. But I also know that that saving things is important. But I also know that there's things that need to be built that are important as well, whether that's adding on to the Secorbit active adult center, which, by the way, you still shouldn't have done that.

But I did send a letter to the historical preservation for their meeting. I am obviously in the minority here. I think we should tear it down. Thank

you, Sue. Next, Laurie Meyer. Come on over, Laurie. State your name for the record. You'll have three minutes.

Lori Lozano Meyer. And thank you, mayor, mayor pro tem, and the rest of city council. I'm gonna address this a little bit differently. I had something that I really wanted to say, because I've lived in Brighton my entire life. Some of you may not have. And it's a long time. That's like three quarters of a century. Do you know at one time there was a two story Victorian hotel located at the corner of Cabbage And Bush? There was an older lady who lived in it, who passed away. And the building right next door purchased it from her, purchased it from the family.

Can you imagine? A Victorian hotel in Brighton. He tore it down so you'd have a parking lot. So in words borrowed from Joni Mitchell, you don't know what you've got till it's gone. You demolish our past and turn it into a parking lot.

We in Brighton failed to keep that building safe from vandals who damaged the newer portion of the building that could have been utilized by an organization, who could have rented it. Why weren't repairs done when they occurred? What happened to city insurance or self insured? Why was the accumulative damage allowed to continue without correction? And where were the security cameras? Because I know there were some. They were not active. Why not? Demolishing the building just destroys another part of Brighton's history. You don't know what you got till it's gone.

No parking lot or apartment complex should take away our history. I asked City Council why should Brighton's history be so easily discarded without an opportunity to be refreshed and utilized. One minute. Some people think that it's not really an important building. It just may be to the youngsters.

My grandson looked in the windows and said, why did they allow this to happen? He's 10 years old, and he was upset. So I encouraged counsel to vote to deny the demolition, thus giving historic preservation the opportunity to gather interested citizens to discuss options for potential funding and revitalization of this historically designated building. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Laurie. The next person signed up to speak, and I apologize. I might butcher the name because of the handwriting. Cheeky Sertan? You can come up and correct me.

Very close.

It's Chelsea Sertane. I live at 251 South 21st Avenue. I just had a few questions. Is there a plan in place or a deal already made to replace the building? Should it be demolished?

And are any of you being compensated for a deal that would potentially be replaced that would replace that building? And what was the document documented damage from the March vandalism? And was has the perpetrator been caught, considering that you do have cameras? And why was it not posted on the Eyes on Brighton page or the Brighton police page? As any reasonable person would see seeing that, would consider that pretty horrific.

It should be and would be appalled to see the damage that you showed in your argument. That's those are my questions, and I hope that those are answered, and considered when you guys vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. That is all I have signed up to speak at this time. Will madam city clerk, will you confirm if anybody else is here in person signed up to speak?

I do not have any, your honor.

And in addition, are there any digital public comment to be shared?

Yes, your honor.

If you will distribute that, please. While that's being distributed, I will clarify the record. I am not personally being compensated for any of the decisions made here tonight.

Recuse themselves.

If anybody were, we'd be recusing ourselves. That is correct. But I will allow the staff and the applicant to, comment based on the public concerns that were brought before us tonight. We'll start with, Emma.

I don't have anything to add. I think a lot of those questions could be answered by the applicant.

Okay. Pierce?

Yes. Thank you, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to these questions. So I do wanna first refer to staffs and historic preservation's presentation. It was mentioned that we did not look into any of the relocation costs very extensively. And while we did not go into full reports on what came with that, we did look at one specific case in Richardson, Texas.

And this was presented at the Historic Preservation Commission. We looked at a building that was relocated, a historic building in that town. And that is where we got that $500,000 estimate to relocate the building to. So I just wanted to address that. Also, in terms of the report and data presented by the police department, I am not sure where the Historic Preservation Commission heard that we mentioned domestic violence as any data.

That was not in any of the report that I presented. If I had said that, I absolutely apologize. May I think the only thing that I could have seen they confuse them confuse that with is disturbances, which was included in the data. I'm looking at the report right now, and I'm not seeing domestic domestic violence on that report at the moment. So I just wanted to clarify that part.

Let's see. Moving on to public comment. I just wanna address the also the, you know, the context of why we presented this police data for you all. The goal was ultimately just to inform you and give you an understanding of the public safety concern that we are seeing and that we are hearing from the police department. And this data, you know, we felt told a story.

So we definitely didn't want to add any negative context to that. Just wanted to provide with you provide you some information. And so that is why I did include reach out to the police department about a neighboring neighborhood or the same basically, the same size radius for a neighboring a few blocks over that that basically, you know, expressed the number of calls that that area had received. And so I did just want to give some context and clarification to that. And in fact, actually, is there any chance I could have my presentation pulled up again?

Because I did want to give you guys a visual of what that would look like. I'm just gonna go to the very end here. This is what I mentioned earlier when we added this just to give context for the two surrounding areas. So, basically, two areas that we wanted to highlight and or one area that we just wanna highlight and then give you kind of some context on the calls for service in another area just to show you that we believe that, you know, the senior center is, a reason for why we're having, you know, more calls in this area. So I just wanted to give that, clarification.

Thank you, Pierce. Thanks for clarifying. Now we'll go on to questions and comment by city council. We'll go to council member Green.

Oh, thank you, mayor. You know, I should tease you, Pierce, because you left out innovations and options from that little secondary block there. Police report might come big there. I I appreciate both of your presentations. But, again, I three you know, some of those estimates are as high as $3,000,000 to renovate this building and $300,000 annually to maintain it and run it.

I think that that demonstrates there's no reasonable return on investment that could be garnered from this building. I don't believe that and some of the suggestions we were presented was a scrapbook center. I don't believe any of these are seriously going to provide a benefit for our community. I don't see a hole in our community that this building could provide. We have a top of the line senior center that $3,000,000 could do great things to improve, adding a pool.

We have a library. We have a museum. I I I don't see any use for this that would justify spending taxpayers' dollars when we could use those taxpayer dollars in a lot better places and a lot better things. I do believe it's a health and safety hazard. Again, why didn't we repair it? This thing has sat vacant for twelve years. We've never found any grants that are willing to give us to us to repair this. We've never found anybody that was willing to take this building over. Everybody that looks at it says, no. Don't wanna touch it.

They they give it back. They don't even wanna go near it. We tried to give it away. There's no appropriate use for that. We've added an an addition in 1986. This building was 1919, but in 1986, we added an ugly addition that that detracts from the historic value. I it's like two different buildings. It's a Frankenstein building, and neither one of them work well together. I've been through this building. It's a mess. Asbestos was found. That's not a trivial matter. That increases the renovation cost. That increases the problems dealing with this building. You can easily explain it away, but asbestos is serious.

That's why it's banned in use today. And nothing has happened since 2014 because nobody wants this building. There's nothing to do with this building. We could repair that vandalism every time, and they'd break in, and they'd do it again. I I think there's better uses for our city dollars. We've got a rec center. We've got a museum. We've got historic city hall. We've got a library, and we have a wonderful senior center. I just don't see knee the need to preserve this building. Thank you.

Next, mayor Putem.

Thank you. I'm I'm glad to have seen that Sue came and talked about the time in this building because I first started going into this building in about 1975 because we picked up the Meals on Wheels on the back porch to go and and deliver them. And my grandmothers went to the senior center and thought they were working at the senior center as they made cookies and and took things around. I grew up in Brighton. I've always known that building.

I've seen that building. And as hard as it can be, sometimes a building has served its purpose. Sometimes we try and we try to figure out what else we can put into that building, and we make the investment to make that happen and try to drive traffic to it. I've watched what we've done with the depot. I think we're on its fifth life after being a depot and after relocating it.

I am watching us struggle to keep the historic City hall functional. I'm watching us struggle to find adequate use for the Bromley Hishinuma farm because we're trying. We've put $3,000,000 into that, so there's six there was some amount of grant money, 670,000 in grants, but there were also more than $2,000,000 of Citi funds that had to go in into that project. The Armory was many, many organizations combining to to make that happen. And I love what we've accomplished with it, but it doesn't come close to paying for itself.

We we have to run that. We have to put the money into that every year. I don't really love the comparison of trying to maintain an old building to the $20,000,000 that we put into widening Bridge Street because then we're comparing limited resources. We have a budget as a city. We have so much money, and the Bridge Street piece has no sentimentality to it.

We've literally had to figure out how to move people across from one side of the town to the other and had to put years of our capital money into making that happen. We we have shown as a city and as a county and as a a region that we care about investing in the history for the community and respecting the history of the community. And we have a large number of buildings and a large number of acres of farmland that we have invested in preserving. And sometimes there is a limit. I I look at the the areas surrounding it.

I talk to some of the people who have called me. I I get more calls about vandalism break ins and use of that site than most others across the city. Granted, I don't get lots of calls about vandalism across the city. So it's a small sample there, but we're we're we've done our best to keep the thing alive. We've looked for city functions that we can put into it.

It was a city storage dump for a while here because all the furniture that was built in came in this building in nineteen seventies was shifted over there because people felt they they shouldn't just throw it away. We we might use it somewhere else someday. And so it became a a a storage and and dumping ground. I I really hope that our prior city attorney's documents were all not all sitting over there. But the use we haven't found a good use for this facility.

And when I look at the list of potential uses, we've invested in the other buildings for those uses. We have performing arts centers. We have spaces where people can do art, create art, sell art, read poetry, read stories. We're investing in places for the community to be together. And I haven't found a gap that's met by this one, but I also find that we have been working hard to preserve the character of the community, and we have invested a significant amount of time, energy, money in doing that.

Sometimes a building is just a building, and sometimes its fifth lifespan is as many as a building gets. I I would be hard pressed to argue that we haven't made the effort to find the sixth life for the building, and I just don't see the sixth life for the building. And I I am suspicious that we have invested the energy that we can into it. And I'm considering that evidence that the city can't continue to invest more. That's my thought at the moment. Thanks.

Okay. Next, council member Carbajal.

Thank you, mayor. I I wanna answer the question about whether or not we know anything that's coming there. And I wanna be very clear that when we came here tonight, I actually had no facts besides my experiences and what's happened surrounding this or what's coming. And that was intentional because it was my job to listen to both parties present facts and information and to listen to the community and the people that came to sit in this room to make decisions based on what you're presenting us, not what we think we know, what we might know, but what's really being presented to here tonight. So I have a lot of questions and some thoughts.

And, man, I'm a little bit torn on both ways. And as I listen to everyone talk, the passion from all of you and the work that you've done is incredible. So, the idea that the purpose of a designation is that it's not temporary, and it's years and years. And it protects moments like this where we don't have the money, and I appreciate that sentiment. Obviously, Sue Corbett speaking in this matter, coming from that space is, it signifies something in this community and her dedication to it and how she feels about the history that's surrounding this spot.

I'm disappointed that the city, at some point, decided that we weren't going to take care of this building or do our part. And and when it comes to what I know about the building specifically is I worked for youth services. And in '13 and '14, it was utilized as a haunted house for kids. And, I would counter, and I would ask the question potentially, was there not a grant provided by the EPA for over a $100,000 that was actually given back to them because we didn't do any work with that? Can somebody confirm or deny that?

Anybody have an answer?

I cannot confirm or deny.

Okay. Well, I'd like that information. I believe that there was a grant at some point provided that was actually returned to the EPA because we did not do our due in the amount of around 100 to $120,000. I think, I I just I wanna reiterate that I didn't know what was gonna be presented, and I think it's significant that we have designated this historical. I think it's also significant that we're respectful of taxpayer funding, and $2,000,000 is a lot of money.

I like the idea that there are grants available. And I sat in a meeting, with Councilmember Fiddler before I was on council, and Brownfield came and presented to us and businesses downtown and talked about these as opportunities. And so I'd questioned, has Brownfield went there? That $260,000 that's still available, have we asked them to use that phasing that we talked about in that study to look at this facility? Those are some of my questions, concerns, comments, just thoughtfulness in how all of you presented tonight. And, I just want to thank you for your time. And any clarity we can get on those things that I asked, I'd appreciate.

I can answer the question about the brownfields, if you'd like. So, we did take advantage of brownfield money for that to do a phase one, environmental structural assessment or I don't know, ECA ESA. That's in your packet. The executive summary is in your packet. So we did do one of those with that grant money that we've gotten, but the feasibility study that is still possible has not been taken advantage of.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Alright. Next, council member Snyder.

Thank you, mayor. I wanna thank all of you that came in and spoke. I appreciate your passion for this project, for for your community. It's been suggested that the council doesn't care about our history, and we wanna wipe it out. And it's not gonna be there for the people growing up and our grandchildren.

And I I actually am a little resentful about that. The armory, the the depot, not just the old hardware store and the furniture store downtown in the but two full city blocks. The old church on Main Street that we're gonna turn into the museum, the old city Hall. We spend a great deal of time, and the our predecessors spent a great deal of time making sure that we preserved as much of the main history of Brighton as we can. For twelve years, they've tried to find somebody fourteen years to take this building over, and they give it back.

They don't want it. They can't do it. It is the policy of the council in order to be good stewards of your money. A lot of repairs have to be done by developers. They have to bring the money.

And if they don't bring the money, we can't just simply dip into a budget that's already taxed and do it. I don't have anything against this building. I think it's an okay building. I've driven by several times. I've had conversations, about it, but no real promising developer has come forward and put forth a real concrete plan with cash behind it to actually do something about it.

And to suggest that the council might be have a developer in mind and make money on it, we're your neighbors. We don't operate that way. There is no development plan. There's nobody on this council making any money off of any of these decisions. We're just trying to decide what's best for the tax and it's a tough decision. This is a tough decision. We don't wanna just go around and start tearing stuff down. We don't want to Emma works for us on the preservation. We like her. We we want to be supportive of her.

But there are sometimes you just can't. Sometimes the ask is too big. And I think in this case, the ask may just be too big. The the life may have run out both for the building and the time to find an investor. Thank you.

Next council member today.

Thank you, and thank you for the presentations. I appreciate them all. I do have a few comments slash questions. How much would it cost the city to demo the building?

So we just got a received a quote last Friday for total demolition. So I did wanna this was not submitted in the packet, but I did wanna add a slide that just kinda gives you a breakdown and really a comparison of the two. So you'll see on the left side, have cost of asbestos removal is a budgeted budgetary number at $50,000. We we see the cost the cost to demolish this structure at $209,551, so that and that is including demolition costs and also what would be the infill. Because of the nature of the building, it has a very large, as you know, basement.

And so if we demolish the structure, it'd be about $90,000 to infill and compact that dirt over the building. So that's why that number is higher than we initially would have thought of, but I still want to kind of point to the cost to overall rehabilitate the structure being, you know, The 2 obviously million. Yes. Significant.

Thank you. My other question is keeping in mind, obviously, of the condition of the property and that we've given it away a couple of times and gotten it back. But is there any understanding or idea of what that property is worth either with the building or in both cases with the building as it stands, current zoning, and and possibly with it, you know, what would it be worth if you did demo it and did the infill?

I believe the last appraisal we had on the building, and I I I wanna make sure that is that I'm being correct that this is not land also, but I it was, a 2014 appraisal that was done for an amount of $325,000 was the value.

The value of just the the structure?

I I would like to confirm that first of I I wanna make sure that's encompassing both the land and structure. So I'll get back to you on that.

It's really not completely pertinent, but I was just curious if you had that information. I know my other question is, I guess my comment is that I'm not necessarily, in my opinion, not saying that the city needs to keep the property and to and to keep continuing to, you know, have to deal with the costs of it and worry about if it's getting broken into or not. Because we take you know, we keep talking about it's 2,000,000 to rehab. You know? I don't think anybody's asking the city to do that at this point. I just wanted to make that comment. Go ahead if you have.

I'm sorry. I wanna make sure I'm, what what portion of that question would you like me to?

Not really a question. I just wanted more or less a comment, really. And so I get it it leads me to a degree to that if the if the city did keep this property, Emma made the comment or we have you know, somebody made the comment that Emma is our grant writer. She's fabulous and wonderful and can get us all kinds of money. But did does does Emma have the time for that?

If I am directed to write grants, I can absolutely make time to write grants.

Thank you. And has the property ever been formally tested for mold?

Yes. Oh. Yes.

Yes. It has by by a mold company.

Right.

And they said it's it is mold. Yes. And did they did they know the source or if the source was gone?

Well, mold is

Could you get in front of the mic a little more, Patrick?

I got a little bit aggressive. Sorry about that. So yes, we had our consultant go out there and they did testing.

So they did

testing on that and also they did find mold. We had water in the building because the roof failed. We've patched the roof, but that roof, there's wood in there. There's insulation in there and stuff will hold because nature will hold it. The floor, a subfloor buckled. So older buildings have its challenges when water gets in there. So, yes, mold was there. Okay.

But the source has dried up, basically.

Well Yeah. I would say

That we know of.

Yes. I would go that direction.

So I guess my last comment anybody that knows me knows that I'm I'm I love old buildings, and I love old houses, and this just about kills me to think about this. Right? But I don't think we've ever yes. I believe that the city and everybody has done has given a great effort to to try to give away, you know, to to to get somebody, anybody to do something with this building. But I also we also have never sat here talking about tearing it down. Okay? So when when that's where my concern comes from. Yes. We've been trying for years and years. It's been sitting vacant.

Totally appreciate your opinion, Sue Corrette, and I appreciate you being here. But, again, it hasn't been in our face like now. Right? And and these people have talked to the residents around the area have talked to so many people, and I know that it could be pie in the sky, and who knows if it'll ever come to fruition. But, again, it's never been on our face like this, and I feel like it needs a little bit more of an effort. Maybe we put a time frame on it somehow that we say, okay. Whoever wants it can have it. Right? But you've got x amount of time to go out there and get and I don't know if that takes away the help from the city of being able to get rent grants written because if it's not a city property anymore, I don't know about all that technicality stuff. I'm a dreamer.

But that would be my suggestion, or my comment, if you will. Because I just I know it's not a fabulous building, and I know how many other ones we've saved, but this was the original. And there's been so many people. And I'm not that person that normally is going to listen to the floods of people, not that I don't listen to the residents, but I don't I've learned that lesson to not let it sway me. Right? But I feel like there's still a little bit more we can do before we give up on this building. Thank you.

Next, city manager Martinez.

Thank you, mayor. Councilmember Carbajal, I think I have an answer for you. So if you're referring to the 2016 time frame, twenty twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen time frame, I'm reminded by staff that that was a DOLA grant that was awarded to the city. The amount was somewhere around a $100,000, and it was to purse potentially pursue a youth services center. But at the time, the city manager and staff determined that it wasn't feasible due to whatever economic conditions. I don't have that in front of me. So it was pursued at the time. We did receive a grant. Ultimately, this the city did decide to move on at the direction of the then city manager and ultimately then did sell the building to the housing authority. So hopefully that answers your question.

Does that answer your question?

Yes. Thank you.

Okay. Before we go back to your second round, we got, council member Collins that hasn't spoken yet.

Thank you, mayor.

Thank you to everyone who has presented tonight. I appreciate both sides of the situation. I've been putting a lot of thought into this this week because it is a big decision, and I want to echo Jim that it's important to all of us, and it is a big decision for all of us. And we don't take it lightly. The one thing that I want to just put out there and ask the question because there's been so much speculation of, well, we can get grants.

Well, we have an investor that wants to do this. We have someone that's going to come and do this. We have Emma, maybe you can speak specifically to grants, and maybe either one of you can speak to have you spoken to people that actually have a funding plan and a business plan and something to do with this property that we can grasp onto that's realistic?

Can speak to the conversations that I've had with people that initially showed interest in the building. It consists of nonprofits and local business owners. And so what we would do is we would sit down and talk about what their kind of goal and plan for this building would be. And then I would present them with the current facts that we had of what our position is as a city where we don't want to have to take on the financial burden of rehabilitating the building, but, you know, understanding that, like, you know, we could potentially transfer the building, you know, at no cost if they'd be willing to take on that burden themselves. So that was really always the part where the conversations and the interest fell off.

Once they saw that dollar amount, they were typically it was more like we're going to have to go and look for outside investors or maybe revisit our grant opportunities. Because I think the issue with grants and Emma can speak to more of that is sometimes you want to make sure you have a use in mind. And so that could be a factor. But ultimately, it really was just the fact that the city did not want to take on the cost to rehabilitate the structure, and that ultimately deterred them from pursuing it further.

Yeah. And I could speak to grants. So, I created this little sheet. We haven't passed them out, but if anybody wants them, we can absolutely share that with you all. This list includes grants for everything that we could think of. So private ownership, public ownership, residential, commercial, all that stuff. So it's four pages. There probably won't be all the grants that are on this list that are going to be relevant, but they are it is for everything. So if they don't have a plan, if somebody comes up with a plan or something like that, this list would still be relevant for anything that happens. We also have tax credits on this list, which, as Valerie mentioned, the city can apply for those.

A private owner could apply for them. The city would have to sell them. They can't use them. But then that would also just be money back in the city's pocket, at an zero eight zero to $0.90 on the dollar cost return.

Thank you. One last comment. Okay. I just wanna be clear that whatever this vote is tonight, there's still opportunity for if we have folks in the community, if we wanna continue with grassroots efforts, if investors wanna come forward, if there's a viable business plan, you know, the demo crew is not over on Bush Street right now. It doesn't happen tomorrow. If if there are still people that that are passionate enough about this to bring some of these to fruition, I would love to see that. I would love to see something great come out of this building. But we have to have a plan for it, and there has to be something viable.

Alright. Going on to folks that haven't commented yet. Councilmember Fiddler.

Thank you, mayor. Just some observations and then comments. First and foremost, Valerie and Emma, great job presenting tonight. Here she was well. It's a weird little family dance we're doing together here, right, to to city to city entities, one appealing to the other. And I would also say, Valerie and them, a nice job. If you weren't here and fighting for this building, I'd be a little disappointed. Right? So thank you for how well you did there. Rob and I enjoyed our conversation last week on the phone. Appreciate that so much. Promised you I'd have an open mind. I wanna talk about grants. I'm sure Emma would write would write grants if we asked her to. There are lots of grants.

I made this joke to Robin on the phone last week. If I had a dollar for every time and said, well, what about writing grants? I could fund multiple million dollar projects just by the $1 every time someone asked me about grants in my former life. Not that they're not out there, but they're often matching grants. So that's not the it's can be part of the solution, but it's not the solution.

My other thought is I like old buildings too. School district tried to give away, the second Brighton High School. Valerie, that wasn't the original one. The original Brighton High School sits on the site where South Elementary School is now. That was the second Brighton High School. And the school district prior to me tried to give that building away for a dollar and couldn't do it. And then the with the bond election of twenty sixteen, we put multiple millions of dollars into that building and proud of the the work that was done there. So, again, but money solves the problem, not wishes and hope. K? I would also say it's it's a it's a beautiful building.

It has historic significance. We have we have an obligation to consider that as an asset its historical value. But I will also tell you very candidly, I think any chance that property has to be a future asset to the community doesn't involve that building unless this council is gonna make a significant investment in that And I I don't hear that tonight, but, well, I guess we'll see. But, again, appreciate the dynamics of this this hearing, and wanna thank everyone for their passion on both sides. But I mean that sincerely, folks has has spoken to this. It's not an easy decision, but it's one we're asked to make as a council, and we'll we'll make that tonight. Thank you, Mayor.

And council member Worth?

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah. I was gonna mention this is this is nice getting both sides of the of the story, the whole set of facts. You know, there's this definitely has some pros and cons to it. You know, pros, obviously, it's got some historic significance. It was a city hall. It was a library. It was a senior center. And quite frankly, if we were to build any building, if were to build a brand new building on that lot and leave it vacant, we'd probably still have 75 calls for for the police department. I mean, a vacant building just is begging to be called upon.

So other than that, I mean, the building right now is uninhabitable. We're looking at $2,000,000 to just to get it to where it can begin to be inhabitable. You know, it's a financial drain. Just just the maintenance of this facility, we still have to maintain it. It costs us money every day.

It I'll I'll disagree with council member Fiddler. I think it's an unattractive building. I don't really think it has I I really don't think it has much resemblance to the original. It was cool seeing those original pictures, but you really have to work hard to see where that is. I think the architect maybe started on this building and then went to Boulder Boulderado or whatever the Hotel Boulderado because it doesn't really it doesn't really hold a candle.

You know, I mean, old does not always mean beautiful, usable in my in my humble opinion. You know, over the years, we've had numerous surveys or councils and city management looking at what are we gonna do with that building. And every time they have said, yeah, we really don't have it in the budget. Well, we can't really do anything about what's been done in the past, but we're responsible for the for kind of today's budget and what we're gonna be we have to be the fiduciaries of the city's money. And it's a big question as to whether we wanna put 2,000,000 into a building just to get it to a starting point of being something useful.

And it really is a big thing that we we couldn't even really give the property away. The and sorry if these are kind of scattered thoughts. I've been making notes all the time. You know, I I I think about all the offers that we've you know, have been talked about us with this historic designation, meaning you can't take the building down. I think about the idea of a restaurant.

I thought, that sounds great. And I think about a restaurant owner coming in and buying the property, spending $2,000,000 just to get it to a starting point. Restaurants are low margin businesses. I just can't see that being a feasible thing nor other nonprofits, things like that, be it it being a feasible project. So, I mean, I think I think I'm I'm leaning against the building, unfortunately, and I don't mean literally leaning against I might worry about that.

Might fall down. So, but, but I I do appreciate, learning more about the building. I think it would be a terrible disservice if if that were the way the vote went, that we didn't really document this building and put it into our our museum in another historic building, you know, in the the city museum. So thank you.

And then council member Carbajal.

Yeah. I just have some questions around zoning and the constraints in development. So it was presented that, like, we have taken the opportunity to try to get other people to take this facility or we've given it to them, and the cost is really what has been the problem. Is there any zoning or constraint in developing the property that were part of the problem?

Not to my knowledge. I I did not. Zoning was never something that was brought up in my dealings or anything I've heard from city staff.

What is it currently zoned as? What are the uses of the property specific?

EUD.

Yeah. Don't take that one.

Sorry. Yeah. I'm just wanna it's a PUD.

Give me more insight on what that like, we put a building there and used it for all of these different things. If somebody was to take over that facility, what could they do with it under the current zoning structure?

As I'm not a planner, I would ask to defer to Emma on that question because I just don't feel like I'd be able to accurately describe that.

Yeah. The PUD lists the allowed uses as R three dwellings, single family attached, elderly, 60 years or older, and then R three group living, senior living facility independent. So those are the only two uses that are allowed.

So there wouldn't be use for a youth services center potentially or a restaurant?

Not without a rezoning.

So potentially that caused constraints. Thank you.

That's alright. Great points. And then council member Green.

Thank you very you know, I agree with council member Worth. I just think it's not that dynamic of a building. I think it's pretty plain and ordinary. I just I I don't even see the potential in it. When you compare it to some of the other buildings that this architect has designed, I'm like, this was his beginning project or something. I don't know. I was maybe that's a historical significance. It was his first one. I I could the demolition be contingency on, if we approve this, could the demolition cost be contingent on a buyer willing to take over the property?

Yeah. Absolutely. I you know, this hearing is just to receive permission from counsel to demolish the building. Yeah. I mean, we absolutely have not said anything in motion or I mean, absolutely, if someone came with just a perfect use of this building tomorrow, we would absolutely entertain it. I'd go through the same process. Know, I'd share with the HSA, give them the full cost for, rehabilitation. And if they'd be able to make it work, yeah, that theoretically, we could absolutely not demolish the building and repurpose it.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be on the city's day, but somebody could still demolish it if we approve this, appeal tonight.

Somebody else could

Like I said, is the city required to demolish it?

No. We are not required to demolish the building.

We could just get the approval, and we could hold that. And if somebody came to us tomorrow and said, I'll take that property right now, and we'll say, okay. You can have it, but you gotta do not demolish it and come up with a design or, you know, that's fitting with the beat with the

From my understanding of the code, that's correct.

Okay. See, I again, I believe that the albatross around this property has always been that historical designation. I think that really held us back because now suddenly, you're stuck with building. You're stuck with what this is. And then you've got the other half that's not historically designated. So you've got half that's historical and half that isn't. It it it's it's just a mess of a building. And so that's where I feel that this is really an opportunity to do something good on this city block, and, that's where I'm at.

Great. And then council member Piddler.

Thank you, mayor. One is sincere and one is totally in jest because I can't not make this joke. I'm worried if we don't do something tonight, a future council in ten years or twelve years will have to make a decision by just kicking the can down the road. And then I'll watch Tom's face and Peter's too. I've forgotten that, the city tried to give it to Saint Augustine's. Yeah. The world's second largest landowner, the Catholic church, would not take this property. That's my joke because I think that's pretty

interesting. Alright.

We've all had multiple chances to speak. Before council before we close the public hearing, do you have one more thing, council member Carbajal? Because we're trying to get this going here.

Mine's just a legal question for Alicia. I I'm confused, or I wanna make sure that if we set this into motion, we're saying we're not we're saying we'll demolish it, then we're saying, but we might not demolish it. I just wanna have clarity. Like, when we leave here, what are we saying? Because the last few meetings, that is not what been what's happened in terms of clarity.

What

what a decision this evening will do is, you'll either approve or deny a certificate for an exemption. If so if you overturn the historic preservation decision, you are then approving the certificate of exemption. That certificate of exemption would allow demolition.

Thank you for clarity.

Okay. I'm just gonna say real quick, I appreciate both presenters and everything you've done to present all sides of the story. Appreciate the public to come out, state their concerns, state your facts, state how you feel about what should be done and what should have been done. And everything presented tonight was respectful and I thank you all for that. This is a very difficult decision for a lot of folks.

We don't take this lightly. I believe we've done a very good job to preserve our historic buildings for the most part in our community. Next year, Brighton will celebrate a hundred and forty years of its existence. And unlike other communities in the Greater Front Range area, we're not a community that started as just Denver urban sprawl. Rather, we we respect our history, and I think we do a good job at that. This particular building is gonna be a hard decision for a lot a lot of us to make, but it is time to do that. So I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Council member Green.

Thank you, mayor. I move to approve the appeal of denial of an application for a certificate of appropriateness and a certificate of exemption. Item seven a.

There's a motion to approve, Then mayor pro tem.

Thank you. I second the motion to approve.

There's a first and second to approve item seven a to deny. Yes. Roll call vote when the screen populates. Alright. Motion passes seven to two.

Alright. We don't have much tonight except for reports. We're gonna just get through this. I know we've been going two and a half hours straight, but I appreciate everybody's patience. We'll start with reports by the mayor.

I was at Doctor. Cog a couple weeks ago or last week, I should say. The big item discussed was SB one fifty, which is the RTD restructuring. And I know the I know that Brighton is opposing the bill, but doctor Cog has voted to amend the bill in which would, hopefully, instead of having all appointees by the governor or instead of having the four appointees to the board by the governor, have doctor create those appointees instead. So that's that's it from doctor Cog.

Recently, I was at the United Power annual meeting, the Food for Hope event, and the police awards. All did a great job at those events, and we got several events coming up. I won't be lengthy on that, but trash bashes this weekend, and, look forward to those events coming up. So any reports by department directors, city manager?

They've all left, mayor. We have none.

Holly is here. Reports by our city attorney.

None. Thank you, mayor.

Reports by our city manager.

You already reminded council of trash bash this weekend. Hopefully, the weather holds up. Just a reminder to attend the great events at the Armory. I did go see Michael Jackson. It was fantastic show. I did not moonwalk, though. I wasn't allowed on stage. I was actually shunned by staff, so I couldn't get on stage to do it.

You had the glove?

Of course. Of course, I did. But, again, just a reminder to attend the fantastic shows that we have at the Armory. They do bring some top notch talent. The night after, we also had a Led Zeppelin tribute, and I heard that was even better. So please check your calendars for upcoming events, And that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Next reports by city council. I'll start on this end. Councilmember Carbajal.

Nothing to report.

K. Councilmember Worth.

Well, I've just got a short list tonight, but I did attend the Adams County, the a ACMYCA awards presentation, which there were three Brighton winners in that, so we were well represented. That's really a a wonderful ceremony. They keep it short. They don't really dive too deep into each kid's story, but but some pretty powerful stories. These kids really overcome a lot of cool or a lot of hard things in their in their life. I attended the e four seventy board. I'll let council member Green address that. And other than that, I spent a week down in Albuquerque.

Alright. Thank you. Council member Green?

Oh, thank you very much. Again, I went to the Food for Hope just like you. I encourage everybody to go to that Earth Day celebration. That's really nice to see. We've got five, cities in Adams County all coming together, for a real great presentation. You can bring a mower, a gas powered mower, get a $100 or $200 certificate for used to buy a brand new electric mower. So, yeah, get rid of that old mower and get a brand new electric one. That'd be a great one. The trash bash, no truth to the rumor that we'll be trying to get the building to the trash bash. Is it just checking because I know we approve that.

Okay. Just checking. The E470 the e four seventy, again, approved us a new striping contract. They're gonna update the striping to make it more dynamic and visible. They have an ad campaign going out that's really kinda trying to point out the advantages of that road. Again, this is a private road that your public is paying for, and that's why it's in such great shape. You can get the roads from the taxes, and you can see what they look like. Even just drive the frontage road there along I 76, you can see what it is. Or you can get the roads that you pay for with e four seventy, and it's a beautiful road, smooth, great ride. They also had a mock up of their road at the, Colorado Auto Show.

And so that was really neat to see too. You could see the layers that go into it, the the attention to detail that it takes to build that road. So, that was really good. We've got a a NATO meeting come a NATO meeting coming up this week. And, again, I would encourage everybody to get to that trash bash. Hopefully, you'll get there, after me because I got a lot of stuff to throw away.

Alright. And then council member Tadeo.

I don't have anything.

Alright. Mayor Pro Tem?

Thank you. Just a couple of things quickly. The first one is we have a new round of applicants for the Traffic Box mural. So there are 15 of those, I think, that you can vote between and score everything, one through five. That's my favorite public art project that I think we've ever done. But all of them are amazing, so make sure that you take a a chance to get to the city website and and vote for those that are your favorites.

I mean, we all agree with

them. Yeah. They're they're

very exciting. Alright. Okay. And then coming up in the near future here, very exciting, LockBuoy sewer board meeting coming up. That is always tremendously fun.

And on the twenty ninth of this month, since, we won't have a a meeting in or a formal meeting in the fourth fourth week, is the volunteer recognition ceremony, at Sue Corbett, Active Adult Center at Eagle View. And and now that she's retired from that role, I I was watching her drive a bus the other day, and so I almost where it belongs. So now she's a volunteer at the center. So I wouldn't be surprised to see nominations happen that direction direction as well. Trash Bash, we mentioned, and I think that's everything I have for right now. Thanks.

Great.

Oh, oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I forgot. Help for Homes is on May 2. So if you have not yet signed up to help with one of the Help for Homes, this is, again, one of the best projects that we do all year, taking teams of eight or 10 people to help some of our senior citizens who are staying in their homes, so it helps them to stay in their homes. It helps to pick up things that they can no longer do. And there have just been great teams out doing that the last several years. That is May 2. I don't think we are fielding a team as this group, but I bet if you reach out to Sue or reach out to the active active adult center, somebody there will point you to a team that needs your help.

And later that evening is a speak walk. So council member Fiddler. I

have been the mayor of Protein.

Thank you, mayor. As was mentioned, we have the exciting, like, we see we're a meeting on Thursday night. And then, Peter, I, and Rhiannon and others, many of our friends, were at the Port Forward event for almost home at Upper Larimer on Sunday. That was well attended. That was that was something different and fun. And speak week, you mentioned the walk, but that all they have activities all next week. Yes?

Yes. Yep.

All week long. Alright.

That's all I've got.

Great. Council member Snyder.

Thank you, mayor. Give me a drum roll for this. Thank you. The quick stop at Main And Bromley is under construction. They finally got a developer and they're anticipating heavy on that word because it's construction on October 22 opening of that.

So we finally do have some action happening there. We also have action the 85 And Bridge landscaping project on the overpass. Looks like we're past CDOT's questions and answers and it is being put out to bid net to try and get a final bid to have that project done before Borough runs out, which would be awesome. The tree lighting downtown, for those of you that like the white lights on the tree trees downtown, if you have a chance after 08:00, go drive South Main tonight. They've added 21 trees, we're trying to get another 15.

We're trying to bring South Main into the North Main Field so that they're a little more part of it. We gave four facade grants out. We've done 10 this year, so we're getting quite a bit of improvement in the looks of downtown. The only one that we kinda had to put a contingency on is the 319 South Main, the Venezuelan coffee shop. And those people are lovely.

I I wanna support them. I didn't support their historic designation. So I felt bad kind of against this. But they don't really have any parking, no parking. And their plans to kind of have people park in the pavilions and walk around the street.

So their facade grant is contingent on a business license and planning department approving their plan because I don't know what the requirement is, but I think you have to have some parking to have a business. So, anyway, I don't know how that's gonna work. Armory is, their dates are full. It's amazing. And we are finally getting a little action out at the historic farm that's been sitting there and they're scratching their head.

What do we do? They're gonna have a day at the farm, the twenty fifth. And on May 9, they're gonna have a blooming buddies event out there, teaching people how to garden and do that kind of thing. So we do have a couple of events coming up out there to try and get a little interest and get some use out of the property. And that's it for me.

Great. Thanks. Councilmember Collins.

Just a quick push for the youth commission. So they are recruiting for youth commissioners, adult commissioners, and walkers for speak week. So if anybody wants to participate in any of those things and needs to know where to go, let me know. As Chris mentioned, May 2, so the whole day is planned for you guys. You can go and do Held For Homes and then go to the walk. Starts at seven. Festivities start at five. I think that's all I got.

Great. Really quick, City Manager Martinez.

Just a reminder that we will have a meeting next week. We do have enough items to make a full study session, so I'll see you next week.

Okay. Mayor Brotem, want to add one more?

Yep. I did want to put in one more plug for one more city program. Given the fact that we have adopted Stage one drought recognition, so we recognize that we're in those conditions. Our utilities department has a sod buyback program. So if you want to do xeriscaping and want to change out some of the sod, contact them. It's again, it's on the website, but you send a picture, you send measurements. And then when you're done with the project, you send a picture of the completed project and and get a credit back against what you invested in having the sod taken out. A great opportunity to make a different approach to landscaping and not be stuck trying to figure out how to water more and more Kentucky bluegrass in arid Colorado this summer. Thanks.

Good point. As city manager Martinez mentioned, next week we are meeting. So come back for our study session upstairs. We are adjourned. Thank you.